(01-23-2018 12:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  Or, what if the only thing that changes is that the SEC invites Clemson and Florida State, and they accept. A natural fit is to move them into the SEC East and slide Missouri to the west, where they belong.

That makes the Noles and Tigers happy as clams. Does it take the P5 tag off the ACC? And, if so, does anybody else leave, or do they just stay put as a coherent though less powerful (and poorer) league of peers?

But if you look at the numbers in the OP, it would indicate that the SEC couldn't afford to take either.

(01-23-2018 01:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  Or, what if the only thing that changes is that the SEC invites Clemson and Florida State, and they accept. A natural fit is to move them into the SEC East and slide Missouri to the west, where they belong.

That makes the Noles and Tigers happy as clams. Does it take the P5 tag off the ACC? And, if so, does anybody else leave, or do they just stay put as a coherent though less powerful (and poorer) league of peers?

But if you look at the numbers in the OP, it would indicate that the SEC couldn't afford to take either.

I think that would depend on whether the numbers for Clemson and FSU stayed the same, or improved precisely because they would now be in a significantly better conference. The current numbers assume their value as an ACC team, not as an SEC team.

(01-23-2018 07:58 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 10:40 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 10:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 09:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 09:45 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The ACC really doesn't have much value they can add. UConn, Cincy, UCF, or USF aren't going to raise the value. WVU would fall above the league average if they were shopping. Notre Dame as a ful member is about the only major value add out there for them and they won't be dislodged without devaluing the ACC some other way so in this regard the SEC and Big Ten have accomplished all they can on that front.

The academic schools in the league are what is driving down the league average so to me in this regard they are the dead weight that will make it increasingly imperative to find a new, more profitable home if you are a league subsidized like Florida St or Clemson. If they don't get out they will fall farther and farther blind in the arms race.

I also see what you're saying about schools like VT and NC St having more of an upside than their more academically minded rivals. They're certainly more SEC-like in their profiles and have more statewide mass appeal as being the common man's school (look at Cal, a school most Californians can't get into). I also see where it might be in the best interest for a league like the SEC to be willing to take a slight hit by taking the academic schools in a package with Florida St and Clemson because by doing so they would deprive the Big Ten of a pathway into those markets. This is also why they might consider Kansas in a Big 12 death blow move because of the hemming in effect it would have on their chief rival. To me, if you want to orchestrate the ACC-apocalypse you do a little of both--you take 3 academic schools and 3 football schools. Now if you only have room for 4 then by all means VT and NC St are the way to go--the academic trio has a way out via the Big Ten and if the gutting of the ACC Is a joint effort by the Big Ten and SEC it means there will fewer homeless programs remaining to fuss.

Getting a piece or all of Texas would be their most valuable addition outside of N.D. going all in. But you did raise a good point about W.V.U.. They would add from the standpoint of attendance and gross revenue production, but their impact numbers, while in line with many in the ACC, are relatively weak when compared to the top half of the P5.

BTW: You only ever have room for that which adds to the bottom line. It could be 2 or 6 but everyone has to make more.

I assume by Texas you mean UT? That certainly would have the potential to add some value. The struggle I have with a marriage of convenience with Texas is that a huge factor in the value of a program is the allure of the match ups it would bring to your inventory. About 1/3rd of the ACC would create interesting match ups with Texas for tv; 1/3rd of the ACC result in so-so matches, and the other 1/3rd are total snooze fests. Texas vs Tech or Baylor or TCU bring with them the allure of history and local rivalry. The Horns might hold a historic advantage in the series but it's still a match up both sides get excited for and the rest of the country will take notice. No one is going to get excited for Texas playing Duke, Wake, Pitt, 'Cuse, or BC.

I'm with you about only growing to a size that makes financial sense. To me part of that sense is creating a league structure that maximizes revenue by ensuring the schedule preserves as many of the big rivalries as possible. I think for the Big Ten and SEC both there are ways to make 16, 18, 20, or 24 feasible.

