Skyhawk
All American
Posts: 4,777
Joined: Nov 2021
Reputation: 589
I Root For: Big10
Location: |
RE: Realignment implication - if FSU didn't want out of the ACC before ...
(12-09-2023 09:39 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (12-09-2023 12:48 AM)JRsec Wrote: (12-09-2023 12:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: (12-08-2023 09:06 AM)JRsec Wrote: (12-08-2023 08:48 AM)johnbragg Wrote: Does USC change that calculation? Or is USC getting by on being the top college football program in Southern California, but not a "100,000 seat stadium, full to capacity with plenty of excess demand" program?
Washington, Oregon, USC, and UCLA (and in that order) represented a combined 47.1% of the total value of the PAC 12. Taking USC and UCLA first did not kill the PAC 12 outright but it left them on life support. Taking Washington and Oregon on a partial share was the kill shot.
USC and UCLA were ballyhooed because they had the largest market and most of the conversation and planning in the Big 10 was centered around markets to add. Athletically speaking, Washington and Oregon have a higher % of attendance and actually generate more revenue for the school. Those 4 will add to the middle of the Big 10 eventually. USC and UCLA sooner because they will be earning full shares.
They'll slide in there with Iowa and Wisconsin kinds of weight, which isn't bad, but when the total pie is divided 18 ways it will still mostly be about the value of Michigan and Ohio State. When Washington and Oregon get full shares expect Washington to push Penn State (likely not overtake them) in revenue production.
IMO they were the best 4 schools to add from the PAC 12. But they aren't Notre Dame, and this may sound weird, but they aren't even Kansas. Kansas's problem is that the Big 10 penetrates that market and takes the milk without having to buy the cow. This is why Kansas is more valuable to the SEC than it is to the Big 10.
The next round will be about market grabs for the Big 10 and market protection and consolidation for the SEC. The only reason ESPN seems to be aligned with the SEC is because right now both have the same interests with regards to keeping markets. Believe me that is all they have in common besides getting good sports events to air. Philosophically speaking ESPN/Disney would not have much support in the Southeast. Theme park experience, yes. Political objectives, no. Virginia and North Carolina are the markets to gain for the SEC. Florida is the market to protect.
I know that you keep citing that WSJ valuation study (where I have major issues with their methodology, but I digress), but from a TV perspective (which is really what we’re talking about when it comes to realignment value), USC was the most valuable program in the Pac-12 by a wide margin. I think you’re overly focused on that valuation study (which emphasized attendance and donation levels that are only tangentially related to TV value) that it’s diverting you from the core item with USC that anyone can see with their own eyes and historical TV ratings data: it’s a blue blood national brand name that truly *delivers* the Los Angeles market (as opposed to merely being located in a large market like Rutgers). This wasn’t a mere market addition like Rutgers or Maryland - it was a legit combo of brand and market more like Texas. (USC may not be as singularly valuable as Texas, but they’re in that class of specifically strategic schools.)
The LA additions were what caused NBC - who had dropped out of the Big Ten TV negotiations - to jump back in and beat out Amazon for that prime time package. (Marchand and Ourand have mentioned that Amazon actually offered more money to the B1G than NBC, but it wasn’t so much more that it would have been worth giving up the OTA exposure.) I think this forum seems to think that any market that isn’t 100% in on college sports like some Southern markets all have a similar level of tepid interest, but there’s a big difference in terms of the college sports following in LA (where USC and UCLA are in that tier of top sports teams behind the Lakers and Dodgers) compared to NYC or even Chicago plus the fact that USC has the national football brand (not to mention UCLA having the national basketball brand).
Of course, even after I’ve been talking about the LA market, I’ve got to disagree that market grabs are what’s on tap for the Big Ten and SEC. Believe me - I was probably THE markets guy (as I freaking love demographic and census data) and I’m saying that those days are over. We went through that in the 2010s already and I don’t think we’re reverting back to it. This is about pure unambiguous top brands going forward. It’s about the 3 main Saturday time slots (early afternoon, late afternoon, and prime time) having maximum value national brands. Now, if it’s a top brand in a great market (like FSU, Miami and UNC), then certainly the Big Ten and SEC would want them. It’s just that the market issue is much more secondary to the national brand issue (which is why Oregon is in the Big Ten as opposed to the Bay Area schools). I’m just much less convinced about a school like UVA than I was 2 years ago - I don’t see why they would be any more valuable to the P2 than Stanford and Cal if looking at market-based additions and they only got into the ACC by the skin of their teeth. (That’s not a knock on UVA. Until June 2022, the Big Ten would have added UVA immediately. The paradigm has simply changed.)
I'll take these in reverse order. Top brands deliver large markets do they not? Clearly you didn't need UCLA to gain Los Angeles, but the pair of them brings synergy.
