https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-network/

There is always a lot of fear mongering on these boards, but this article from CBS poses some legitimate issues should Louisville (and I might add UNC) suddenly be facing sanctions and post season bans.

Typical Chicken Little nonsense from Dennis Dud. Didn't he also write a "What happens after Baylor gets the death penalty" article? No one is getting the death penalty after SMU.

At most, Louisville will get something slightly more harsh than USC got after its twin football and basketball violations. Something like a 4-year postseason ban (which would allow any current player to transfer and play immediately at his new school), limit of 9 men's basketball players on scholarship during that 4-year period, show-cause penalties for Pitino (just a gesture because he won't coach again anyway) and for every culpable assistant (a real penalty, to them), a fine to be paid by the university, and if the NCAA is really feeling frisky, a ban that prevents everyone in the Louisville athletic department from associating with anyone at adidas who is connected to the federal investigation.

There's my prediction. In October 2020 when the NCAA issues its sanctions, any of you folks can dig up this comment and tell me how wrong I was.

(10-05-2017 09:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Typical Chicken Little nonsense from Dennis Dud. Didn't he also write a "What happens after Baylor gets the death penalty" article? No one is getting the death penalty after SMU.

At most, Louisville will get something slightly more harsh than USC got after its twin football and basketball violations. Something like a 4-year postseason ban (which would allow any current player to transfer and play immediately at his new school), limit of 9 men's basketball players on scholarship during that 4-year period, show-cause penalties for Pitino (just a gesture because he won't coach again anyway) and for every culpable assistant (a real penalty, to them), a fine to be paid by the university, and if the NCAA is really feeling frisky, a ban that prevents everyone in the Louisville athletic department from associating with anyone at adidas who is connected to the federal investigation.

There's my prediction. In October 2020 when the NCAA issues its sanctions, any of you folks can dig up this comment and tell me how wrong I was.

The germane angle here Wedge is that if Louisville's post season is curtailed for a couple of years and if UNC's should wind up curtailed for a couple of years it could very well affect the valuation of the games broadcast. I could see why a network may wish to finagle a better deal. If interest in North Carolina and Louisville sports is on the wane it will certainly affect their bottom line. Ratings drive rates!

BTW: UNC sanctions were supposed to come out sometime soon but the date set coincided with a big donor event at UNC so now the Heels are asking the NCAA to delay further. Their antics never stop! I have a feeling the hammer will come down sooner than you think on Louisville as well.

(10-05-2017 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 09:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Typical Chicken Little nonsense from Dennis Dud. Didn't he also write a "What happens after Baylor gets the death penalty" article? No one is getting the death penalty after SMU.

At most, Louisville will get something slightly more harsh than USC got after its twin football and basketball violations. Something like a 4-year postseason ban (which would allow any current player to transfer and play immediately at his new school), limit of 9 men's basketball players on scholarship during that 4-year period, show-cause penalties for Pitino (just a gesture because he won't coach again anyway) and for every culpable assistant (a real penalty, to them), a fine to be paid by the university, and if the NCAA is really feeling frisky, a ban that prevents everyone in the Louisville athletic department from associating with anyone at adidas who is connected to the federal investigation.

There's my prediction. In October 2020 when the NCAA issues its sanctions, any of you folks can dig up this comment and tell me how wrong I was.

The germane angle here Wedge is that if Louisville's post season is curtailed for a couple of years and if UNC's should wind up curtailed for a couple of years it could very well affect the valuation of the games broadcast. I could see why a network may wish to finagle a better deal. If interest in North Carolina and Louisville sports is on the wane it will certainly affect their bottom line. Ratings drive rates!

BTW: UNC sanctions were supposed to come out sometime soon but the date set coincided with a big donor event at UNC so now the Heels are asking the NCAA to delay further. Their antics never stop! I have a feeling the hammer will come down sooner than you think on Louisville as well.

And why would the NCAA accommodate Carolina?
The rumor started with a tweet from Andrew Carter(on the Wolfpack Club payroll with Dan Kane?) probably to throw a damper on this weekends festivities as opposed to being anywhere close to the truth. That's the way they roll. And you want to add them to your conference?

(10-05-2017 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The germane angle here Wedge is that if Louisville's post season is curtailed for a couple of years and if UNC's should wind up curtailed for a couple of years it could very well affect the valuation of the games broadcast. I could see why a network may wish to finagle a better deal.