That's true. But the ACC has been stabilized to some degree with just 5 games from Notre Dame. Most of these ACC scenarios have just Texas coming on board, but also as a partial member, and also with just 5 games which leaves Texas 7 games with which to schedule other brands.

Still, if they want to make a serious play for Texas they'll need to build a division around them. And since Texas likes buddies I think a 6 school division of which the Horns are one would be the best approach. But it is also a massive move to make. Besides UNC will do what is necessary to maintain their voting block control over the ACC so it isn't likely. They'll favor the partial approach as it is safer for their control.

JR....................I know it plays well in your scenarios but I will remind you again, Carolina does not swing the "big Stick" in the ACC....Duke does.

Jannes & Jambres!

(01-23-2018 10:55 AM)YNot Wrote:  What are the numbers for Georgia Tech? They would be a candidate for B1G southern expansion based on academics, location, and fit - especially with other potential other ACC expansion targets.

I can look them up for you but Georgia Tech is 66th and one of only two P schools ranked below the 66th position in gross revenue. And they don't even carry Atlanta, Georgia does.

Attendance: 47,503
Gross Total Revenue: $62,260,693
WSJ Economic Impact: $212,068,000

So Georgia Tech is below the average of even the ACC's attendance (which is weakest in the P5), below the ACC's average in revenue generated (which is the weakest in the P5), but is slightly ahead of the ACC's average economic impact estimates probably solely due to the Atlanta market which they don't carry.

But in a subscription model they have value. In a pay model based on actual viewers they would be a deficit to any P conference.

(01-23-2018 01:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  Or, what if the only thing that changes is that the SEC invites Clemson and Florida State, and they accept. A natural fit is to move them into the SEC East and slide Missouri to the west, where they belong.

That makes the Noles and Tigers happy as clams. Does it take the P5 tag off the ACC? And, if so, does anybody else leave, or do they just stay put as a coherent though less powerful (and poorer) league of peers?

But if you look at the numbers in the OP, it would indicate that the SEC couldn't afford to take either.

I think that would depend on whether the numbers for Clemson and FSU stayed the same, or improved precisely because they would now be in a significantly better conference. The current numbers assume their value as an ACC team, not as an SEC team.

The content value for Clemson and Florida State would be the value multiplier that would make them worth it. Those two versus 3/4's of the SEC lineup would be must see TV in the Southeast and their games against the top 1/4 of the SEC would be national in interest. They are the perfect adds in a pay model based solely on actual viewers. Of course so are Texas and Oklahoma. But Clemson and Florida State would have more interest particularly in the Southeast.

(01-23-2018 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can look them up for you but Georgia Tech is 66th and one of only two P schools ranked below the 66th position in gross revenue. And they don't even carry Atlanta, Georgia does.

Attendance: 47,503
Gross Total Revenue: $62,260,693
WSJ Economic Impact: $212,068,000

So Georgia Tech is below the average of even the ACC's attendance (which is weakest in the P5), below the ACC's average in revenue generated (which is the weakest in the P5), but is slightly ahead of the ACC's average economic impact estimates probably solely due to the Atlanta market which they don't carry.

But in a subscription model they have value. In a pay model based on actual viewers they would be a deficit to any P conference.

These numbers are obviously based on ACC games. If Georgia Tech were in the SEC and playing far more regional and historical rivals than they play in the ever-changing ACC, I would bet these numbers would shoot up.

As it is today, Georgia Tech annually plays 7 schools - Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Duke, North Carolina, Miami, and Georgia. What if, instead, Georgia Tech annually played Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Florida St, Miami, and Alabama?

(01-23-2018 02:10 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I can look them up for you but Georgia Tech is 66th and one of only two P schools ranked below the 66th position in gross revenue. And they don't even carry Atlanta, Georgia does.

Attendance: 47,503
Gross Total Revenue: $62,260,693
WSJ Economic Impact: $212,068,000

So Georgia Tech is below the average of even the ACC's attendance (which is weakest in the P5), below the ACC's average in revenue generated (which is the weakest in the P5), but is slightly ahead of the ACC's average economic impact estimates probably solely due to the Atlanta market which they don't carry.