I've been singing the same tune on having what once might have been called T1 matchups in all 3 Saturday time slots, but also on all channels controlled by the conferences' contracts. And we agree again about Virginia's market penetration ability, so why Virginia? It's part of the beltway, it is a nice medium sized state, it's affluent so advertising there isn't horribly squelched by the % of viewers. It is a top academic school and to be honest it provides the SEC with part of the country the Big 10 already has with Maryland and to an extent Penn State. So, if ESPN will pay us pro rata why not?
And back to USC and UCLA, they may be still well recognized brands but they haven't been relative brands in 20 years in USC's case and much longer for UCLA.
The reason I look at valuation is because it indicates a brand's strength's ability to profit those who support it in the immediate area of the brand and the scope of its reach outward from there. That's a much better indicator of its endurance and following than just revenue or viewer numbers. It means people spend on their identification with it more broadly than a jersey at the bookstore. And it's about how the school profits other businesses besides itself. I find that to be an indicator insulated a great deal more against less than stellar times. Washington and Oregon generate more business for other businesses than do USC and UCLA which possess much more potential. That's not to discount USC and UCLA, but with those 4 schools the Big 10 took nearly half of the PAC's commercial power. And that sir is a massive strike. When you take a school, and you take their viewers that's but a fraction of their potential.
My questions surround Clemson as well as Virginia. They are in a small state where the SEC is already represented. They have about 51% of the viewers in South Carolina to 49% for the Gamecocks, but it flips on years when U.S.C.e. wins. So why add them? Breadth of value, solid 80,000 sellouts, large travel crowds, and a strong regional brand with a long history with the SEC schools while in the Southern Conference. The breadth of who they profit is their lure.
Florida State is simply to gain over 75% of the Florida college viewership. The have brand power and value as well. Clemson and FSU are 1 and 2 in value in the ACC. North Carolina brings that blueblood hoops brand, but plays competitive football too. Add academics and they are the best entrance to that state's market hands down.
When I was in corporate sales I always studied future accounts before I introduced myself. I wanted to know what their community thought of them, how they treated their customers, and would pose as a customer to see what kind of service they offered. Sometimes I could sit in my car in the parking lot at non rush times and count the flow of customers at odd hours. Then I'd choose the best business and help them grow.
I have a healthier understanding of a business's synergy with its community and when there is one the health of both multiplies that businesses impact and the loyalty the customer base feels toward it. That can be the difference between a solid store which does 100k with you a year, and one which does half a million or more. Time is money and divorces are messy, so it was always crucial to pick the right one and devote my time to it.
I look at football programs and universities the same way. Having lots of alumni is one thing. Having lots of devoted alumni is another. Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State have 100k stadia for a reason. They have passionate devoted alumni and fans. A game is a cultural event. That same fervor pervades the SEC in most of the conference. Oklahoma and Texas add to that, as would Clemson and FSU. It's the devotion and fervor that creates the valuation. And Oregon and Washington have it in a higher degree than do USC and UCLA.
But if you look at it differently and that works for you I don't look askance at that. To each his own.
Face it we both face choices with limitations, and I've been dead serious about inventory requirements fueling some of this. If the SEC and Big 10 move to 20 or stop at 18 there will be 4 conferences. If we move to 24 each I'm not sure we even have a third. We'll see about that as it happens. My point is however, that you have one perfect add left, Notre Dame should they ever accept. The SEC has none, but then we've landed 2. What we do have left are some fine additions that add in some way. Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, and Virginia/Va Tech would be those. Discounted but interesting is Miami in that it is a part of Florida we've never reached very well. And I tout Kansas. They have a high value for their area, not much of a market, but a nice diaspora into the other Plains states and into your Illinois. They are basketball in so many ways and having them elevates that aspect of the SEC if we a smart enough to land them. Outside of those the rest would be filler if the network wanted it, which might be the only reason the SEC would consider it.
We just both have very different ways of looking at this.
All I would say as sort of a defense of my reasoning is look at how the strikes have occurred. The Big 12 and ACC have been nibbled, but the SEC's final strike on the Big 12 was for all of the value and branding. The Big 10's strike on the PAC another decapitation of the four most valuable programs there. If the strike on the ACC is the four I first mentioned, whether by the SEC or the Big 10, it will again be the 2 most valuable, the 2 best football brands and 2 of the most valuable basketball brands. And that is why I anticipate the SEC considering for Vanderbilt and possibly Duke, an all but football membership if the two schools had an interest and wanted to stay with old foes and friends. We'll see.
Oh - don’t get me wrong. I think FSU, Miami and UNC at a minimum will be in one of the Big Ten or SEC by the early-2030s. We may disagree about how soon that can happen and the realistic viability of any school being able to buy out the ACC GOR, but I think we agree on the ultimate outcome. At the same time, those 3 schools are all national brands in key large markets, so it’s sort of water under the bridge - they are the schools with the whole package (like Texas or USC), so that’s why they would be added as opposed to one single factor.
