(11-08-2015 11:28 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Do people reading this board comprehend that ESPN's business model may be failing and that conference networks as we now know them may fail too?

ESPN has prospered because every cable outfit HAD to pay ESPN a monthly fee for each cable subscriber whether that subscriber wanted ESPN or not. Too many cable subscribers have been too interested in ESPN's programming for cable operators to say no to ESPN.

There are plenty of cable subscribers who have no interest in ESPN. Far more cable subscribers have no interest in paying for a conference network since, in general, they only offer 3rd rate programming but ESPN has been able to cram the conference networks down the throats of cable outfits. The deal for cable operators has been: either pay more to carry the conference network or you can't carry ESPN at all.

People are now cutting the cord. Fewer and fewer people have cable TV. They opt for online TV access. This trend is just going to accelerate. This directly reduces ESPN's revenues and lessens ESPN's bargaining power with cable outfits.

We're heading towards cafeteria style TV access. Whether they get access via a cable outfit or directly over the internet, people will buy only what they want and few will be willing to pay a significant monthly fee for access to a conference network with 3rd rate programming. Whatever advantage that the B1G and SEC have now from their conference networks may diminish greatly over the next few years.

So what you're saying is rumors of $40M/year may be greatly exaggerated?
All five P5's may top out at nearly the same amount? That the goose who lays the golden eggs is already cooked?

"Hokie" Mark, if you use a long-enough timeframe, you can reach virtually any number. That's the beauty of inflation.

(11-11-2015 03:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  "Hokie" Mark, if you use a long-enough timeframe, you can reach virtually any number. That's the beauty of inflation.

Inflation is beautiful when you OWE money; when you have money in the bank, not so much. Which is why I don't have a problem with it...

(11-11-2015 03:05 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 03:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  "Hokie" Mark, if you use a long-enough timeframe, you can reach virtually any number. That's the beauty of inflation.

Inflation is beautiful when you OWE money; when you have money in the bank, not so much. Which is why I don't have a problem with it...

I think that you missed what I was saying. Inflation lets you throw out any number you want as an earnings number, so long as A) you pick a long-enough timeframe, B) last that long, and C) hold relatively constant in real dollars.

$22 mm/yr * (1.01 * 1.02)^15 = ~$35 mm year 15 ending payout, assuming 2% inflation, 1% population growth, and steady sales. Additionally, increasing the number of years to 20 will increase the ending year payout to be ~$40 mm. The conference isn't and better or worse off, but I found a way to get earnings to $40 mm.

FWIW, the fed has provided forward guidance indicating that it aims to have a long term inflation rate of 2%, and US population growth is usually around 1%. Those factors combine to make 3% the commonly accepted long term US GDP growth rate. The $22 mm is a guess as to what the B1G is making this year, and the 15-20 years is my guess as to the difference between this year and the end of their next (i.e. after the current one) contract cycle.

Rumors of $40m? "Rumors"?

(11-11-2015 02:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 11:28 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Do people reading this board comprehend that ESPN's business model may be failing and that conference networks as we now know them may fail too?

ESPN has prospered because every cable outfit HAD to pay ESPN a monthly fee for each cable subscriber whether that subscriber wanted ESPN or not. Too many cable subscribers have been too interested in ESPN's programming for cable operators to say no to ESPN.

There are plenty of cable subscribers who have no interest in ESPN. Far more cable subscribers have no interest in paying for a conference network since, in general, they only offer 3rd rate programming but ESPN has been able to cram the conference networks down the throats of cable outfits. The deal for cable operators has been: either pay more to carry the conference network or you can't carry ESPN at all.

People are now cutting the cord. Fewer and fewer people have cable TV. They opt for online TV access. This trend is just going to accelerate. This directly reduces ESPN's revenues and lessens ESPN's bargaining power with cable outfits.

