Omni I am very surprised you seem so convinced ACC teams will consider bolting. I think with the network, and the face of media rights changing, no one knows what will happen a decade from now. But I'm pretty convinced that unless Clemson or FSU somehow get SEC invites, the ACC is going to remain strong. No way I see the core of the ACC leaving for the B1G unless all hell breaks loose, and I don't see that happening.

(06-20-2016 06:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 06:28 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 03:20 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 01:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 08:48 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  It matters somewhat...as long as they're making that much more, there's always the possibility of another Maryland situation.

But for the most part...I agree, I'm not as worried about the Big 10 gap as the SEC gap. I guess it's scary for some of the ACC if Maryland becomes a force, but for the most part the B1G and ACC don't compete that much. The most threatening B1G teams, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, already had massive resource advantages.

Unless you know of another ACC school with a Big 10 President/Chancellor, working for another Big 10 System President/Chancellor, with a dysfunctional booster club that can not raise money, and that school is not really interested in competing in football and instead is interested in Basketball and Olympic sports, and that school has grown to hate some combination of Duke/UNC/UVa, I wouldn't worry about another Maryland situation.

Md didn't leave for the B10's money. Md left because they had lost their control and influence over the ACC. It's the same thing they did when they lost their control and influence over the Southern Conference in 1952.

Remember, Nebraska, Colorado, TAMU, and Mizzou did not leave for money, they left because of Texas. Miami, VT, and BC did not leave the Big East for money, they left because the basketball schools ran the conference.

Oh, I don't think it's likely, but as long as you have the B1G and SEC next door, it's an open door. You can say that none of those schools moved for money, but none of them are making less, are they?

More money is not the reason schools move, but it's a necessary condition for a move. And the gaps with neighboring conferences mean that's one of the necessary conditions for a team leaving will be eternally present.

If the ACC was making more than the SEC or B1G, then a move would be impossible, so the gap, as I said, matters somewhat.

Major schools are not and have not been moving for money. That's a red herring. Major schools move because they Hell-hate someone in their conference or their home conference has changed and they feel odd-manned out.

In the modern era, since PSU joined the B1G can you cite an instance where an institution left a conference or independence to join a conference where $$$ and TV exposure were not the deciding factors?

I'm having trouble remembering such an instance, but am willing to be convinced.

Cheers,
Neil

That's an easy one. Texan A&M, Maryland, Colorado, Nebraska.

This also suggests that despite cord cutting and cord shaving, live collegiate sports by the ACC are currently undervalued - this Fox/ESPN deal clearly shows that. When Swofford was interviewed earlier this year by David Teel, he said the conference wanted a cable network and failing that would want "increased rights fees" - that is a reasonable request.

Why Maryland was a train wreck evidently had to do with decisions made by their AD at the time (currently she is at NC State). Football and basketball coaches were terminated with severance packages and a stadium expansion was undertaken against the advice of some advisory group. As in many other aspects of life, sometimes the best thing to do is to do nothing.

(06-20-2016 10:18 PM)wrigley2 Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 06:38 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 06:28 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 03:20 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 01:22 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Unless you know of another ACC school with a Big 10 President/Chancellor, working for another Big 10 System President/Chancellor, with a dysfunctional booster club that can not raise money, and that school is not really interested in competing in football and instead is interested in Basketball and Olympic sports, and that school has grown to hate some combination of Duke/UNC/UVa, I wouldn't worry about another Maryland situation.

Md didn't leave for the B10's money. Md left because they had lost their control and influence over the ACC. It's the same thing they did when they lost their control and influence over the Southern Conference in 1952.

Remember, Nebraska, Colorado, TAMU, and Mizzou did not leave for money, they left because of Texas. Miami, VT, and BC did not leave the Big East for money, they left because the basketball schools ran the conference.

Oh, I don't think it's likely, but as long as you have the B1G and SEC next door, it's an open door. You can say that none of those schools moved for money, but none of them are making less, are they?

More money is not the reason schools move, but it's a necessary condition for a move. And the gaps with neighboring conferences mean that's one of the necessary conditions for a team leaving will be eternally present.

