Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Buyout existing conference member?
Author Message
NJRedMan Offline
Tasted It

Posts: 8,017
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 241
I Root For: St. Johns
Location: Where the Brooklyn @
Post: #21
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
If the B1G and SEC go to 16 they are NOT going to split up. LSU and UF aren't going to want to be in different conferences. Nebraska and Ohio St wont want to be in different conferences.

Just because the WAC/MWC split and the Big East/AAC split doesn't mean every conference that goes to 16 will split. There were specific reasons those conferences split. The Big East had a FB/BBall dynamic that was even recognized by the members ten years ago. The WAC didn't have the money that the Big Three have that could keep all those schools together.

How would the B1G split up? Here are a few groups who would most likely stick together.

OSU
UM
MSU

PSU
Rutgers
Maryland

Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
NW

Wisc
Iowa
Nebraska
Minny
04-18-2013 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #22
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
IMO once you go beyond a certain size, you get factions within the conference that eventually tear it apart. We've seen it happen many times before, and will eventually see it happen again...

The optimum size for a conference is 10. That allows round robin play in every sport every year...
04-18-2013 06:45 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 02:14 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  In light of how revenue is generated and distributed, has anyone heard discussion or consideration by a conference to convince an existing member institution to align with a different conference? Of course, it would be written up as a "mutually beneficial decision", similar to how long-term, under-performing coaches "retire" with a golden parachute.

The thought was prompted by Bowlsby's recent comments rationalizing the stance to stay at 10 schools. Each of the big conferences have one or two schools that no longer fit the conference profile and do not perceive to add any value. There are cases of regional overlap in small markets (Purdue/Kansas State) and low revenue (Wake Forest), but Washington State and Mississippi State immediately stand out as lacking in several important areas. Both schools are at or near last in their conference in terms of academics, revenue, brand impact, markets, and about every other category you can think of. Yes, they both have history as founding members of their conferences, but is there an arrangement that can be made so both the conference and school benefit in the long term? What if Washington State could immediately be admitted with full benefits to the MWC (they are a perfect fit MWC in almost all areas if you just forget about their PAC history) plus a $100 million thank you gift paid out over 10 years for their dedication and contribution to the PAC. If you do the revenue sharing math, each current institution comes out ahead, an additional spot is opened to add a high quality school, and Washington State becomes a competitive, if not top dog, institution in their new conference. I seriously doubt the value of the PAC network would drop a penny by losing Washington State (or Oregon State, for that matter), especially if it allowed round robin again for football content. Almost a mirror scenario can be argued for Mississippi State if they could land in the AAC (everyone can see that will become a south/southwest conference before too long).

If there is a group of people anywhere in this country that would have an opinion on such a move, I figured this would be it! My apologies if this has been discussed on another thread recently. I am new here and really enjoying it so far.

The BIG EAST gave Temple the boot about 10 years ago.
04-18-2013 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 06:37 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  If the B1G and SEC go to 16 they are NOT going to split up. LSU and UF aren't going to want to be in different conferences. Nebraska and Ohio St wont want to be in different conferences.

Just because the WAC/MWC split and the Big East/AAC split doesn't mean every conference that goes to 16 will split. There were specific reasons those conferences split. The Big East had a FB/BBall dynamic that was even recognized by the members ten years ago. The WAC didn't have the money that the Big Three have that could keep all those schools together.

How would the B1G split up? Here are a few groups who would most likely stick together.

OSU
UM
MSU

PSU
Rutgers
Maryland

Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
NW

Wisc
Iowa
Nebraska
Minny

The FB v BB dynamic in the BE started before the BE even had football (see Penn State)
04-18-2013 06:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lolly Popp Offline
Magically Delicious
*

Posts: 2,425
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Football
Location: Endzone
Post: #25
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 06:48 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The BIG EAST gave Temple the boot about 10 years ago.

Temple was not a real member of the Big East at that time ... they were football-only ... and kicking them out was no different than kicking out a baseball-only, golf-only, or swimming-only member. Conferences only kick out full member for egregious scandals involving rash cheating or worse.
04-18-2013 07:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,885
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 06:37 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  If the B1G and SEC go to 16 they are NOT going to split up. LSU and UF aren't going to want to be in different conferences. Nebraska and Ohio St wont want to be in different conferences.

Just because the WAC/MWC split and the Big East/AAC split doesn't mean every conference that goes to 16 will split. There were specific reasons those conferences split. The Big East had a FB/BBall dynamic that was even recognized by the members ten years ago. The WAC didn't have the money that the Big Three have that could keep all those schools together.

How would the B1G split up? Here are a few groups who would most likely stick together.