We're heading towards cafeteria style TV access. Whether they get access via a cable outfit or directly over the internet, people will buy only what they want and few will be willing to pay a significant monthly fee for access to a conference network with 3rd rate programming. Whatever advantage that the B1G and SEC have now from their conference networks may diminish greatly over the next few years.

So what you're saying is rumors of $40M/year may be greatly exaggerated?
All five P5's may top out at nearly the same amount? That the goose who lays the golden eggs is already cooked?

Let's assume that Hall City is correct. If it becomes a cafeteria model what the heck do you think that ACC football would be worth? Content becomes king in the new model and people will pay for compelling match ups every week if they are football fans. At that point there is no incentive for Clemson and Florida State to stay on board, Virginia Tech would likely have a decision to make as well.

The Big 10 would have to make a huge decision. Do we drop our AAU requirement and go after brands? IMO that is part of why they are willing to take Oklahoma. They aren't AAU. It is also why the would go after Virginia Tech.

The SEC would remain on top in your new world of cafeteria sales. Why? Content. In that world the Big 10 and SEC would start to expand again but they would be bidding for brands. Schools like Clemson and Florida State would have some decisions to make. As long as the SEC was close in money they probably would head there. Regional play, ease of access for the fan base and key rivals would be the determining factors. It is in that world that West Virginia could indeed be a part of the Big 10.

Notre Dame would have some decisions to make as well. If they think they feel pressure now because of possible future conference tie ins to the CFP, in a cafeteria world all that would be needed to force their membership in a conference would be the refusal to schedule them by the Big 10 and SEC. With more brands from the Big 12 and ACC leaving for one of the top two conferences the Irish would be doomed as independents.

So I find a lot of this speculation premature, in that the death of cable will take a little time. But in 7 to 10 years yeah this could happen. But if it does the football first schools will be even bigger winners, the fans will get solid matches every week, the G5 will no longer be scheduled, weaker P5 schools will be out as their conferences are stripped of football brands and two conferences will likely emerge, only they will be large enough to be leagues.

Chew that over and then ask yourselves is this what I want to happen for the sake of schools like Pitt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and others who don't want to pump 125 million a year into their football programs? Then add T.C.U., Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Texas Tech, Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado, and possibly Utah to that list.

Cafeteria means most popular, most competitive, and all in for pigskin. I think there will be many many folks yearning for the brief but great days of promise for conference network models.

The Big 10 and SEC may be natural rivals but we have a great deal in common. We both have rabid fan bases who are primarily interested in only a few men's sports, football, basketball, and baseball in the South and sub hockey for baseball in the North. We have large fan bases. We have national audiences. And we will spend what it takes. When that happens there will never be a level playing field in athletics for 65 schools again, let alone a hundred plus. It will be more like the top 36 to 40 who make it. So think hard about which future you want.

(11-11-2015 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 02:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 11:28 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Do people reading this board comprehend that ESPN's business model may be failing and that conference networks as we now know them may fail too?

ESPN has prospered because every cable outfit HAD to pay ESPN a monthly fee for each cable subscriber whether that subscriber wanted ESPN or not. Too many cable subscribers have been too interested in ESPN's programming for cable operators to say no to ESPN.

There are plenty of cable subscribers who have no interest in ESPN. Far more cable subscribers have no interest in paying for a conference network since, in general, they only offer 3rd rate programming but ESPN has been able to cram the conference networks down the throats of cable outfits. The deal for cable operators has been: either pay more to carry the conference network or you can't carry ESPN at all.

People are now cutting the cord. Fewer and fewer people have cable TV. They opt for online TV access. This trend is just going to accelerate. This directly reduces ESPN's revenues and lessens ESPN's bargaining power with cable outfits.

We're heading towards cafeteria style TV access. Whether they get access via a cable outfit or directly over the internet, people will buy only what they want and few will be willing to pay a significant monthly fee for access to a conference network with 3rd rate programming. Whatever advantage that the B1G and SEC have now from their conference networks may diminish greatly over the next few years.

So what you're saying is rumors of $40M/year may be greatly exaggerated?
All five P5's may top out at nearly the same amount? That the goose who lays the golden eggs is already cooked?