But in a subscription model they have value. In a pay model based on actual viewers they would be a deficit to any P conference.

These numbers are obviously based on ACC games. If Georgia Tech were in the SEC and playing far more regional and historical rivals than they play in the ever-changing ACC, I would bet these numbers would shoot up.

As it is today, Georgia Tech annually plays 7 schools - Pittsburgh, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Duke, North Carolina, Miami, and Georgia. What if, instead, Georgia Tech annually played Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Florida St, Miami, and Alabama?

No. Their Gross Total Revenue is more affected by the size of Grant Field than by conference affiliation. Let's say the SEC makes 12 million more in TV revenue, which is the only number the SEC alone could improve for Tech, even if you added that 12 million to the Gross Total Revenue Georgia Tech would still be 47 million dollars below the SEC average. Now let's say that playing an SEC slate improved the attendance at Grant Field by 10% (a whopping number for a visiting school), that would only improve their deficit to being 44 million behind the SEC average. And their economic impact numbers are nowhere near Georgia's (who carries the Atlanta market by a narrow margin) so the total impact that Tech would have in the SEC would be to drag down all of the SEC's metrics.

So the answer is a flat, "No" as much as I personally would love to have the Yellow Jackets back.

If the ACC were being run strictly as a business Connecticut would be added, Wake Forest removed, and Georgia Tech would be the last team in for now. If the ACC added West Virginia and Notre Dame went all in that would be your sixteen team conference. But seeing how the ACC is dead last in all metrics (although not by much thanks to the PAC) Georgia Tech would literally be the last placed school in a P4 of 64 schools, but only because the school that could push them out, B.Y.U., is too far away for ACC membership.

(01-23-2018 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  Or, what if the only thing that changes is that the SEC invites Clemson and Florida State, and they accept. A natural fit is to move them into the SEC East and slide Missouri to the west, where they belong.

That makes the Noles and Tigers happy as clams. Does it take the P5 tag off the ACC? And, if so, does anybody else leave, or do they just stay put as a coherent though less powerful (and poorer) league of peers?

But if you look at the numbers in the OP, it would indicate that the SEC couldn't afford to take either.

I think that would depend on whether the numbers for Clemson and FSU stayed the same, or improved precisely because they would now be in a significantly better conference. The current numbers assume their value as an ACC team, not as an SEC team.

The content value for Clemson and Florida State would be the value multiplier that would make them worth it. Those two versus 3/4's of the SEC lineup would be must see TV in the Southeast and their games against the top 1/4 of the SEC would be national in interest. They are the perfect adds in a pay model based solely on actual viewers. Of course so are Texas and Oklahoma. But Clemson and Florida State would have more interest particularly in the Southeast.

If the SEC also added UT and OU along with Clemson and Florida State, the national competitive imbalance would be nearly intolerable - maybe to the point of damaging interest in college football as a whole.

(01-23-2018 02:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  Or, what if the only thing that changes is that the SEC invites Clemson and Florida State, and they accept. A natural fit is to move them into the SEC East and slide Missouri to the west, where they belong.

That makes the Noles and Tigers happy as clams. Does it take the P5 tag off the ACC? And, if so, does anybody else leave, or do they just stay put as a coherent though less powerful (and poorer) league of peers?

But if you look at the numbers in the OP, it would indicate that the SEC couldn't afford to take either.

I think that would depend on whether the numbers for Clemson and FSU stayed the same, or improved precisely because they would now be in a significantly better conference. The current numbers assume their value as an ACC team, not as an SEC team.

The content value for Clemson and Florida State would be the value multiplier that would make them worth it. Those two versus 3/4's of the SEC lineup would be must see TV in the Southeast and their games against the top 1/4 of the SEC would be national in interest. They are the perfect adds in a pay model based solely on actual viewers. Of course so are Texas and Oklahoma. But Clemson and Florida State would have more interest particularly in the Southeast.

