The ACC Network only recently obtained complete covered. Next years revenue will significantly increase.

Plus the ACC Network is still covering start up costs. There are more ACC Subs in Market than there are SEC.

They will be very close in revenue going forward from Conference Network Revenue. Obviously the SEC gets more National TV revenue.

(09-28-2022 03:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:11 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think you are on the right path John. Let me toss this out. Let's say the average value of those 4 schools to the Big 10 is 50 million each. It is not inconceivable that this value is close to the mark when you add those brands to that of the Big 10. The were after all making 32 averaging with lesser valued PAC schools and without the Big Ten brand. Placing them in the B1G could easily make each worth 18 million more commercially.

If you hold that thought, then 100 million simply makes them pro rata and Warren has an easier sell. They aren't hurting B1G payouts, and they will expand BTN profits, and with Amazon picking up the difference it opens a new opportunity, and helps to clear UCLA, eliminate overhead fears, and draw in the synergy of major West coast markets.

It's simple and workable.

The more I look at this, the more I think that the B1G Presidents are just plain afraid. They're waiting on the SEC to make the next move, just like they have for decades. Warren is trying to get them to be proactive, but it remains to be seen if he'll be successful or not.

I was wondering that myself. The Big Ten hasn't expanded to 12, then 14, then 16 until after the SEC did. The previous Big Ten expansions have largely been in response to SEC expansions. Heck, even the ACC got to 12 and 14 before the Big Ten did. The Big Ten taking the lead on enlarging conferences is unprecedented. First time for everything, I guess.

Penn St.? That was the first significant move in the post NCAA TV monopoly era. Lead to ACC and SEC expansion and the formation of the Big East football conference. And the Big 10 open exploration of expansion that lead to the Pac 16 idea and Nebraska joining really triggered SEC expansion to 14. Texas/OU to the SEC is really the first time the SEC has initiated a cycle.

Yeah - I don't buy that the Big Ten is waiting around for the SEC to make a move at all. The Big Ten is the one that has largely been ahead of the curve for realignment.

Now, the Big Ten presidents may very well be wary about the dynamics of managing a 20-team league and how to integrate 6 new members all at one time. There's an element that they may want to avoid the West Coast schools being their own separate geographic fiefdom from the get go, which would be a small "p" political reason to start with USC and UCLA and then wait to expand with more Western schools later on as opposed to now.

I would think they would be really wary of the dynamics of going beyond 20. I can't see them turning down Notre Dame if they wanted to join in the next 10-20 years, so if they go to 20 now, they are committing to moving beyond 20.

You wouldn't even play everyone in basketball, let alone football. At some point you need to have a hard talk about where you want to end up. Do you really want to be a 24-28 team TV alliance? Or do you want to remain a conference? At some point in the 18-24 team range you lose the conference and become an alliance.

There are things other than maximizing revenue. There is identity and long range stability. And realistically, there aren't many non-P2 schools that will increase per school revenue.

(09-28-2022 04:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:38 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:11 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  The more I look at this, the more I think that the B1G Presidents are just plain afraid. They're waiting on the SEC to make the next move, just like they have for decades. Warren is trying to get them to be proactive, but it remains to be seen if he'll be successful or not.

I was wondering that myself. The Big Ten hasn't expanded to 12, then 14, then 16 until after the SEC did. The previous Big Ten expansions have largely been in response to SEC expansions. Heck, even the ACC got to 12 and 14 before the Big Ten did. The Big Ten taking the lead on enlarging conferences is unprecedented. First time for everything, I guess.

Penn St.? That was the first significant move in the post NCAA TV monopoly era. Lead to ACC and SEC expansion and the formation of the Big East football conference. And the Big 10 open exploration of expansion that lead to the Pac 16 idea and Nebraska joining really triggered SEC expansion to 14. Texas/OU to the SEC is really the first time the SEC has initiated a cycle.