Let's assume that Hall City is correct. If it becomes a cafeteria model what the heck do you think that ACC football would be worth? Content becomes king in the new model and people will pay for compelling match ups every week if they are football fans. At that point there is no incentive for Clemson and Florida State to stay on board, Virginia Tech would likely have a decision to make as well.

The Big 10 would have to make a huge decision. Do we drop our AAU requirement and go after brands? IMO that is part of why they are willing to take Oklahoma. They aren't AAU. It is also why the would go after Virginia Tech.

The SEC would remain on top in your new world of cafeteria sales. Why? Content. In that world the Big 10 and SEC would start to expand again but they would be bidding for brands. Schools like Clemson and Florida State would have some decisions to make. As long as the SEC was close in money they probably would head there. Regional play, ease of access for the fan base and key rivals would be the determining factors. It is in that world that West Virginia could indeed be a part of the Big 10.

Notre Dame would have some decisions to make as well. If they think they feel pressure now because of possible future conference tie ins to the CFP, in a cafeteria world all that would be needed to force their membership in a conference would be the refusal to schedule them by the Big 10 and SEC. With more brands from the Big 12 and ACC leaving for one of the top two conferences the Irish would be doomed as independents.

So I find a lot of this speculation premature, in that the death of cable will take a little time. But in 7 to 10 years yeah this could happen. But if it does the football first schools will be even bigger winners, the fans will get solid matches every week, the G5 will no longer be scheduled, weaker P5 schools will be out as their conferences are stripped of football brands and two conferences will likely emerge, only they will be large enough to be leagues.

Chew that over and then ask yourselves is this what I want to happen for the sake of schools like Pitt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and others who don't want to pump 125 million a year into their football programs? Then add T.C.U., Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Texas Tech, Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado, and possibly Utah to that list.

Cafeteria means most popular, most competitive, and all in for pigskin. I think there will be many many folks yearning for the brief but great days of promise for conference network models.

The Big 10 and SEC may be natural rivals but we have a great deal in common. We both have rabid fan bases who are primarily interested in only a few men's sports, football, basketball, and baseball in the South and sub hockey for baseball in the North. We have large fan bases. We have national audiences. And we will spend what it takes. When that happens there will never be a level playing field in athletics for 65 schools again, let alone a hundred plus. It will be more like the top 36 to 40 who make it. So think hard about which future you want.

I never get the whole cutting the cord explanation that is going to cause the B1G & SEC trouble. The reason they have networks is because they have the most following. Do we really believe they can't translate that interest into revenues whether its a cable/satellite or alacarte?

Although, I do believe the alacarte argument is overblown. If Fox owns the BTN & YES do you not think they will find a way to bundle those together to leverage their profits or ESPN & the SECN.

I don't get some of these arguments.

(11-12-2015 12:58 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 02:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 11:28 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Do people reading this board comprehend that ESPN's business model may be failing and that conference networks as we now know them may fail too?

ESPN has prospered because every cable outfit HAD to pay ESPN a monthly fee for each cable subscriber whether that subscriber wanted ESPN or not. Too many cable subscribers have been too interested in ESPN's programming for cable operators to say no to ESPN.

There are plenty of cable subscribers who have no interest in ESPN. Far more cable subscribers have no interest in paying for a conference network since, in general, they only offer 3rd rate programming but ESPN has been able to cram the conference networks down the throats of cable outfits. The deal for cable operators has been: either pay more to carry the conference network or you can't carry ESPN at all.

People are now cutting the cord. Fewer and fewer people have cable TV. They opt for online TV access. This trend is just going to accelerate. This directly reduces ESPN's revenues and lessens ESPN's bargaining power with cable outfits.

We're heading towards cafeteria style TV access. Whether they get access via a cable outfit or directly over the internet, people will buy only what they want and few will be willing to pay a significant monthly fee for access to a conference network with 3rd rate programming. Whatever advantage that the B1G and SEC have now from their conference networks may diminish greatly over the next few years.