If it's a post-season ban then why would it effect the ACC contract? Postseason games are not part of our media rights contract as those are controlled by either the NCAA or in football the bowls themselves.

Not that I agree, but I think his point is simply that punishment could cause the public perception of those programs to drop and therefore their potential viewership to drop.

I would think a Conference Network would actually protect the overall national image. Programs in trouble would show up on the conference network while the national tv slots and Ota slots would go to the other teams. Actually, the ACCN could actually get a ratings boost though we have no baseline.

(10-05-2017 08:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-network/

There is always a lot of fear mongering on these boards, but this article from CBS poses some legitimate issues should Louisville (and I might add UNC) suddenly be facing sanctions and post season bans.

Normally that would be a concern, but as long as the ACCN has the backing of ESPN/Disney it will be jammed down the throats of providers, whether they like or not, whether the ratings are good or not.

http://deadline.com/2017/10/disney-altic...202182840/

It's like wanting to go out on a date with the Prom Queen but being told that her brat little brother has to come along. You want the Disney network lineup, you take the ACCN.

(10-06-2017 07:35 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The germane angle here Wedge is that if Louisville's post season is curtailed for a couple of years and if UNC's should wind up curtailed for a couple of years it could very well affect the valuation of the games broadcast. I could see why a network may wish to finagle a better deal.

If it's a post-season ban then why would it effect the ACC contract? Postseason games are not part of our media rights contract as those are controlled by either the NCAA or in football the bowls themselves.

Also, a postseason ban might not have much effect on regular-season TV ratings. When the football teams at USC and Ohio State were on postseason bans, their games still got good TV ratings. Would the same hold true for big-name basketball teams on probation? Probably, as long as the teams on probation continued to win (IIRC, USC was 10-2 on probation and Ohio State was 12-0).

Another reason UNC sanctions might have little affect on ratings is there are 3 other ACC teams in North Carolina.
I'm guessing, but I suspect Louisville will get about the same ratings in their DMA regardless of sanctions.

(10-06-2017 10:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Another reason UNC sanctions might have little affect on ratings is there are 3 other ACC teams in North Carolina.
I'm guessing, but I suspect Louisville will get about the same ratings in their DMA regardless of sanctions.

For UofL, yes.
I would wager ratings in the DMA will dip.

(10-06-2017 07:35 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The germane angle here Wedge is that if Louisville's post season is curtailed for a couple of years and if UNC's should wind up curtailed for a couple of years it could very well affect the valuation of the games broadcast. I could see why a network may wish to finagle a better deal.

If it's a post-season ban then why would it effect the ACC contract? Postseason games are not part of our media rights contract as those are controlled by either the NCAA or in football the bowls themselves.

It would mean that any team with a post season ban wouldn't be allowed in the conference tournament as well. So an ACC tourny without UofL and possibly UNC wouldn't be worth as much potentially.

(10-05-2017 08:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...g-network/

There is always a lot of fear mongering on these boards, but this article from CBS poses some legitimate issues should Louisville (and I might add UNC) suddenly be facing sanctions and post season bans.

Dennis Dodds is a troll. You can't take anything he writes without considering that. Usually he trolls the Big 12, but never his alma mater Missouri or the SEC. Of course, his employer, CBS, is tied in with the SEC.

(10-06-2017 10:56 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Another reason UNC sanctions might have little affect on ratings is there are 3 other ACC teams in North Carolina.
I'm guessing, but I suspect Louisville will get about the same ratings in their DMA regardless of sanctions.

And there's Duke and Syracuse basketball too.

(10-06-2017 07:35 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-05-2017 09:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The germane angle here Wedge is that if Louisville's post season is curtailed for a couple of years and if UNC's should wind up curtailed for a couple of years it could very well affect the valuation of the games broadcast. I could see why a network may wish to finagle a better deal.

If it's a post-season ban then why would it effect the ACC contract? Postseason games are not part of our media rights contract as those are controlled by either the NCAA or in football the bowls themselves.

Because without the possibility of a post season appearance schools on probation generally see a lag in their overall ratings during the regular season. People don't like to watch because it reminds them of their dilemma. And because without the possibility of postseason play the regular season games mean even less.