Yeah - I don't buy that the Big Ten is waiting around for the SEC to make a move at all. The Big Ten is the one that has largely been ahead of the curve for realignment.

Now, the Big Ten presidents may very well be wary about the dynamics of managing a 20-team league and how to integrate 6 new members all at one time. There's an element that they may want to avoid the West Coast schools being their own separate geographic fiefdom from the get go, which would be a small "p" political reason to start with USC and UCLA and then wait to expand with more Western schools later on as opposed to now.

I would think they would be really wary of the dynamics of going beyond 20. I can't see them turning down Notre Dame if they wanted to join in the next 10-20 years, so if they go to 20 now, they are committing to moving beyond 20.

You wouldn't even play everyone in basketball, let alone football. At some point you need to have a hard talk about where you want to end up. Do you really want to be a 24-28 team TV alliance? Or do you want to remain a conference? At some point in the 18-24 team range you lose the conference and become an alliance.

There are things other than maximizing revenue. There is identity and long range stability. And realistically, there aren't many non-P2 schools that will increase per school revenue.

I agree that at some point you become an alliance, but really the question is more about how many conference games are tolerable? At 20, 10 conference games means you are playing 1 rival every year and everyone else every other year. That would still feel like a conference.

At 24, 12 conference games means 1 rival every year, rotate 11.

It might work for the Big 10 where most rivalries are in conference, but wouldn't work for the SEC-ACC in-state matchups unless there was a 13th or even 14th game added. That would mean 14 games + conference semi + final + "wild card" week of the playoffs (the teams 5-12) + quarterfinals + semi's + championship - a total of 20 games for the champion.

Actually I think this gets closer to the P3.

I think the ACC will be next after the Pac 12. Pay of money to two remaining teams to kill GOR


B10
UNC or Duke
UVA
GT
FSU (Surprise pick, but I think B10 will want Florida Market)

SEC
UNC, Duke or NCSU
Clemson
VA Tech
Miami

Big 12
Louisville
Duke or NCSU
Syracuse
Pitt

Left Behind or head to AAC
Wake and BC

(09-28-2022 03:44 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I also think that the ACC properties stay with ESPN and the SEC, but in order to break free from the GOR, I wonder what financial deal can be reached to not only the SEC (in adding the likely brands of UNC, FSU, Clemson and Miami), but - more importantly - the remainder of the ACC; the ACC's value immediately gets driven down with the loss of those three brands. Does ESPN overpay in order to slide those under the SEC umbrella (to both the SEC and ACC)? If it does not "take care of" those brands, they will ultimately feel jilted and could look to jump to the Big Ten in a number of years.

Posted here before the 2021 football season that UNC, Clemson, FSU and UVA would be the first four in the pecking order — and I still think that's the case.

Clemson and FSU have been and/or are elite football brands. Neither Greg Sankey nor ESPN are letting that pair slip into enemy hands if at all possible — not now and not "14 years" from now, either.

North Carolina and Virginia bring elite/very good basketball traditions and even — more importantly — plant the SEC flag in two key, heavily-populated Southern states. That they'd likely by the B1G's top two "accessible" picks from the ACC is no small factor, either.

"But they're not that good in football!"

Who cares? The SEC has more than enough prominent football schools to carry the water. UNC and UVA also are a nod to the SEC presidents, especially those at Vandy, Texas, UF and Georgia most likely to concerned with such things.

Don't see any way Miami is in the first four.

We've got the same issues — smallish private school, spotty attendance in an NFL stadium, cultural misfit — we had even before Middle Tennessee stuffed us in the garbage can and closed the lid last weekend.

UF will push hard against us. FSU will fall right in line behind the Gators. Guarantee those two things.

The rest of the SEC athletic directors and football coaches will be very reluctant to see an SEC-branded Miami with SEC media money and SEC exposure recruiting South Florida

The only way I see us getting in the SEC is if ESPN/Sankey are just determined not to let the B1G make its way into an SEC state.