OSU
UM
MSU

PSU
Rutgers
Maryland

Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
NW

Wisc
Iowa
Nebraska
Minny

I believe the declaration of the inevitability of a split is a fiction. If you go to 16 or 20 you actually get more regional flavor with 3 or 4 consistent geographical rivals on your schedule. The rotation of the others keeps it fresh and older conference rivalries can be accounted for by playing 1 team from the other half divisions annually and rotating the other 3 annually. As long as a recruit gets to play every institution within the conference before he graduates its still acceptable to me. The other thing to remember is that once the playoff format is in place the desire to split and then have to lobby for inclusion will be a deterrent as well. And finally a closed upper tier of between 60 and 72 schools will engender anyone to want to pull out of anything that guarantees their inclusion.
04-18-2013 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 07:20 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 06:48 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  The BIG EAST gave Temple the boot about 10 years ago.

Temple was not a real member of the Big East at that time ... they were football-only ... and kicking them out was no different than kicking out a baseball-only, golf-only, or swimming-only member. Conferences only kick out full member for egregious scandals involving rash cheating or worse.

Football only members are like golf only members in your world?

If you honestly think that, I'm pretty sure that you are the only person in America to have that view.
04-18-2013 09:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
Let's say its about a decade in the future, far and away the majority of TV's in the country are connected to the internet. ESPN isn't just a channel on your cable, it is also an app on your TV that has real-time stats updated at the bottom of the screen or is scrolling scores and if it shows the score of a game being shown on an ESPN channel you can click it and switch to that game or it is showing tweets or facebook posts about the game you are watching. When the ads roll up if you see a Pizza Hut ad you can click on it and order a pizza to be delivered to your house or order tickets to the movie being advertised.

The data about users will allow selective ad placement on the app. You searched for airline tickets, you get a Delta ad. You get an ad for a Chevy Silverado but your neighbor gets a Camaro ad, and your kid watching in college gets an ad for the Chevy Spark.

If you are willing to pay, you can watch every FBS game and most FCS, Division II and III games.

In this environment advertisers are no longer paying for the expected audience, they pay for the actual audience. The advertiser might pay $70 per thousand for a Harvard game because the audience demographics but only $45 per thousand for Michigan or Nebraska or Alabama.

You now know exactly what Alabama is worth compared to Mississippi State or USC compared to Washington State.

With the variety of delivery methods, USC no longer needs the Pac-12 to sell their TV rights and if they don't need the Pac-12 to sell those rights, they don't need to share the money with Washington State. USC may need the Pac-12 for schedule stability, assignment of officials, handing out awards, bowl and post-season opportunities but they don't need the Pac-12 to be in the TV rights business.

We forget that the SEC has only been in the TV rights business since 1995, thirty years when their current deal expires.

There will be no need to buy anyone out unless home games against them consistently perform poorly in generating income.
04-18-2013 09:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ChrisLords Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,639
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 336
I Root For: Virginia Tech
Location: Earth
Post: #29
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 02:24 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Any small-market school would be nuts to give up a good thing.

But the other members of the conference could decide to leave and start a new conference, ala WAC --> MWC.

I was thinking CUSA --> the American.
04-18-2013 09:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJRedMan Offline
Tasted It

Posts: 8,017
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 241
I Root For: St. Johns
Location: Where the Brooklyn @
Post: #30
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 09:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Let's say its about a decade in the future, far and away the majority of TV's in the country are connected to the internet. ESPN isn't just a channel on your cable, it is also an app on your TV that has real-time stats updated at the bottom of the screen or is scrolling scores and if it shows the score of a game being shown on an ESPN channel you can click it and switch to that game or it is showing tweets or facebook posts about the game you are watching. When the ads roll up if you see a Pizza Hut ad you can click on it and order a pizza to be delivered to your house or order tickets to the movie being advertised.

The data about users will allow selective ad placement on the app. You searched for airline tickets, you get a Delta ad. You get an ad for a Chevy Silverado but your neighbor gets a Camaro ad, and your kid watching in college gets an ad for the Chevy Spark.

If you are willing to pay, you can watch every FBS game and most FCS, Division II and III games.

In this environment advertisers are no longer paying for the expected audience, they pay for the actual audience. The advertiser might pay $70 per thousand for a Harvard game because the audience demographics but only $45 per thousand for Michigan or Nebraska or Alabama.

You now know exactly what Alabama is worth compared to Mississippi State or USC compared to Washington State.

With the variety of delivery methods, USC no longer needs the Pac-12 to sell their TV rights and if they don't need the Pac-12 to sell those rights, they don't need to share the money with Washington State. USC may need the Pac-12 for schedule stability, assignment of officials, handing out awards, bowl and post-season opportunities but they don't need the Pac-12 to be in the TV rights business.