But that's what a thread is for. Those who want to play ostrich can bury their heads in the sand and pretend it won't affect anything and those who experience schadenfreude can imagine the direst of consequences. Never mind that either position has nothing to do with business. Is the purchased product diminished? Usually the answer is yes. Will it be this time? Probably, as based on past history it is a reasonable assumption. Could the networks claim diminished value? Yes Will they claim diminished value? I think that depends on the sanctions. Like I stated previously the contractual aspect is germane. The networks could choose to overlook it, or they could use it to seek something else they want, or they could push for a reduced payout for the term of the sanctions. We'll see.

If UofL diminishes the ACC contract does that not reflect their/our value? At least to the ACC?
uk is an SECN star. Is that good or bad?

(10-06-2017 02:41 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If UofL diminishes the ACC contract does that not reflect their/our value? At least to the ACC?
uk is an SECN star. Is that good or bad?

In the main board thread about WVU and UConn I lay that out fairly explicitly toward the end of that thread. The WSJ football valuations as compared to the gross total revenues of schools reflects the value that a school generates beyond their own earnings. Those valuations are how the business analysts see the revenue they generate beyond their own institutional revenue streams.

Connecticut and West Virginia both generate more actual revenue for themselves than their valuation is worth. That means they don't bring anything to the table beyond their own programs. Louisville like most healthier brands generates an impact beyond just their own revenue. Therefore their valuation is higher than their total revenue figure.

Louisville received the invitation because that's what networks value and what allows them to pay more to the other conference members. Louisville may be hammered but they aren't going anywhere because the ACC is dead last in total valuation. Should they add Notre Dame in full it would bring the ACC average valuation up by 45 million per school. If they cut Louisville they are definitely cutting their earning potential. Probation will last for a couple of years, but cutting them lasts forever. So if they did cut you who would they get to replace your value? The brands that could are already in the Big 10 or SEC and won't be leaving.

(10-06-2017 02:41 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If UofL diminishes the ACC contract does that not reflect their/our value? At least to the ACC?
uk is an SECN star. Is that good or bad?

Why do UofL fans ALWAYS bring up UK?

(10-06-2017 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 02:41 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If UofL diminishes the ACC contract does that not reflect their/our value? At least to the ACC?
uk is an SECN star. Is that good or bad?

In the main board thread about WVU and UConn I lay that out fairly explicitly toward the end of that thread. The WSJ football valuations as compared to the gross total revenues of schools reflects the value that a school generates beyond their own earnings. Those valuations are how the business analysts see the revenue they generate beyond their own institutional revenue streams.

Connecticut and West Virginia both generate more actual revenue for themselves than their valuation is worth. That means they don't bring anything to the table beyond their own programs. Louisville like most healthier brands generates an impact beyond just their own revenue. Therefore their valuation is higher than their total revenue figure.

That's a good point. We should take the valuations published in the WSJ with many grains of salt, but whatever the true valuation of a program is, it's extremely relevant to a conference or a TV network how much value a program brings to the conference and to TV, and not how much the program rakes in and keeps for itself.

(10-06-2017 04:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 03:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-06-2017 02:41 PM)Dasville Wrote:  If UofL diminishes the ACC contract does that not reflect their/our value? At least to the ACC?
uk is an SECN star. Is that good or bad?

In the main board thread about WVU and UConn I lay that out fairly explicitly toward the end of that thread. The WSJ football valuations as compared to the gross total revenues of schools reflects the value that a school generates beyond their own earnings. Those valuations are how the business analysts see the revenue they generate beyond their own institutional revenue streams.

Connecticut and West Virginia both generate more actual revenue for themselves than their valuation is worth. That means they don't bring anything to the table beyond their own programs. Louisville like most healthier brands generates an impact beyond just their own revenue. Therefore their valuation is higher than their total revenue figure.

That's a good point. We should take the valuations published in the WSJ with many grains of salt, but whatever the true valuation of a program is, it's extremely relevant to a conference or a TV network how much value a program brings to the conference and to TV, and not how much the program rakes in and keeps for itself.

All tools have flaws. But we learn to use the tools we are given. I'm sure there are many flaws in all evaluations, ARWU, AAU, Carnegie, SAT, ACT, USN&WR, AP, Coaches Polls, etc, all have flaws, but we use them nonetheless. If WSJ gives us a tool it's up to us to figure out how to use it productively. That is the aspect of this ranking that when compared to Gross Total Revenue yields a clear result with valid implications.