So what you're saying is rumors of $40M/year may be greatly exaggerated?
All five P5's may top out at nearly the same amount? That the goose who lays the golden eggs is already cooked?

Let's assume that Hall City is correct. If it becomes a cafeteria model what the heck do you think that ACC football would be worth? Content becomes king in the new model and people will pay for compelling match ups every week if they are football fans. At that point there is no incentive for Clemson and Florida State to stay on board, Virginia Tech would likely have a decision to make as well.

The Big 10 would have to make a huge decision. Do we drop our AAU requirement and go after brands? IMO that is part of why they are willing to take Oklahoma. They aren't AAU. It is also why the would go after Virginia Tech.

The SEC would remain on top in your new world of cafeteria sales. Why? Content. In that world the Big 10 and SEC would start to expand again but they would be bidding for brands. Schools like Clemson and Florida State would have some decisions to make. As long as the SEC was close in money they probably would head there. Regional play, ease of access for the fan base and key rivals would be the determining factors. It is in that world that West Virginia could indeed be a part of the Big 10.

Notre Dame would have some decisions to make as well. If they think they feel pressure now because of possible future conference tie ins to the CFP, in a cafeteria world all that would be needed to force their membership in a conference would be the refusal to schedule them by the Big 10 and SEC. With more brands from the Big 12 and ACC leaving for one of the top two conferences the Irish would be doomed as independents.

So I find a lot of this speculation premature, in that the death of cable will take a little time. But in 7 to 10 years yeah this could happen. But if it does the football first schools will be even bigger winners, the fans will get solid matches every week, the G5 will no longer be scheduled, weaker P5 schools will be out as their conferences are stripped of football brands and two conferences will likely emerge, only they will be large enough to be leagues.

Chew that over and then ask yourselves is this what I want to happen for the sake of schools like Pitt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and others who don't want to pump 125 million a year into their football programs? Then add T.C.U., Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Texas Tech, Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado, and possibly Utah to that list.

Cafeteria means most popular, most competitive, and all in for pigskin. I think there will be many many folks yearning for the brief but great days of promise for conference network models.

The Big 10 and SEC may be natural rivals but we have a great deal in common. We both have rabid fan bases who are primarily interested in only a few men's sports, football, basketball, and baseball in the South and sub hockey for baseball in the North. We have large fan bases. We have national audiences. And we will spend what it takes. When that happens there will never be a level playing field in athletics for 65 schools again, let alone a hundred plus. It will be more like the top 36 to 40 who make it. So think hard about which future you want.

I never get the whole cutting the cord explanation that is going to cause the B1G & SEC trouble. The reason they have networks is because they have the most following. Do we really believe they can't translate that interest into revenues whether its a cable/satellite or alacarte?

Although, I do believe the alacarte argument is overblown. If Fox owns the BTN & YES do you not think they will find a way to bundle those together to leverage their profits or ESPN & the SECN.

I don't get some of these arguments.

What they really don't get is that in an alacarte model it's the Ohio State's, Alabama's, Texas's, Oklahoma's, Florida's, and U.S.C.'s of the world that will make a lot more money because they being in that top 36 to 40 schools get a reduction of 24 to 28 that they have to share it with. They could actually have the total value of contracts drop from where they are today and still have their take go up. Significantly less mouths to feed will do that. Then see what the networks really want to pay Wake, Baylor, Wash St, Oregon St, Duke, etc. for football.

Like I said if they don't totally commit to all out funding and competition in football they may as well forget about enhancing revenue with that sport at their schools. If they aren't part of the must see competition in an alacarte market then they won't be worth the networks time to broadcast.

(11-11-2015 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 02:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 11:28 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Do people reading this board comprehend that ESPN's business model may be failing and that conference networks as we now know them may fail too?