If the ACC was making more than the SEC or B1G, then a move would be impossible, so the gap, as I said, matters somewhat.

Major schools are not and have not been moving for money. That's a red herring. Major schools move because they Hell-hate someone in their conference or their home conference has changed and they feel odd-manned out.

In the modern era, since PSU joined the B1G can you cite an instance where an institution left a conference or independence to join a conference where $$$ and TV exposure were not the deciding factors?

I'm having trouble remembering such an instance, but am willing to be convinced.

Cheers,
Neil

That's an easy one. Texan A&M, Maryland, Colorado, Nebraska.

I don't have the time or inclination to research every one of these individually, but I think someone would be hard pressed to present a case that all three of the B12 teams did not leave because of finances ($$$). Nebraska and Texas A&M left because imbalanced payouts (which they along with Texas and Oklahoma were the beneficiaries of) were coming to an end, the conference itself was considered weak due to its lack of a huge imprint (which results in less $$$ under the current paradigm of that time) and the conferences they were being lured to were going to pay more if not immediately, in the very near future from their joining.

Any public statements to the contrary about academics, or Texas LHN (which is truly $$$ related) or other reasons were for show, so as not to appear to be the greedy ones (another reason why Texas was made out to be the big villain in some cases). But greed was the impetus for all three, imho.

But I will await your case for it not being greed.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-20-2016 10:34 PM)atom58again Wrote:  This also suggests that despite cord cutting and cord shaving, live collegiate sports by the ACC are currently undervalued - this Fox/ESPN deal clearly shows that. When Swofford was interviewed earlier this year by David Teel, he said the conference wanted a cable network and failing that would want "increased rights fees" - that is a reasonable request.

Why Maryland was a train wreck evidently had to do with decisions made by their AD at the time (currently she is at NC State). Football and basketball coaches were terminated with severance packages and a stadium expansion was undertaken against the advice of some advisory group. As in many other aspects of life, sometimes the best thing to do is to do nothing.

Wrong

Maryland's current AD fired the Fridge and and Gary Williams predated Debbie and stayed a year after she left. You don't seem to know much about Maryland.

(06-20-2016 09:59 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 08:53 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  So is the ESPN deal about what we expected? Or did the B1G come out better than expected for this half?

($240M Fox + $190M ESPN + $10M CBS) / (14 teams + 1 B1G) = $440M/15 = $29.3M/team

(06-20-2016 08:58 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  Omni I am very surprised you seem so convinced ACC teams will consider bolting. I think with the network, and the face of media rights changing, no one knows what will happen a decade from now. But I'm pretty convinced that unless Clemson or FSU somehow get SEC invites, the ACC is going to remain strong. No way I see the core of the ACC leaving for the B1G unless all hell breaks loose, and I don't see that happening.

I believe I am trying to look at the numbers objectively:

29.3M per team for the new national TV contract
between 8M-12M per team for the BTN dependent upon how cord-cutting impacts
$6.5M per team for CFP and Bowl revenue
$3.9M per team from the NCAA various funds

Even using the lower amount for the BTN, that is still just under $48M per team from the conference.

The ACC is likely going to struggle to get to $33-35M per team with an ACCN.

Now add in the SEC who probably isn't too please that the B1G created a gap between them with this new deal. Where will they likely turn to try and decrease the gap?

Cheers,
Neil

(06-20-2016 11:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:59 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 08:53 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  So is the ESPN deal about what we expected? Or did the B1G come out better than expected for this half?

($240M Fox + $190M ESPN + $10M CBS) / (14 teams + 1 B1G) = $440M/15 = $29.3M/team

(06-20-2016 08:58 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  Omni I am very surprised you seem so convinced ACC teams will consider bolting. I think with the network, and the face of media rights changing, no one knows what will happen a decade from now. But I'm pretty convinced that unless Clemson or FSU somehow get SEC invites, the ACC is going to remain strong. No way I see the core of the ACC leaving for the B1G unless all hell breaks loose, and I don't see that happening.