If the SEC also added UT and OU along with Clemson and Florida State, the national competitive imbalance would be nearly intolerable - maybe to the point of damaging interest in college football as a whole.

The competitive imbalance would be a disincentive to those schools and to the SEC. Clemson, FSU, UT, and OU have much better chances of being in playoff contention right where they are now than they would if they were playing in a league with too many sharks and not enough minnows.

(01-23-2018 02:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 12:52 PM)ken d Wrote:  Or, what if the only thing that changes is that the SEC invites Clemson and Florida State, and they accept. A natural fit is to move them into the SEC East and slide Missouri to the west, where they belong.

That makes the Noles and Tigers happy as clams. Does it take the P5 tag off the ACC? And, if so, does anybody else leave, or do they just stay put as a coherent though less powerful (and poorer) league of peers?

But if you look at the numbers in the OP, it would indicate that the SEC couldn't afford to take either.

I think that would depend on whether the numbers for Clemson and FSU stayed the same, or improved precisely because they would now be in a significantly better conference. The current numbers assume their value as an ACC team, not as an SEC team.

The content value for Clemson and Florida State would be the value multiplier that would make them worth it. Those two versus 3/4's of the SEC lineup would be must see TV in the Southeast and their games against the top 1/4 of the SEC would be national in interest. They are the perfect adds in a pay model based solely on actual viewers. Of course so are Texas and Oklahoma. But Clemson and Florida State would have more interest particularly in the Southeast.

If the SEC also added UT and OU along with Clemson and Florida State, the national competitive imbalance would be nearly intolerable - maybe to the point of damaging interest in college football as a whole.

There are several ways of looking at this issue. One is from the access stand point which Wedge just put forth. From that vantage point his assertion is true. That kind of power in once conference would create a very arduous path to a championship.

There is the power imbalance viewpoint which you put forth and that too is true. It might be better to engage all of the markets by having a champs only and trying to spread around the brands. There is truth in this approach as well.

Then there is the demographic approach. The vast majority of interest in college football resides in the Southeast and Southwest. The largest number of top recruits now comes from this region with other hot spots around the country in diverse locations. It is the region where football participation is not shrinking. So if you want to play big time college football in front of very large and adoring crowds that donate to the sport a very high levels then this is where you play and since the opponents are closer at hand it is more economical to do so. And there is truth in this approach as well.

But if I'm the network exec what I would take a serious look at doing is trying to beef up the Big 10 and let the SEC naturally grow and playing off of the natural and intense rivalry between those two regions of the country which just so happen to include the strongest two viewing dynamics with the most rabid fans. Tying in some essential brands from the PAC and from the ACC and incorporating them into that natural rivalry might be the best play that both maximizes the affinity for college football, while playing to the paying metrics.

What is clear when you look at these numbers and the rate of viewer participation on the West and East coast that underscores their sagging numbers, is that pandering to either of those is a losing proposition. The Big 12, weak as it is with regard to footprint, consistently outperforms the other two.

So I see deficits in propping up the ACC and PAC by moving brands to each that are more profitable elsewhere. I see deficits to moving to a champs only from the standpoint of quality of the final four. And, I see deficits to centralizing power where interest and participation is the greatest because it lacks a foil and dismisses too many national viewers.

What I don't see are too many deficits by redefining the game by playing up it's most historic and intense regional rivalry. Now how we go about doing that is a matter for some interesting discussion.

(01-23-2018 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 02:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  But if you look at the numbers in the OP, it would indicate that the SEC couldn't afford to take either.

I think that would depend on whether the numbers for Clemson and FSU stayed the same, or improved precisely because they would now be in a significantly better conference. The current numbers assume their value as an ACC team, not as an SEC team.

The content value for Clemson and Florida State would be the value multiplier that would make them worth it. Those two versus 3/4's of the SEC lineup would be must see TV in the Southeast and their games against the top 1/4 of the SEC would be national in interest. They are the perfect adds in a pay model based solely on actual viewers. Of course so are Texas and Oklahoma. But Clemson and Florida State would have more interest particularly in the Southeast.