We forget that the SEC has only been in the TV rights business since 1995, thirty years when their current deal expires.

There will be no need to buy anyone out unless home games against them consistently perform poorly in generating income.

I don't think conferences go bye bye because TV and AD money changes.
04-18-2013 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lolly Popp Offline
Magically Delicious
*

Posts: 2,425
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 82
I Root For: Football
Location: Endzone
Post: #31
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 09:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Football only members are like golf only members in your world?

If you honestly think that, I'm pretty sure that you are the only person in America to have that view.

Please don't argue for the sake of arguing. The point is that it's easy for a conference to kick out a single sport member but almost impossible to kick out a full member. UConn was lined up to replace Temple in the Big East and all it took was a simple vote to boot the Owls. If hypothetically Syracuse had fallen out of favor with the league, however, it would have been just about impossible to boot the Orange unless a scandal on the level of SMU or PSU had taken place, and even those two programs did not get kicked out of their leagues, despite a ton of critics demanding it.
04-18-2013 11:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJRedMan Offline
Tasted It

Posts: 8,017
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 241
I Root For: St. Johns
Location: Where the Brooklyn @
Post: #32
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 11:20 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 09:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Football only members are like golf only members in your world?

If you honestly think that, I'm pretty sure that you are the only person in America to have that view.

Please don't argue for the sake of arguing. The point is that it's easy for a conference to kick out a single sport member but almost impossible to kick out a full member. UConn was lined up to replace Temple in the Big East and all it took was a simple vote to boot the Owls. If hypothetically Syracuse had fallen out of favor with the league, however, it would have been just about impossible to boot the Orange unless a scandal on the level of SMU or PSU had taken place, and even those two programs did not get kicked out of their leagues, despite a ton of critics demanding it.

No, UConn was not lined up to take Temples place. In 1997 the Big East gave UConn and Nova the opportunity to upgrade their programs to D1 status and join the Big East for FB. UConn accepted and Nova declined. It wasn't until a few years later that the discussion of Temples membership cam into question.
04-18-2013 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 11:20 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 09:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Football only members are like golf only members in your world?

If you honestly think that, I'm pretty sure that you are the only person in America to have that view.

Please don't argue for the sake of arguing. The point is that it's easy for a conference to kick out a single sport member but almost impossible to kick out a full member. UConn was lined up to replace Temple in the Big East and all it took was a simple vote to boot the Owls. If hypothetically Syracuse had fallen out of favor with the league, however, it would have been just about impossible to boot the Orange unless a scandal on the level of SMU or PSU had taken place, and even those two programs did not get kicked out of their leagues, despite a ton of critics demanding it.

There is zero evidence to substantiate any of that. Temple fell out because their revenue and their expenses were laughably low. Rutgers was next on the chopping block, and the only thing that saved them was that they were marginally better than Temple and the BIG EAST only had the stomach to bounce one team at that time. However, look at RU's athletic budget (especially football) after that point in time. I think that it's more than chance that RU started dipping heavily into student fees to get their athletic dept. back in line (more os than any school in the nation, I believe). Spending like the did and using money that they didn't really have is a bold move for a school that doesn't have a very real fear of getting bumped down into the mid-majors. I wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing. You compared football to swimming and golf. That is a ridiculous comparison.

'01-'02 BIG EAST FOOTBALL REVENUE
WVU - 11.8 mill (6th)
RU - 4.7 mill (7th)
Temple - 3.7 mill (8th)

See that drop off? That's why RU and Temple were on the chopping block and that extra million saved RU. RU's basketball program isn't what kept them in the conference. If anything, it's a liability.

http://subscription.techsideline.com/tsl...012002.htm
04-18-2013 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJRedMan Offline
Tasted It

Posts: 8,017
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 241
I Root For: St. Johns
Location: Where the Brooklyn @
Post: #34
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 11:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 11:20 PM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 09:07 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Football only members are like golf only members in your world?

If you honestly think that, I'm pretty sure that you are the only person in America to have that view.

Please don't argue for the sake of arguing. The point is that it's easy for a conference to kick out a single sport member but almost impossible to kick out a full member. UConn was lined up to replace Temple in the Big East and all it took was a simple vote to boot the Owls. If hypothetically Syracuse had fallen out of favor with the league, however, it would have been just about impossible to boot the Orange unless a scandal on the level of SMU or PSU had taken place, and even those two programs did not get kicked out of their leagues, despite a ton of critics demanding it.