I believe I am trying to look at the numbers objectively:

29.3M per team for the new national TV contract
between 8M-12M per team for the BTN dependent upon how cord-cutting impacts
$6.5M per team for CFP and Bowl revenue
$3.9M per team from the NCAA various funds

Even using the lower amount for the BTN, that is still just under $48M per team from the conference.

The ACC is likely going to struggle to get to $33-35M per team with an ACCN.

Now add in the SEC who probably isn't too please that the B1G created a gap between them with this new deal. Where will they likely turn to try and decrease the gap?

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, the "gap" is in the football stadiums. The TV money gap is a drop in the bucket compared to the gap that exists between an ACC sized stadium and a Big 10 sized stadium.

The upper half of the B10 have an average football stadium size of 91,000. The upper half of the ACC has an average football stadium size of 67K. That's an average differential at the top half of 24,000 seats. The top 3 in the Big 10 average 107,000, while the top 3 in the ACC average 78,000, a differential of 29,000 seats. The average difference just in football stadium size creates a financial differential of $17-20 million annually - minimum. FSU and Clemson skew the ACC average upward.

There are five possible schools that the B10 could add from the ACC that are not already in their footprint, are top 100 research universities, and have a football stadium that has over 50K - that's UVa, UNC, GT, VT, and NC State. VT seats 67K and GT seats 55K. UNC seats 63K, UVa seats 65K, and NC State seats 58K. Moving from the ACC to the B10 might mean more income, but much higher costs as the competition will have football stadiums that seat almost 30,000 more than the ACC top three average.

The business of thinking extra revenue is net profit without checking out the costs is crazy. There are costs and they are huge. UVa, UNC, NC State, and VT have run those numbers and to continue to compete at their current level of success in the B10, UVa and UNC independently arrived at needing an extra $50 million a year in revenue. That figure is at least $35 million in the SEC.

It's like an offer of a new job in Manhattan. It's a 250K raise, but a 300K increase in annual expenses.

For the 104756252th time he's talking about the friggin' gap between the payout from the Big 10 to each individual Big 10 school and the payout from the ACC to each individual school. That has ZERO, NADA, NOTHING to do with stadium size or donor giving or any other strawman you want to throw out there. It has precisely to do with what he was talking about and no amount of trying to change the narrative by you is going to change that.

(06-20-2016 01:54 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  How much will each ACC school get?

Probably not enough money to get really excited about. Sounds like they are shooting for exposure rather than money. The ACC has too many hands in the kitty before it trickles down to the conference. Raycon is the monkey on our back. They would die without the ACC, so they offer to market more content at a minimum payout to the ACC in exchange for an extension of their contact so they can ride our backs forever.

First I apologize for being a drag, summer college sports talk tend to be that way, especially when one doesn't have a college baseball team to follow or one that is still alive in the CWS.

(06-20-2016 11:45 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 11:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:59 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 08:53 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  So is the ESPN deal about what we expected? Or did the B1G come out better than expected for this half?

($240M Fox + $190M ESPN + $10M CBS) / (14 teams + 1 B1G) = $440M/15 = $29.3M/team

(06-20-2016 08:58 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  Omni I am very surprised you seem so convinced ACC teams will consider bolting. I think with the network, and the face of media rights changing, no one knows what will happen a decade from now. But I'm pretty convinced that unless Clemson or FSU somehow get SEC invites, the ACC is going to remain strong. No way I see the core of the ACC leaving for the B1G unless all hell breaks loose, and I don't see that happening.

I believe I am trying to look at the numbers objectively:

29.3M per team for the new national TV contract
between 8M-12M per team for the BTN dependent upon how cord-cutting impacts
$6.5M per team for CFP and Bowl revenue
$3.9M per team from the NCAA various funds

Even using the lower amount for the BTN, that is still just under $48M per team from the conference.

The ACC is likely going to struggle to get to $33-35M per team with an ACCN.

Now add in the SEC who probably isn't too please that the B1G created a gap between them with this new deal. Where will they likely turn to try and decrease the gap?

Cheers,
Neil

Neil, the "gap" is in the football stadiums. The TV money gap is a drop in the bucket compared to the gap that exists between an ACC sized stadium and a Big 10 sized stadium.