If the SEC also added UT and OU along with Clemson and Florida State, the national competitive imbalance would be nearly intolerable - maybe to the point of damaging interest in college football as a whole.

There are several ways of looking at this issue. One is from the access stand point which Wedge just put forth. From that vantage point his assertion is true. That kind of power in once conference would create a very arduous path to a championship.

There is the power imbalance viewpoint which you put forth and that too is true. It might be better to engage all of the markets by having a champs only and trying to spread around the brands. There is truth in this approach as well.

Then there is the demographic approach. The vast majority of interest in college football resides in the Southeast and Southwest. The largest number of top recruits now comes from this region with other hot spots around the country in diverse locations. It is the region where football participation is not shrinking. So if you want to play big time college football in front of very large and adoring crowds that donate to the sport a very high levels then this is where you play and since the opponents are closer at hand it is more economical to do so. And there is truth in this approach as well.

But if I'm the network exec what I would take a serious look at doing is trying to beef up the Big 10 and let the SEC naturally grow and playing off of the natural and intense rivalry between those two regions of the country which just so happen to include the strongest two viewing dynamics with the most rabid fans. Tying in some essential brands from the PAC and from the ACC and incorporating them into that natural rivalry might be the best play that both maximizes the affinity for college football, while playing to the paying metrics.

What is clear when you look at these numbers and the rate of viewer participation on the West and East coast that underscores their sagging numbers, is that pandering to either of those is a losing proposition. The Big 12, weak as it is with regard to footprint, consistently outperforms the other two.

So I see deficits in propping up the ACC and PAC by moving brands to each that are more profitable elsewhere. I see deficits to moving to a champs only from the standpoint of quality of the final four. And, I see deficits to centralizing power where interest and participation is the greatest because it lacks a foil and dismisses too many national viewers.

What I don't see are too many deficits by redefining the game by playing up it's most historic and intense regional rivalry. Now how we go about doing that is a matter for some interesting discussion.

The realistic potential candidates for the B1G would be:
Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College.

And let's be honest, unless there is a complete collapse of the ACC, UVA, Carolina and Duke are not headed to the B1G.

With the exception of Kansas these schools were on the B1G's list in 2011 along with Nebraska.
So if I am a network exec and want to enhance the football in the B1G I'm going after..........1. Virginia Tech and 2. West Virginia???? Would the B1G go after Missouri instead?

(01-23-2018 04:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 02:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:21 PM)ken d Wrote:  I think that would depend on whether the numbers for Clemson and FSU stayed the same, or improved precisely because they would now be in a significantly better conference. The current numbers assume their value as an ACC team, not as an SEC team.

The content value for Clemson and Florida State would be the value multiplier that would make them worth it. Those two versus 3/4's of the SEC lineup would be must see TV in the Southeast and their games against the top 1/4 of the SEC would be national in interest. They are the perfect adds in a pay model based solely on actual viewers. Of course so are Texas and Oklahoma. But Clemson and Florida State would have more interest particularly in the Southeast.

If the SEC also added UT and OU along with Clemson and Florida State, the national competitive imbalance would be nearly intolerable - maybe to the point of damaging interest in college football as a whole.

There are several ways of looking at this issue. One is from the access stand point which Wedge just put forth. From that vantage point his assertion is true. That kind of power in once conference would create a very arduous path to a championship.

There is the power imbalance viewpoint which you put forth and that too is true. It might be better to engage all of the markets by having a champs only and trying to spread around the brands. There is truth in this approach as well.

Then there is the demographic approach. The vast majority of interest in college football resides in the Southeast and Southwest. The largest number of top recruits now comes from this region with other hot spots around the country in diverse locations. It is the region where football participation is not shrinking. So if you want to play big time college football in front of very large and adoring crowds that donate to the sport a very high levels then this is where you play and since the opponents are closer at hand it is more economical to do so. And there is truth in this approach as well.