(09-28-2022 03:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:11 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 12:27 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Warren may be pushing to take the financial hit now, in the interests of getting in on the ground floor with Amazon (and eliminating the PAC-12 I guess).

Let's say they add 4 and the Amazon contract is for $1 a year. They're splitting $1.2B in TV rights 20 ways, $60M a year instead of $75M a year.

If the $100M number is real, it's $1.3B split 20 ways, $65M a year in TV rights.

I think you are on the right path John. Let me toss this out. Let's say the average value of those 4 schools to the Big 10 is 50 million each. It is not inconceivable that this value is close to the mark when you add those brands to that of the Big 10. The were after all making 32 averaging with lesser valued PAC schools and without the Big Ten brand. Placing them in the B1G could easily make each worth 18 million more commercially.

If you hold that thought, then 100 million simply makes them pro rata and Warren has an easier sell. They aren't hurting B1G payouts, and they will expand BTN profits, and with Amazon picking up the difference it opens a new opportunity, and helps to clear UCLA, eliminate overhead fears, and draw in the synergy of major West coast markets.

It's simple and workable.

The more I look at this, the more I think that the B1G Presidents are just plain afraid. They're waiting on the SEC to make the next move, just like they have for decades. Warren is trying to get them to be proactive, but it remains to be seen if he'll be successful or not.

I was wondering that myself. The Big Ten hasn't expanded to 12, then 14, then 16 until after the SEC did. The previous Big Ten expansions have largely been in response to SEC expansions. Heck, even the ACC got to 12 and 14 before the Big Ten did. The Big Ten taking the lead on enlarging conferences is unprecedented. First time for everything, I guess.

Penn St.? That was the first significant move in the post NCAA TV monopoly era. Lead to ACC and SEC expansion and the formation of the Big East football conference. And the Big 10 open exploration of expansion that lead to the Pac 16 idea and Nebraska joining really triggered SEC expansion to 14. Texas/OU to the SEC is really the first time the SEC has initiated a cycle.

There’s been no point in CFB history where the Big Ten has had more members than the SEC.

PSU, South Carolina and Arkansas were all announced in summer 1990. PSU might have been announced two weeks earlier or something like that, but in any case the Big Ten added one member that cycle and the SEC added two.

The Big Ten’s expansion to 12 teams was basically in response to the SEC having expanded to 12 teams (and having brought the conference championship idea to Division I) 20 years earlier. And the Big Ten only expanded to 14 in 2012 because the SEC and ACC had expanded to 14 in 2011. That’s the ultimate sign of the Big Ten following the lead of other conferences: they decide that 12 teams is a big enough conference in 2010, but just two years later they decide they can go to 14 because other conferences have set a precedent for 14.

(09-28-2022 04:34 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:11 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 12:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think you are on the right path John. Let me toss this out. Let's say the average value of those 4 schools to the Big 10 is 50 million each. It is not inconceivable that this value is close to the mark when you add those brands to that of the Big 10. The were after all making 32 averaging with lesser valued PAC schools and without the Big Ten brand. Placing them in the B1G could easily make each worth 18 million more commercially.

If you hold that thought, then 100 million simply makes them pro rata and Warren has an easier sell. They aren't hurting B1G payouts, and they will expand BTN profits, and with Amazon picking up the difference it opens a new opportunity, and helps to clear UCLA, eliminate overhead fears, and draw in the synergy of major West coast markets.

It's simple and workable.

The more I look at this, the more I think that the B1G Presidents are just plain afraid. They're waiting on the SEC to make the next move, just like they have for decades. Warren is trying to get them to be proactive, but it remains to be seen if he'll be successful or not.

I was wondering that myself. The Big Ten hasn't expanded to 12, then 14, then 16 until after the SEC did. The previous Big Ten expansions have largely been in response to SEC expansions. Heck, even the ACC got to 12 and 14 before the Big Ten did. The Big Ten taking the lead on enlarging conferences is unprecedented. First time for everything, I guess.