ESPN has prospered because every cable outfit HAD to pay ESPN a monthly fee for each cable subscriber whether that subscriber wanted ESPN or not. Too many cable subscribers have been too interested in ESPN's programming for cable operators to say no to ESPN.

There are plenty of cable subscribers who have no interest in ESPN. Far more cable subscribers have no interest in paying for a conference network since, in general, they only offer 3rd rate programming but ESPN has been able to cram the conference networks down the throats of cable outfits. The deal for cable operators has been: either pay more to carry the conference network or you can't carry ESPN at all.

People are now cutting the cord. Fewer and fewer people have cable TV. They opt for online TV access. This trend is just going to accelerate. This directly reduces ESPN's revenues and lessens ESPN's bargaining power with cable outfits.

We're heading towards cafeteria style TV access. Whether they get access via a cable outfit or directly over the internet, people will buy only what they want and few will be willing to pay a significant monthly fee for access to a conference network with 3rd rate programming. Whatever advantage that the B1G and SEC have now from their conference networks may diminish greatly over the next few years.

So what you're saying is rumors of $40M/year may be greatly exaggerated?
All five P5's may top out at nearly the same amount? That the goose who lays the golden eggs is already cooked?

Let's assume that Hall City is correct. If it becomes a cafeteria model what the heck do you think that ACC football would be worth? Content becomes king in the new model and people will pay for compelling match ups every week if they are football fans. At that point there is no incentive for Clemson and Florida State to stay on board, Virginia Tech would likely have a decision to make as well.

The Big 10 would have to make a huge decision. Do we drop our AAU requirement and go after brands? IMO that is part of why they are willing to take Oklahoma. They aren't AAU. It is also why the would go after Virginia Tech.

The SEC would remain on top in your new world of cafeteria sales. Why? Content. In that world the Big 10 and SEC would start to expand again but they would be bidding for brands. Schools like Clemson and Florida State would have some decisions to make. As long as the SEC was close in money they probably would head there. Regional play, ease of access for the fan base and key rivals would be the determining factors. It is in that world that West Virginia could indeed be a part of the Big 10.

Notre Dame would have some decisions to make as well. If they think they feel pressure now because of possible future conference tie ins to the CFP, in a cafeteria world all that would be needed to force their membership in a conference would be the refusal to schedule them by the Big 10 and SEC. With more brands from the Big 12 and ACC leaving for one of the top two conferences the Irish would be doomed as independents.

So I find a lot of this speculation premature, in that the death of cable will take a little time. But in 7 to 10 years yeah this could happen. But if it does the football first schools will be even bigger winners, the fans will get solid matches every week, the G5 will no longer be scheduled, weaker P5 schools will be out as their conferences are stripped of football brands and two conferences will likely emerge, only they will be large enough to be leagues.

Chew that over and then ask yourselves is this what I want to happen for the sake of schools like Pitt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and others who don't want to pump 125 million a year into their football programs? Then add T.C.U., Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Texas Tech, Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado, and possibly Utah to that list.

Cafeteria means most popular, most competitive, and all in for pigskin. I think there will be many many folks yearning for the brief but great days of promise for conference network models.

The Big 10 and SEC may be natural rivals but we have a great deal in common. We both have rabid fan bases who are primarily interested in only a few men's sports, football, basketball, and baseball in the South and sub hockey for baseball in the North. We have large fan bases. We have national audiences. And we will spend what it takes. When that happens there will never be a level playing field in athletics for 65 schools again, let alone a hundred plus. It will be more like the top 36 to 40 who make it. So think hard about which future you want.

Wow, that is some Dude of WV type stuff. WVU in the B1G?lol. 2 mega conferences with only 30-40 teams? College sports would be dead the day that happened, which is why it won't. What is far more likely is that conferences adapt to the changing landscape along with their TV partners and finds ways to maximize revenue through other online/digital channels. Conferences that have been around 50+ years aren't just going to evaporate and put all other sports at the expense of one. You do realize how incredibly dumb it would be to watch the same, lets say 40 teams play each other over and over? The W/L records would be meaningless, because, well, someone has to lose. And the overwhelming majority of B1G and SEC fans would hate that setup overall.