Just for the record, I've had this as a talking point for several years now as any search of my posts on these boards will attest. So I realize that ticket sales and donors are far more important than conference monies. But perception wise, it's conference monies that is out there front and center, whether one wishes to acknowledge that fact or not. And today's news regarding the new B1G national TV contract not only in terms of $$$ but in terms of length I think should bring that home loud and clear.

Quote:The upper half of the B10 have an average football stadium size of 91,000. The upper half of the ACC has an average football stadium size of 67K. That's an average differential at the top half of 24,000 seats. The top 3 in the Big 10 average 107,000, while the top 3 in the ACC average 78,000, a differential of 29,000 seats. The average difference just in football stadium size creates a financial differential of $17-20 million annually - minimum. FSU and Clemson skew the ACC average upward.

Which is precisely why certain schools might look favorably upon exiting the ACC for either the SEC or the B1G. Kyle Field expanded from 87Kplus first to 103K and now to 106K. FSU and Clemson would both likely expand from their current capacity just to accommodate the increase number of visiting fans expected, not to mention an excited home fan base for better games were they to go to the SEC East.

Quote:There are five possible schools that the B10 could add from the ACC that are not already in their footprint, are top 100 research universities, and have a football stadium that has over 50K - that's UVa, UNC, GT, VT, and NC State. VT seats 67K and GT seats 55K. UNC seats 63K, UVa seats 65K, and NC State seats 58K. Moving from the ACC to the B10 might mean more income, but much higher costs as the competition will have football stadiums that seat almost 30,000 more than the ACC top three average.

Again, a factor that is being overlooked that having either SEC East division or B1G East division teams visiting would likely excite the fan bases and result in stadium expansion to meet both the possible increase of their own fan base as well as the possible increase in visiting fans. Obviously this may not happen in every case or not as huge an increase when comparing one case vs another - Texas A&M vs Mizzou perhaps, but then the Tigers got placed in the East division rather than the more geographically friendly (for them) West division.

Quote:The business of thinking extra revenue is net profit without checking out the costs is crazy. There are costs and they are huge. UVa, UNC, NC State, and VT have run those numbers and to continue to compete at their current level of success in the B10, UVa and UNC independently arrived at needing an extra $50 million a year in revenue. That figure is at least $35 million in the SEC.

It's like an offer of a new job in Manhattan. It's a 250K raise, but a 300K increase in annual expenses.

The costs vs revenue numbers presented above seem off to me considering what we just saw Texas A&M do while only getting an $8-10M in additional conference monies. And yes, I still realize that conference monies are only a small percentage of an institution's total revenue but here are the reported revenues for the 2011-12 year, their last year in the B12:

University of Louisville - $87,840,504
Florida State University - $81,444,039
University of Virginia - $81,321,219

Texas A & M University - $79,026,849

University of North Carolina - $78,830,350
Duke University - $78,604,895
Syracuse University - $73,287,687
Clemson University - $66,988,424
Boston College - $66,197,029
North Carolina State University - $65,507,243
Virginia Tech - $64,801,681
University of Miami - $62,099,601
Georgia Institute of Technology - $60,253,966
University of Pittsburgh - $56,338,449
Wake Forest University - $48,776,185

For full list from that year see the link below:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-612308.html

And here are the latest numbers from the OPE site for 2014-15 compiled by me tonight, so I apologize in advance if there are any errors:

Florida State - $121,319,469

Texas A&M - $110,004,867

Louisville - $104,325,208
Duke - $91,688,202
Syracuse - $87,175,761
Virginia - $87,059,237
North Carolina - $85,288,270
Virginia Tech - $81,298,133
Miami - $77,724,833
Clemson - $76,979,291
North Carolina State - $76,839,435
Pittsburgh - $70,527,488
Boston College - $69,300,736
Georgia Tech - $65,304,486
Wake Forest - $58,672,116

I am not seeing any downside to A&M joining the SEC and investing in their athletic programs and basically now seeing their typical record in the B12 of 8-5 considering their revenue side went up over $30 million. Unfortunately the link doesn't have the expenses from 2011-12 to do a better comparison with the 2014-15 expense numbers as well.