Penn St.? That was the first significant move in the post NCAA TV monopoly era. Lead to ACC and SEC expansion and the formation of the Big East football conference. And the Big 10 open exploration of expansion that lead to the Pac 16 idea and Nebraska joining really triggered SEC expansion to 14. Texas/OU to the SEC is really the first time the SEC has initiated a cycle.

There’s been no point in CFB history where the Big Ten has had more members than the SEC.

PSU, South Carolina and Arkansas were all announced in summer 1990. PSU might have been announced two weeks earlier or something like that, but in any case the Big Ten added one member that cycle and the SEC added two.

The Big Ten’s expansion to 12 teams was basically in response to the SEC having expanded to 12 teams (and having brought the conference championship idea to Division I) 20 years earlier. And the Big Ten only expanded to 14 in 2012 because the SEC and ACC had expanded to 14 in 2011. That’s the ultimate sign of the Big Ten following the lead of other conferences: they decide that 12 teams is a big enough conference in 2010, but just two years later they decide they can go to 14 because other conferences have set a precedent for 14.

The B1G is *leading* other conferences in money-making, and has for over a decade. The B1G pioneered the conference network, which four of the other five big dog leagues copycatted. They're the furthest from keeping up with the Joneses.

(09-28-2022 02:51 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 12:36 PM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  Pretty wild to see Oregon State & Wazzu join MWC

Am I the only one that sees those two skimming off the top of the MWC and leaving the lower-end schools in there holding the bag? San Jose State, UNM, and Wyoming have as much concern about being stuck with a downgrade as Wazzu in my opinion.

That’s the consensus on this board about what will happen.

I seem to be the only person who sees Wazzu and Oregon State just joining the MWC.

Contrarian thought:

If $100M would seal the deal to get 4 more West Coast schools into the Big Ten, and get a Big Ten package on Amazon,

And Amazon isn't jumping all over this prospect,

Does that mean that Amazon isn't very interested in anything but elite top-tier sporting events?

Maybe Warren is trying to sell Amazon on non-premier Big Ten college football (#4 game), at the same time he's trying to sell the Big TEn presidents on Amazon.

IF the strategy is to use mega-audience events to get eyeballs on PRime, then maybe Amazon's sports strategy is to focus only on the biggest events.
NCAA Tournament, they'll be bidding. Regular season Big Ten basketball, pass. NFL Thursday night, they bought it. New York Yankees, bought 20% of YES. Fox Sports Nets for sale in 2019, flirting with bankruptcy in 2022? PAss.

(09-28-2022 01:15 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 01:10 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 12:36 PM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  Pretty wild to see Oregon State & Wazzu join MWC

I see the Big 12 adding the 4 Corner schools along with Washington State and Oregon State.

I doubt it. I think Arizona has been ready to jump ship for a while now and have been waiting on others to come along. If WSU and Oregon State had a standing invite to the BXII they would have already joined Arizona as they are most at risk of being left behind. Also, the BXII rejected overtures for a merger a few months ago.

It seems Colorado and Utah are the most reluctant, as they see the BXII as inferior. Both are hoping for a B10 invite as well but I don't see it happening.

I disagree. For one, Oregon State and Washington State would bring two new markets to the Big 12, Portland and Seattle as well as Eugene and Spokane. Look at the Oregon State Beavers' and the Washington State Cougars' radio network affiliates, if you don't believe me.
Second, we don't know what is going behind closed doors either. Arizona could be talking on behalf of Oregon State and Washington State and we wouldn't know it.

(09-28-2022 04:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Contrarian thought:

If $100M would seal the deal to get 4 more West Coast schools into the Big Ten, and get a Big Ten package on Amazon,

And Amazon isn't jumping all over this prospect,

Does that mean that Amazon isn't very interested in anything but elite top-tier sporting events?