(11-11-2015 07:38 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Rumors of $40m? "Rumors"?

Both the Big Ten and SEC already make well over $30M/year.

Both did that last year while receiving $0 from the Rose/Sugar Bowls. The Big Ten did it last year prior to their upcoming first tier tv rights negotiations and in the 1st year of UMD/Rutgers as part of the conference (expanded BTN) and BTN negotiations. The SEC did it during its first year of the SECN while paying millions in SECN start-up expenses that will be coming off the books either this year or the coming few.

But do tell me they aren't encroaching on $40M. Tell me they're just rumors. Whatever makes you dopes happy.

(11-12-2015 12:58 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  I never get the whole cutting the cord explanation that is going to cause the B1G & SEC trouble. The reason they have networks is because they have the most following. Do we really believe they can't translate that interest into revenues whether its a cable/satellite or alacarte?

Although, I do believe the alacarte argument is overblown. If Fox owns the BTN & YES do you not think they will find a way to bundle those together to leverage their profits or ESPN & the SECN.

I don't get some of these arguments.

1. Conferences with networks have the most market risk exposure. 15% of subscribers could drop cable tomorrow, but the ACC would get paid the same. The SEC/B1G/Pac, however, would eat that 15% drop. Conversely, there could be a 15% spike, and the ACC would get paid the same, and the other conferences would enjoy the spike. In the long run, it would balance out (kind of), but there are timing differences. However, as a caveat, it's worth clarifying that I said "kind of" because a de-escalation of NCAA athletics (i.e. there being less money in media rights) adversely affects the conferences prospering under the current paradigm more that the other conferences. In other words, the spread between the rich and the poor shrinks, so the richest conferences (the B1G and the SEC) lose the most - both relatively and in the absolute.

2. Bundling can destroy value (i.e. imagine two products that typically sell for very different costs that have mutually-exclusive ownership groups), and it can be done without mutual ownership (i.e. McDonald's "Happy Meals" and Disney toys in the 90's). Regardless, YES would take home an approximation of the value that they add to the deal. The BTN wouldn't get a free lunch.

Reality Check: when we toss out Rose / Sugar Bowl money, keep in mind that amounts to $2.86M per team 2 out of 3 years (or an average of $1.90M per year). Compare that to Orange Bowl payouts of $1.96M per team 2 of 3 years, for an average of $1.31M per year - a difference of $590K per year.

That's all... carry on!

"Keep in mind".. that has nothing to do with both conferences encroaching on $40m, which you deny is happening.

Smh at you people.

(11-12-2015 03:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  "Keep in mind".. that has nothing to do with both conferences encroaching on $40m, which you deny is happening.

Smh at you people.

You people????

(11-12-2015 03:58 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 03:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  "Keep in mind".. that has nothing to do with both conferences encroaching on $40m, which you deny is happening.

Smh at you people.

You people????

+1

lol

Marge,
this board never will never clearly accept or deny....always just a very wordy debate where no one takes a position. Or just a denial of reality.


The revenue gap that is coming will never be admitted and IF it is, folks here will argue that revenue doesn't matter.....then in same breath will argue the revenue that doesn't matter MUST be split equally (but it doesn't matter.......?).

I will speak for myself here.

I know there is a revenue gap and I know it will continue unless the ACC comes up with some ingenious ways to slow the bleeding. What I am not sure of is the impact. I look at a team like Clemson. They aren't even in the top half of the ACC in terms of revenue yet they have built one of the strongest football programs. It's not just about how much money you make, you have to spend it wisely to see the true benefits.

(11-12-2015 04:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I will speak for myself here.

I know there is a revenue gap and I know it will continue unless the ACC comes up with some ingenious ways to slow the bleeding. What I am not sure of is the impact. I look at a team like Clemson. They aren't even in the top half of the ACC in terms of revenue yet they have built one of the strongest football programs. It's not just about how much money you make, you have to spend it wisely to see the true benefits.