But if I'm the network exec what I would take a serious look at doing is trying to beef up the Big 10 and let the SEC naturally grow and playing off of the natural and intense rivalry between those two regions of the country which just so happen to include the strongest two viewing dynamics with the most rabid fans. Tying in some essential brands from the PAC and from the ACC and incorporating them into that natural rivalry might be the best play that both maximizes the affinity for college football, while playing to the paying metrics.

What is clear when you look at these numbers and the rate of viewer participation on the West and East coast that underscores their sagging numbers, is that pandering to either of those is a losing proposition. The Big 12, weak as it is with regard to footprint, consistently outperforms the other two.

So I see deficits in propping up the ACC and PAC by moving brands to each that are more profitable elsewhere. I see deficits to moving to a champs only from the standpoint of quality of the final four. And, I see deficits to centralizing power where interest and participation is the greatest because it lacks a foil and dismisses too many national viewers.

What I don't see are too many deficits by redefining the game by playing up it's most historic and intense regional rivalry. Now how we go about doing that is a matter for some interesting discussion.

The realistic potential candidates for the B1G would be:
Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College.

And let's be honest, unless there is a complete collapse of the ACC, UVA, Carolina and Duke are not headed to the B1G.

With the exception of Kansas these schools were on the B1G's list in 2011 along with Nebraska.
So if I am a network exec and want to enhance the football in the B1G I'm going after..........1. Virginia Tech and 2. West Virginia???? Would the B1G go after Missouri instead?

X it would be interesting to see who Virginia Tech would select if they were in play. They would very likely have offers from both the Big 10 and SEC.

But if you played with this scenario, (while looking at the map) then Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Kansas, and Missouri would do the most to solidify their footprint without compromising their academics. I don't see Kentucky or West Virginia ever filling that bill. And believe me, Vanderbilt has had ample opportunity in the past to consider that move and they've stayed put.

But, now apply the metrics of attendance, gross total revenue, and economic impact projections and see how many of those 4 make the grade? Virginia Tech and really only then by a razor then margin on attendance. The rest drag all three leading metrics down for the Big 10.

I'm curious how the SEC would go about prying away the four schools we've been discussing. The GOR ends somewhere in the 2030s and there are massive payouts involved. ESPN also doesn't want the move because it would give the conference would have too much leverage. To kill the ACC I think you have to have 10 schools willing to close up shop (because they have a better landing spot). Where do you find 6 more schools willing to make that happen?

(01-23-2018 09:01 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm curious how the SEC would go about prying away the four schools we've been discussing. The GOR ends somewhere in the 2030s and there are massive payouts involved. ESPN also doesn't want the move because it would give the conference would have too much leverage. To kill the ACC I think you have to have 10 schools willing to close up shop (because they have a better landing spot). Where do you find 6 more schools willing to make that happen?

It seems the SEC revenue is growing faster than the ACC revenue is growing. That growth rate will make the gap much, much wider which will be a lot easier for schools to move.

(01-23-2018 09:15 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 09:01 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm curious how the SEC would go about prying away the four schools we've been discussing. The GOR ends somewhere in the 2030s and there are massive payouts involved. ESPN also doesn't want the move because it would give the conference would have too much leverage. To kill the ACC I think you have to have 10 schools willing to close up shop (because they have a better landing spot). Where do you find 6 more schools willing to make that happen?

It seems the SEC revenue is growing faster than the ACC revenue is growing. That growth rate will make the gap much, much wider which will be a lot easier for schools to move.

That trend will reverse in 2019.

(01-23-2018 05:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 04:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 02:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The content value for Clemson and Florida State would be the value multiplier that would make them worth it. Those two versus 3/4's of the SEC lineup would be must see TV in the Southeast and their games against the top 1/4 of the SEC would be national in interest. They are the perfect adds in a pay model based solely on actual viewers. Of course so are Texas and Oklahoma. But Clemson and Florida State would have more interest particularly in the Southeast.

If the SEC also added UT and OU along with Clemson and Florida State, the national competitive imbalance would be nearly intolerable - maybe to the point of damaging interest in college football as a whole.