There is zero evidence to substantiate any of that. Temple fell out because their revenue and their expenses were laughably low. Rutgers was next on the chopping block, and the only thing that saved them was that they were marginally better than Temple and the BIG EAST only had the stomach to bounce one team at that time. However, look at RU's athletic budget (especially football) after that point in time. I think that it's more than chance that RU started dipping heavily into student fees to get their athletic dept. back in line (more os than any school in the nation, I believe). Spending like the did and using money that they didn't really have is a bold move for a school that doesn't have a very real fear of getting bumped down into the mid-majors. I wasn't arguing for the sake of arguing. You compared football to swimming and golf. That is a ridiculous comparison.

'01-'02 BIG EAST FOOTBALL REVENUE
WVU - 11.8 mill (6th)
RU - 4.7 mill (7th)
Temple - 3.7 mill (8th)

See that drop off? That's why RU and Temple were on the chopping block and that extra million saved RU. RU's basketball program isn't what kept them in the conference. If anything, it's a liability.

http://subscription.techsideline.com/tsl...012002.htm

Thats not entirely true either. Rutgers was a full member then a a large state university compared to Temple who is a smaller city school.
04-18-2013 11:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-18-2013 11:53 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Thats not entirely true either. Rutgers was a full member then a a large state university compared to Temple who is a smaller city school.

I don't think that I ever said anything to the contrary, but if I did, then I take it back.
04-19-2013 12:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJRedMan Offline
Tasted It

Posts: 8,017
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 241
I Root For: St. Johns
Location: Where the Brooklyn @
Post: #36
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 12:13 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 11:53 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Thats not entirely true either. Rutgers was a full member then a a large state university compared to Temple who is a smaller city school.

I don't think that I ever said anything to the contrary, but if I did, then I take it back.

Well you said Rutgers was next on the chopping block and i was just pointing out how they most likely were not. Did they see what happened to Temple and got their chit together? Sure. Were they actually up for being booted? Not really.
04-19-2013 12:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 12:15 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  
(04-19-2013 12:13 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 11:53 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Thats not entirely true either. Rutgers was a full member then a a large state university compared to Temple who is a smaller city school.

I don't think that I ever said anything to the contrary, but if I did, then I take it back.

Well you said Rutgers was next on the chopping block and i was just pointing out how they most likely were not. Did they see what happened to Temple and got their chit together? Sure. Were they actually up for being booted? Not really.

You do know that there was a vote, right? Had Syracuse voted against them, they would have been kicked. The vote was that close. So yes, they were actually up for being booted.

**EDIT**
Obviously we weren't the only deciding vote, but we were one of them. Also, the votes obviously weren't public, but that's the rumor, anyway.
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2013 12:22 AM by nzmorange.)
04-19-2013 12:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJRedMan Offline
Tasted It

Posts: 8,017
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 241
I Root For: St. Johns
Location: Where the Brooklyn @
Post: #38
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 12:20 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-19-2013 12:15 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  
(04-19-2013 12:13 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(04-18-2013 11:53 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Thats not entirely true either. Rutgers was a full member then a a large state university compared to Temple who is a smaller city school.

I don't think that I ever said anything to the contrary, but if I did, then I take it back.

Well you said Rutgers was next on the chopping block and i was just pointing out how they most likely were not. Did they see what happened to Temple and got their chit together? Sure. Were they actually up for being booted? Not really.

You do know that there was a vote, right? Had Syracuse voted against them, they would have been kicked. The vote was that close. So yes, they were actually up for being booted.

**EDIT**
Obviously we weren't the only deciding vote, but we were one of them. Also, the votes obviously weren't public, but that's the rumor, anyway.

Link to this vote?
04-19-2013 12:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
(04-19-2013 12:39 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Link to this vote?

I'll give you one in about 6 months. Unfortunately everything involving RU and conference realignment has been buried by the Big EAST implosion and RU's move to the BIG TEN. Once things settle down again, it will be findable without having to sift through a couple hundred pages of "RU and UMD to B1G" and "'C7' to break from BIG EAST." Some Temple fans are still upset about it, though. It pops up on their boards from time to time. (Obviously they think that RU should have been the one to go down)

Until then, you will have to either blindly believe me, or remain a skeptic.
04-19-2013 12:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #40
RE: Buyout existing conference member?
If this opening posts premises is valid then schools on this bubble are:

SEC
Kentucky (basketball currently saving their @ss)
Vanderbilt
Mississippi State

Big 10
Northwestern
Purdue

ACC
Wake Forest

Big 12
Baylor
Kansas State
Iowa State


PAC 12
Washington State
Oregon State
Arizona State
California

The problem is replacing them with somebody that's better. 07-coffee3
04-19-2013 06:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.