My skepticism is just how many other schools really work for the P2 from the ACC at this point. You mention that not going deeper would mean that there would still be 4 power conferences (as the ACC would survive), but I don’t think that’s a bad thing for the P2. Even the B1G and SEC going to 24 schools will leave some schools that may not have P2 value but certainly still have a fair amount of value - think Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Georgia Tech, Pitt, Stanford, Cal, etc. It’s better for the Big Ten and SEC to still have those schools split between the ACC and Big 12 than for those schools to consolidate into a single “best of the rest” league would be the 3rd power conference (not as valuable as the B1G and SEC, but still separated from everyone else). The B1G and SEC want to consolidate *their* own power, but would also rationally want everyone’s power below them to be dispersed. I don’t think that the Big Ten or SEC *wanted* the Pac-12 to die. Now, the Big Ten might have deemed getting the best Pac-12 assets for themselves was worth the potential cost of the Pac-12 dying (just as the SEC made the same calculation with the Big 12 in adding UT and OU), but if they had their druthers, it would have been better for the P2 for the Pac-12 to chug along in its weakened state than for the “best of the rest” to consolidate into the Big 12 and ACC. A P2 with 3 essentially equally weak “Middle 3” conferences is better for P2 power than a P2 with a stronger Big 12 and somewhat reinforced (for now) ACC.
Now, once again, if the P2 take the best ACC assets because they add value to the P2 and then the ACC collapses as collateral damage (like the Pac-12 did), then it is what it is. However, I don’t think the P2 have a real incentive to kill the ACC for the *purpose* of killing the ACC. It’s always best for the top players in an industry to have the power below them dispersed as much as possible.
As for basketball brands, I think you’re overrating Kansas (at least in terms of direct market and alumni base penetration) and maybe underrating Duke (in the sense that you seem sold on Kansas and more “maybe” on Duke, whereas I think that should be switched). I’m a lifelong Chicagoan and there’s no argument that Kansas has any market share here beyond (a) it’s a national brand that’s highly ranked, so they have a lot of national TV games like a UNC or Kentucky-type program and (b) Chicago simply has a lot of alums from nearly *every* major school everywhere. To the extent that any non-Big Ten national basketball brand name resonates here (and I think generally nationwide) more than the others, it’s Duke. Duke is the one that’s the basketball equivalent of Notre Dame football.
So, to the extent that basketball value matters at all (and even as a fan of a traditionally hoops-oriented school that has a personal interest in saying basketball has value, I don’t think that it does), Duke should be at the top of the realignment list. UNC, Kansas and Kentucky to Chicagoans or Big Ten people in general are sort of like Alabama, Georgia and Clemson (or even Ohio State or Michigan) football - they may be watched because they’re national names that are highly ranked, but those are still ultimately schools with a huge regional concentration of fans with a national brand on top of it. Duke is different in the way that ND is different - people’s interest and opinions about them transcend regionalism. Casual sports fans in Chicago, NYC, LA, Florida and Texas are all going to have strong opinions about Duke and ND all across the board that isn’t quite the same for the large public schools.
(I don’t know if Southern-based fans almost have a blind spot as to how much more of a national brand that Duke is compared to even UNC and Kentucky. My impression is that UNC and Kentucky have loud and visible omnipresent fan bases throughout the South (and suffocatingly so in their respective home states) akin to Alabama football fans while Duke simply will never have that sheer regional fan presence, so they discount just how much more of a brand Duke is *outside* of the South in neutral territories.)
I agree about what you said about Duke prestige in basketball.
I think that the Big10 would add Duke, even if NC went to the SEC.
As for Kansas, over the last several years, they've been working on an improvement plan (both academically, and in sports) and I think it's working for them. If the rest of college sports hadn't imploded, I sincerely think they could have had a Big10 invite/acceptance this time around (coinciding with this media deal). But when circumstances change, circumstances change.
At this point, Kansas could go either way, but they could also end up getting left out, due to what seems to be more upcoming conference disruptions out there.
Which would be too bad. I think adding both Duke and Kansas as basketball powers to the Big10 would be a great thing.
As for you point about wanting the middle to survive, I wonder if it isn't also similar to why Microsoft helped prop up Apple back in the 90s, when they almost went under - having more competitors (even if they are not top competitors at the moment) also helps for other reasons.
I've said before that I think that if FSU and NC leave the ACC, the conference is likely to paradigm shift to be "the house that ND builds". Just looking at how ND was part of the Stanford/Cal negotiation seems to add extra credence to that. Replace FSU with USF, and NC with, let's say, Tulane, and it's still a viable, bankable conference. If others leave, then could add other former BigEast/AAC schools like Navy, UConn, and Memphis, while they're at it.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2023 10:41 AM by Skyhawk.)
|
|
/
Realignment implication - if FSU didn't want out of the ACC before ...