So let's have revenue rewards for those in football/bball who bring in the $$$ and reward them being efficient.

If Clemson makes playoff this year....give them 10% of the take BEFORE the equal split of the revenue.

They earned it....everyone still gets revenue....reward the team that produces.

Seems reasonable to me.....and if revenue is not that critical like you argue and so many here argue....doesn't seem like you would be against it.

(11-12-2015 04:46 PM)nole Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 04:35 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I will speak for myself here.

I know there is a revenue gap and I know it will continue unless the ACC comes up with some ingenious ways to slow the bleeding. What I am not sure of is the impact. I look at a team like Clemson. They aren't even in the top half of the ACC in terms of revenue yet they have built one of the strongest football programs. It's not just about how much money you make, you have to spend it wisely to see the true benefits.

So let's have revenue rewards for those in football/bball who bring in the $$$ and reward them being efficient.

If Clemson makes playoff this year....give them 10% of the take BEFORE the equal split of the revenue.

They earned it....everyone still gets revenue....reward the team that produces.

Seems reasonable to me.....and if revenue is not that critical like you argue and so many here argue....doesn't seem like you would be against it.

I'm not against it, but I'm not the one you have to convince. How does Wake feel, or BC, or Syracuse? Changing the revenue sharing model has to be voted on by the member institutions. If I remember correctly, they discussed this about 2 years ago and I thought they were changing it

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...story.html

This story talks about three things:

----First, the conference will designate more money to bowl-bound schools to cover travel expenses to the game.

----Second, bowl ticket obligations will likely be centralized in the league office rather than handled by individual schools. That way, if any school(s) do not sell their allotment, the ACC will pay the remainder from the postseason pool.

---Third, teams that win the ACC championship and/or qualify for the new college football playoff could receive significant bonuses from the revenue pool before the remainder is shared evenly among the membership

(11-12-2015 08:41 AM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 10:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 02:38 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-08-2015 11:28 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Do people reading this board comprehend that ESPN's business model may be failing and that conference networks as we now know them may fail too?

ESPN has prospered because every cable outfit HAD to pay ESPN a monthly fee for each cable subscriber whether that subscriber wanted ESPN or not. Too many cable subscribers have been too interested in ESPN's programming for cable operators to say no to ESPN.

There are plenty of cable subscribers who have no interest in ESPN. Far more cable subscribers have no interest in paying for a conference network since, in general, they only offer 3rd rate programming but ESPN has been able to cram the conference networks down the throats of cable outfits. The deal for cable operators has been: either pay more to carry the conference network or you can't carry ESPN at all.

People are now cutting the cord. Fewer and fewer people have cable TV. They opt for online TV access. This trend is just going to accelerate. This directly reduces ESPN's revenues and lessens ESPN's bargaining power with cable outfits.

We're heading towards cafeteria style TV access. Whether they get access via a cable outfit or directly over the internet, people will buy only what they want and few will be willing to pay a significant monthly fee for access to a conference network with 3rd rate programming. Whatever advantage that the B1G and SEC have now from their conference networks may diminish greatly over the next few years.

So what you're saying is rumors of $40M/year may be greatly exaggerated?
All five P5's may top out at nearly the same amount? That the goose who lays the golden eggs is already cooked?

Let's assume that Hall City is correct. If it becomes a cafeteria model what the heck do you think that ACC football would be worth? Content becomes king in the new model and people will pay for compelling match ups every week if they are football fans. At that point there is no incentive for Clemson and Florida State to stay on board, Virginia Tech would likely have a decision to make as well.

The Big 10 would have to make a huge decision. Do we drop our AAU requirement and go after brands? IMO that is part of why they are willing to take Oklahoma. They aren't AAU. It is also why the would go after Virginia Tech.