There are several ways of looking at this issue. One is from the access stand point which Wedge just put forth. From that vantage point his assertion is true. That kind of power in once conference would create a very arduous path to a championship.

There is the power imbalance viewpoint which you put forth and that too is true. It might be better to engage all of the markets by having a champs only and trying to spread around the brands. There is truth in this approach as well.

Then there is the demographic approach. The vast majority of interest in college football resides in the Southeast and Southwest. The largest number of top recruits now comes from this region with other hot spots around the country in diverse locations. It is the region where football participation is not shrinking. So if you want to play big time college football in front of very large and adoring crowds that donate to the sport a very high levels then this is where you play and since the opponents are closer at hand it is more economical to do so. And there is truth in this approach as well.

But if I'm the network exec what I would take a serious look at doing is trying to beef up the Big 10 and let the SEC naturally grow and playing off of the natural and intense rivalry between those two regions of the country which just so happen to include the strongest two viewing dynamics with the most rabid fans. Tying in some essential brands from the PAC and from the ACC and incorporating them into that natural rivalry might be the best play that both maximizes the affinity for college football, while playing to the paying metrics.

What is clear when you look at these numbers and the rate of viewer participation on the West and East coast that underscores their sagging numbers, is that pandering to either of those is a losing proposition. The Big 12, weak as it is with regard to footprint, consistently outperforms the other two.

So I see deficits in propping up the ACC and PAC by moving brands to each that are more profitable elsewhere. I see deficits to moving to a champs only from the standpoint of quality of the final four. And, I see deficits to centralizing power where interest and participation is the greatest because it lacks a foil and dismisses too many national viewers.

What I don't see are too many deficits by redefining the game by playing up it's most historic and intense regional rivalry. Now how we go about doing that is a matter for some interesting discussion.

The realistic potential candidates for the B1G would be:
Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College.

And let's be honest, unless there is a complete collapse of the ACC, UVA, Carolina and Duke are not headed to the B1G.

With the exception of Kansas these schools were on the B1G's list in 2011 along with Nebraska.
So if I am a network exec and want to enhance the football in the B1G I'm going after..........1. Virginia Tech and 2. West Virginia???? Would the B1G go after Missouri instead?

X it would be interesting to see who Virginia Tech would select if they were in play. They would very likely have offers from both the Big 10 and SEC.

But if you played with this scenario, (while looking at the map) then Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Kansas, and Missouri would do the most to solidify their footprint without compromising their academics. I don't see Kentucky or West Virginia ever filling that bill. And believe me, Vanderbilt has had ample opportunity in the past to consider that move and they've stayed put.

But, now apply the metrics of attendance, gross total revenue, and economic impact projections and see how many of those 4 make the grade? Virginia Tech and really only then by a razor then margin on attendance. The rest drag all three leading metrics down for the Big 10.

JR, I think VT goes to the B1G in that scenario and then Delany comes after Missouri.

(01-23-2018 09:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 09:15 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 09:01 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm curious how the SEC would go about prying away the four schools we've been discussing. The GOR ends somewhere in the 2030s and there are massive payouts involved. ESPN also doesn't want the move because it would give the conference would have too much leverage. To kill the ACC I think you have to have 10 schools willing to close up shop (because they have a better landing spot). Where do you find 6 more schools willing to make that happen?

It seems the SEC revenue is growing faster than the ACC revenue is growing. That growth rate will make the gap much, much wider which will be a lot easier for schools to move.

That trend will reverse in 2019.

Why do you think so?

(01-23-2018 09:25 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 09:18 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 09:15 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 09:01 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I'm curious how the SEC would go about prying away the four schools we've been discussing. The GOR ends somewhere in the 2030s and there are massive payouts involved. ESPN also doesn't want the move because it would give the conference would have too much leverage. To kill the ACC I think you have to have 10 schools willing to close up shop (because they have a better landing spot). Where do you find 6 more schools willing to make that happen?

It seems the SEC revenue is growing faster than the ACC revenue is growing. That growth rate will make the gap much, much wider which will be a lot easier for schools to move.

That trend will reverse in 2019.