Maybe Warren is trying to sell Amazon on non-premier Big Ten college football (#4 game), at the same time he's trying to sell the Big TEn presidents on Amazon.

IF the strategy is to use mega-audience events to get eyeballs on PRime, then maybe Amazon's sports strategy is to focus only on the biggest events.
NCAA Tournament, they'll be bidding. Regular season Big Ten basketball, pass. NFL Thursday night, they bought it. New York Yankees, bought 20% of YES. Fox Sports Nets for sale in 2019, flirting with bankruptcy in 2022? PAss.

What if Amazon goes forward with the thinking: "Let's get our foot in the door and show the B1G the benefit of us broadcasting their games. Then once the new deal is over they will be willing to let us buy top game content."

We now know Amazon offered more money than others for a prime (no pun intended) slot. Maybe they make the sacrifice now to show they are capable of giving the B1G the level of exposure they want.

(09-28-2022 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 12:28 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 11:55 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  Dodd: PAC in danger of eventual collapse as B1G considers further expansion

Just as Wilzano carries the water for Kliavkoff, Dodd has long done the same for Bowlsby and now Yormark.

No doubt in my mind Warren/Delany are tag-team partners with Yormark/Bowlsby in the strategic dismantling of the Pac-12.

Tick, tick, tick. It's just a matter of time

Dodd usually trolls the Big 12. He is not "carrying water" for them. You just don't like the reporting, so you mindlessly attack the messenger.

Dodd may troll the Big12. But it seems like he hates the Pac much more. So far he hasn’t been accurate for this round of expansion.

(09-28-2022 05:22 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 12:28 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 11:55 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  Dodd: PAC in danger of eventual collapse as B1G considers further expansion

Just as Wilzano carries the water for Kliavkoff, Dodd has long done the same for Bowlsby and now Yormark.

No doubt in my mind Warren/Delany are tag-team partners with Yormark/Bowlsby in the strategic dismantling of the Pac-12.

Tick, tick, tick. It's just a matter of time

Dodd usually trolls the Big 12. He is not "carrying water" for them. You just don't like the reporting, so you mindlessly attack the messenger.

Dodd may troll the Big12. But it seems like he hates the Pac much more. So far he hasn’t been accurate for this round of expansion.

What has he missed?

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ecord-gift
Don't have to worry about Northwestern dropping down. Tearing down and rebuilding their stadium. According to a tweet from Bret McMurphy, it will be smaller than the current 47,000 but have more bells and whistles. Stadium will cost $800 million total.

"...The gift from the Ryans, whose names are on both Northwestern's football stadium and basketball arena, will include funds for other university projects but will serve as the lead gift for a stadium rebuild. Northwestern said it will generate additional gifts to complete the project, which likely would begin after the 2022 football season.

The $480 million gift is the largest in university history.

Originally built in 1926, the football stadium last was renovated in 1997, when it also changed its name from Dyche Stadium to Ryan Field. Both Patrick and Shirley Ryan graduated from Northwestern, and Patrick Ryan served as chairman of the school's board of trustees for 14 years.

Northwestern will soon survey bids from architecture and design firms for the stadium project, which aims to exceed Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and become more accessible to all fans. The team would play at least one season -- and most likely two -- at alternate venues, with Chicago's Soldier Field as a likely option. Northwestern also could play more late-season games at Wrigley Field, where it will host Purdue on Nov. 20...."

(09-28-2022 05:14 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 04:57 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Contrarian thought:

If $100M would seal the deal to get 4 more West Coast schools into the Big Ten, and get a Big Ten package on Amazon,

And Amazon isn't jumping all over this prospect,

Does that mean that Amazon isn't very interested in anything but elite top-tier sporting events?

Maybe Warren is trying to sell Amazon on non-premier Big Ten college football (#4 game), at the same time he's trying to sell the Big TEn presidents on Amazon.