The SEC would remain on top in your new world of cafeteria sales. Why? Content. In that world the Big 10 and SEC would start to expand again but they would be bidding for brands. Schools like Clemson and Florida State would have some decisions to make. As long as the SEC was close in money they probably would head there. Regional play, ease of access for the fan base and key rivals would be the determining factors. It is in that world that West Virginia could indeed be a part of the Big 10.

Notre Dame would have some decisions to make as well. If they think they feel pressure now because of possible future conference tie ins to the CFP, in a cafeteria world all that would be needed to force their membership in a conference would be the refusal to schedule them by the Big 10 and SEC. With more brands from the Big 12 and ACC leaving for one of the top two conferences the Irish would be doomed as independents.

So I find a lot of this speculation premature, in that the death of cable will take a little time. But in 7 to 10 years yeah this could happen. But if it does the football first schools will be even bigger winners, the fans will get solid matches every week, the G5 will no longer be scheduled, weaker P5 schools will be out as their conferences are stripped of football brands and two conferences will likely emerge, only they will be large enough to be leagues.

Chew that over and then ask yourselves is this what I want to happen for the sake of schools like Pitt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech and others who don't want to pump 125 million a year into their football programs? Then add T.C.U., Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Texas Tech, Washington State, Oregon State, Colorado, and possibly Utah to that list.

Cafeteria means most popular, most competitive, and all in for pigskin. I think there will be many many folks yearning for the brief but great days of promise for conference network models.

The Big 10 and SEC may be natural rivals but we have a great deal in common. We both have rabid fan bases who are primarily interested in only a few men's sports, football, basketball, and baseball in the South and sub hockey for baseball in the North. We have large fan bases. We have national audiences. And we will spend what it takes. When that happens there will never be a level playing field in athletics for 65 schools again, let alone a hundred plus. It will be more like the top 36 to 40 who make it. So think hard about which future you want.

Wow, that is some Dude of WV type stuff. WVU in the B1G?lol. 2 mega conferences with only 30-40 teams? College sports would be dead the day that happened, which is why it won't. What is far more likely is that conferences adapt to the changing landscape along with their TV partners and finds ways to maximize revenue through other online/digital channels. Conferences that have been around 50+ years aren't just going to evaporate and put all other sports at the expense of one. You do realize how incredibly dumb it would be to watch the same, lets say 40 teams play each other over and over? The W/L records would be meaningless, because, well, someone has to lose. And the overwhelming majority of B1G and SEC fans would hate that setup overall.

Reading comprehension much? I didn't say it would be good, good for the game, or popular. I merely pointed out that in a true alacarte market the most compelling will be the most viewed and in order to stay that competitive and compelling great sums would have to be spent. Furthermore in order to gain larger shares conferences would pursue brands, not markets. The division between those willing to spend what it takes now vs those who have ceilings they don't wish to exceed falls within the those positions between 35 to 45. As for paradigms if it turns to the most pay for the most compelling games then realignment will take a turn, for brands. AAU and branding doesn't exist much past Texas, Stanford, and U.S.C., right now and the Horns are pretty low on competitiveness at present. N.D., OU, and Va Tech are all non AAU. Should the Big 10 suspend that requirement in an effort to maximize sports revenue well then a bit of hyperbole about WVU is not entirely out of line now is it? To get more competitive in football the ACC took Louisville right?

In such a market Clemson and Florida State, who both are all in for football, would be compelled to find a better grossing home. The net effect for the ACC would be less causing others to leave and the dominoes will fall until those left have clearly opted not to be involved in the big dollars sports business. I'd say the ACC as a group already leans heavily in that direction. I seriously doubt that you could make then what you are making now. If you take those who feel the same way as Virginia Duke and North Carolina apparently do then the split between 36 to 40 schools would be about right.

Where I agree with you is that ultimately those remaining would have records approximating most NFL teams. A few games over .500 is a great year. And you are correct SEC and Big 10 fans won't like it. But if they get into the CFP and win they won't care as much. And those tough games that lead to more losses will likely play to houses closer to being packed than half baked, like Miami.