Why do you think so?

ACCN comes online and the gap starts to shrink.

How much is the ACCN really going to being in? Will it move them into 4th place? If you're Florida St do you really want to be in the #4-5 place conference in revenue or the #1?

I'm just trying to figure out how they would escape without owing tens of millions.

(01-23-2018 09:25 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 05:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 04:53 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-23-2018 02:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  If the SEC also added UT and OU along with Clemson and Florida State, the national competitive imbalance would be nearly intolerable - maybe to the point of damaging interest in college football as a whole.

There are several ways of looking at this issue. One is from the access stand point which Wedge just put forth. From that vantage point his assertion is true. That kind of power in once conference would create a very arduous path to a championship.

There is the power imbalance viewpoint which you put forth and that too is true. It might be better to engage all of the markets by having a champs only and trying to spread around the brands. There is truth in this approach as well.

Then there is the demographic approach. The vast majority of interest in college football resides in the Southeast and Southwest. The largest number of top recruits now comes from this region with other hot spots around the country in diverse locations. It is the region where football participation is not shrinking. So if you want to play big time college football in front of very large and adoring crowds that donate to the sport a very high levels then this is where you play and since the opponents are closer at hand it is more economical to do so. And there is truth in this approach as well.

But if I'm the network exec what I would take a serious look at doing is trying to beef up the Big 10 and let the SEC naturally grow and playing off of the natural and intense rivalry between those two regions of the country which just so happen to include the strongest two viewing dynamics with the most rabid fans. Tying in some essential brands from the PAC and from the ACC and incorporating them into that natural rivalry might be the best play that both maximizes the affinity for college football, while playing to the paying metrics.

What is clear when you look at these numbers and the rate of viewer participation on the West and East coast that underscores their sagging numbers, is that pandering to either of those is a losing proposition. The Big 12, weak as it is with regard to footprint, consistently outperforms the other two.

So I see deficits in propping up the ACC and PAC by moving brands to each that are more profitable elsewhere. I see deficits to moving to a champs only from the standpoint of quality of the final four. And, I see deficits to centralizing power where interest and participation is the greatest because it lacks a foil and dismisses too many national viewers.

What I don't see are too many deficits by redefining the game by playing up it's most historic and intense regional rivalry. Now how we go about doing that is a matter for some interesting discussion.

The realistic potential candidates for the B1G would be:
Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Maryland, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Boston College.

And let's be honest, unless there is a complete collapse of the ACC, UVA, Carolina and Duke are not headed to the B1G.

With the exception of Kansas these schools were on the B1G's list in 2011 along with Nebraska.
So if I am a network exec and want to enhance the football in the B1G I'm going after..........1. Virginia Tech and 2. West Virginia???? Would the B1G go after Missouri instead?

X it would be interesting to see who Virginia Tech would select if they were in play. They would very likely have offers from both the Big 10 and SEC.

But if you played with this scenario, (while looking at the map) then Virginia Tech, Syracuse, Kansas, and Missouri would do the most to solidify their footprint without compromising their academics. I don't see Kentucky or West Virginia ever filling that bill. And believe me, Vanderbilt has had ample opportunity in the past to consider that move and they've stayed put.

But, now apply the metrics of attendance, gross total revenue, and economic impact projections and see how many of those 4 make the grade? Virginia Tech and really only then by a razor then margin on attendance. The rest drag all three leading metrics down for the Big 10.

JR, I think VT goes to the B1G in that scenario and then Delany comes after Missouri.

Would you care to carefully explain to me how Virginia Tech could get out of a GOR that doesn't expire until 2035 and Florida State can't?

And as far as the ACCN goes 2019 is a long way from now and in between then and now ESPN will be under new management and likely with a party not partial to UNC, as Skipper was. They may be evaluating many things related to the ACC between then and now. And they might opt out at either a price, or choose to sell their rights to the ACC. There are other options too. Are there performance clauses built into that contract like there were with the LHN?

I just sure wouldn't count or discount that launch date until a lot of internal issues are decided at Bristol.