IF the strategy is to use mega-audience events to get eyeballs on PRime, then maybe Amazon's sports strategy is to focus only on the biggest events.
NCAA Tournament, they'll be bidding. Regular season Big Ten basketball, pass. NFL Thursday night, they bought it. New York Yankees, bought 20% of YES. Fox Sports Nets for sale in 2019, flirting with bankruptcy in 2022? PAss.

What if Amazon goes forward with the thinking: "Let's get our foot in the door and show the B1G the benefit of us broadcasting their games. Then once the new deal is over they will be willing to let us buy top game content."

We now know Amazon offered more money than others for a prime (no pun intended) slot. Maybe they make the sacrifice now to show they are capable of giving the B1G the level of exposure they want.

They've already got the NFL. They don't need to prove themselves with relatively cheap content and then upgrade. Amazon video is an OTA level platform.
Edit:. Put it this way: if the Big Ten packages were going up for bid a year from now when Amazon had a year of broadcast in the NFL under their belt, I think the Big Ten goes with Amazon.

(09-28-2022 05:22 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  Dodd may troll the Big12. But it seems like he hates the Pac much more. So far he hasn’t been accurate for this round of expansion.

What mainstream media member was even in the ballpark — much less accurate — with the last two rounds of expansion?

Heck, even the Big XII and Pac-12 commissioners were caught off guard when Oklahoma and Texas and then UCLA and USC announced they were leaving.

We keep hearing the "B1G is staying put" and "The SEC is staying put" and "Notre Dame is remaining independent" as if it's a done deal.

Still plenty of time for the next dominoes to fall and things to change.

(09-28-2022 12:14 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The most interesting item to me from that article is the supposed amount in increased media revenue where expansion would make financial sense for the Big Ten is a LOT less than what I have been thinking: supposedly less than a total of $100 million per year.

If that figure is true (and to be sure, I have no idea how that's being calculated considering that *each* Big Ten school is supposed to be getting something close to that figure each year from the new media contract), then that makes the financial bar for adding Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal a whole lot easier. The only thing that I can think of is that a combination of increase BTN subscriber revenue from going into multiple new markets plus those four schools taking a lower revenue share compared to everyone else would make it financially feasible as a whole.

That really defies any math that I can understand. 100 million divided by 4 is 25 million (at least it is outside of Big10 headquarters). I wonder if what they really mean is the value of the 4-team package has to be 100 million more than what ESPN was offering when they were outbid for the third package.

Big 10 needs the Big 12 for this one, big 12 will return the favor and add the dead ACC weight when it’s time to end that conference.

The $100 million figure is very suspicious UNLESS the contracts with CBS/Fox/NBC gets also upgraded at the same time, which is possible in my opinion.

Warren may want to add more Pac teams but that’s not because of the SEC. The SEC is not adding any Pac teams as the SEC is already a complete super conference. However, the ACC adding four or more Pac teams is not impossible. For example if the ESPN moves UO, UW, Stanford (or Cal), ASU, Cincy, and TCU (or Houston) to the ACC, the ACC will become a national league, covering 12 of 15 most populous states.

(09-28-2022 05:39 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  The $100 million figure is very suspicious UNLESS the contracts with CBS/Fox/NBC gets also upgraded at the same time, which is possible in my opinion.

Warren may want to add more Pac teams but that’s not because of the SEC. The SEC is not adding any Pac teams as the SEC is already a complete super conference. However, the ACC adding four or more Pac teams is not impossible. For example if the ESPN moves UO, UW, Stanford (or Cal), ASU, Cincy, and TCU (or Houston) to the ACC, the ACC will become a national league, covering 12 of 15 most populous states.

As Frank pointed out, there would be some incremental BTN revenue.
Maybe some new sponsorships if they control the whole west coast. Top 6 of the 8 P5s in the Pacific states would be in the Big 10.