But even if the large expenses above are correct, which I doubt and the above data would appear to refute, what happens to those figures on both sides of the ledger should the SEC decide to take FSU?

Who honestly believes that the Noles would decline that invite? What happens if they accept? Could the ACC's better positioned programs be looking at a mass exodus similar to what happened with the B12? Thankfully for the B12, their two highest profile football schools (Texas and Oklahoma) remained rather than go to the PAC.

Will UNC and UVa be able to keep the ACC a power conference? In this scenario it is more than likely FSU may have regained their status as the best ACC expansion prize from conference network prizes of UNC and UVa under the new current paradigm where cable subscriptions are not the driver, but ratings for college football games are.

I don't have the definitive answers to these questions and I don't believe any one else does either - but I don't think we should assume everything will go on as business as usual simple because of a questionable cost/benefit analysis.

In the final analysis, I am not giving up hope the ACC will survive, but the new B1G contract was a wake up call as well as a reminder that the ultimate battle is between the B1G and the SEC.

Again, my apologies, for this thread turning into a downer.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-20-2016 10:34 PM)atom58again Wrote:  This also suggests that despite cord cutting and cord shaving, live collegiate sports by the ACC are currently undervalued - this Fox/ESPN deal clearly shows that. When Swofford was interviewed earlier this year by David Teel, he said the conference wanted a cable network and failing that would want "increased rights fees" - that is a reasonable request.

My understanding is the increase rights fees are for existing schedules and if there is no ACCN by ESPN that goes anywhere from 30 to 50M yearly.

However wanting increase....is a different story...The ACC better not increase Basketball schedule or football schedule for that kicker...

If ESPN fails at a ACC Network....Swofford needs to ride this deal out and head to NBC in 2026....Where NBC and the NBC SPORTS Network would gladly pay for the ACC.

Getting a deal done and a network done with ESPN is ideal. Especially since we are 10 years out from being able to switch to say NBC.

But for those who do not know the NBCSPN is in more homes than ESPNU. So if ESPN screws around the ACC will have NBC ready to sign up the ACC. Can the ACC wait Ten years?

If they can this may just be the partner we have been waiting for! (NBC + ESPN + Raycom) could probably work and get the ACC in the game, however we would still need a Network. NBC may surprise...


http://sportstvratings.com/how-many-more...tion/5087/

If the ACC decides to wait out this contract, no way should Raycom even be a factor. In fact, I doubt Raycom is much of a factor anyway unless they are somehow part of the ACCN production.

As others have pointed out, the biggest problem with waiting out the contract is the possibility that you might not have the same teams when the contract comes up for renewal.

The biggest problem with the current contract is not the fact that it's with ESPN - it's the fact that Tiers 1, 2 and 3 were all bundled together. The SEC got more money by selling Tier 1 to CBS. The Big XII, Pac-12 and now Big Ten all essentially combined tiers 1 + 2 but then sold half to Fox and half to ESPN. By having two buyers instead of just one, you just get more money.

Think of it this way: the 4th best game is worth more to the network who only gets two games than it is to the one who gets all four because they have both have the same number of time slots to fill.

Can someone who follows these numbers closely confirm that the B1G will be making $48M/team per year? That seems even higher than the most optimistic projections by their fans.

(06-21-2016 08:49 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  Can someone who follows these numbers closely confirm that the B1G will be making $48M/team per year? That seems even higher than the most optimistic projections by their fans.

Are you kidding... their fans have been estimating over $50 million/team for some time now!

I don't have time to show you the math right now, but by my calculations the Big Ten will, in fact, pay each team $50 million by the year 2020-21 or so (unless that's a Rose Bowl playoff year?). They'll probably max at at around $54 M/yr under this contract.

FWIW, the SEC may not break $40 M/yr by that date, and obviously neither will the ACC... the B1G is set to be well ahead of all other conferences for a while. I hate it. Fox (and to a lesser extent, ESPN, since they were just following suit) have totally destabilized college sports - I hope they like what they get, because I think they just messed it up for everyone else.

Oh dear the sky is falling again.

So many chicken littles, so many that flunked econ.

(06-20-2016 11:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  For the 104756252th time he's talking about the friggin' gap between the payout from the Big 10 to each individual Big 10 school and the payout from the ACC to each individual school. That has ZERO, NADA, NOTHING to do with stadium size or donor giving or any other strawman you want to throw out there. It has precisely to do with what he was talking about and no amount of trying to change the narrative by you is going to change that.

Kap you have a reading comprehension problem that goes way beyond you attittude problem. It's as if you missed the following:

Neil, the "gap" is in the football stadiums. The TV money gap is a drop in the bucket compared to the gap that exists between an ACC sized stadium and a Big 10 sized stadium.

You really do represent the worst of your kind.

(06-21-2016 10:14 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-21-2016 08:49 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  Can someone who follows these numbers closely confirm that the B1G will be making $48M/team per year? That seems even higher than the most optimistic projections by their fans.

Are you kidding... their fans have been estimating over $50 million/team for some time now!

I don't have time to show you the math right now, but by my calculations the Big Ten will, in fact, pay each team $50 million by the year 2020-21 or so (unless that's a Rose Bowl playoff year?). They'll probably max at at around $54 M/yr under this contract.

FWIW, the SEC may not break $40 M/yr by that date, and obviously neither will the ACC... the B1G is set to be well ahead of all other conferences for a while. I hate it. Fox (and to a lesser extent, ESPN, since they were just following suit) have totally destabilized college sports - I hope they like what they get, because I think they just messed it up for everyone else.

I would imagine the SEC has very little wiggle room to get even 40, much less more, anytime soon right? Seems like their deal is pretty locked in, at least for awhile. Man if the B1G is getting $48M, I feel like the ACC has to be around $35M or so to be safe, right? I just don't see how a network is going to create that much additional revenue.

Hard to say what amount is "safe". I tend to agree with Lou: if the ACC stays close to the SEC, it may not matter what the Big Ten does. B1G recruiting costs are MUCH higher, which tends to cancel out some of that advantage. Plus, the Big Ten competes in way more sports - the SEC tends to focus on football, basketball and baseball.

(06-21-2016 10:42 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 11:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  For the 104756252th time he's talking about the friggin' gap between the payout from the Big 10 to each individual Big 10 school and the payout from the ACC to each individual school. That has ZERO, NADA, NOTHING to do with stadium size or donor giving or any other strawman you want to throw out there. It has precisely to do with what he was talking about and no amount of trying to change the narrative by you is going to change that.

Kap you have a reading comprehension problem that goes way beyond you attittude problem. It's as if you missed the following:

Neil, the "gap" is in the football stadiums. The TV money gap is a drop in the bucket compared to the gap that exists between an ACC sized stadium and a Big 10 sized stadium.

You really do represent the worst of your kind.

<sigh>

And that would be relevant if Neil and the rest of us were discussing OVERALL revenue but we aren't. We are discussing CONFERENCE revenue and every time we do so you go off on your asinine stadium/booster/parking fees/lollipop sales/etc. tangent despite the fact we aren't discussing it.

To your credit I have no doubt you are a highly educated person.....the problem is you are obviously a highly educated moron incapable of critical thought once you get your mind set on one certain thing.

For the umpteenth time.......the discussion is about revenue that the conference controls, not the revenue that each individual school controls. Stadium size, donations, student fees, nor how many school logo thongs each school sells has absolutely nothing to do with said discussion. The only thing that does apply is how much money Conference A gives to School Y compared to what Conference B gives to School Z. Attempting to bring any other revenue streams into the discussion is simply muddying the waters of the discussion. It's no different than me discussing with my Senior Firefighter how he pulled the attack line off the engine at a house fire was wrong and him trying to use the defense that the Firefighter made the hydrant connection the wrong way. Sure both involve hose, water, and a fire engine and both are involved in the grand scheme of things but for the purpose of this discussion they aren't related in any way.