(10-03-2023 12:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Interesting excerpt from the article:

Florida State and Clemson realize that staying in the ACC until 2036 will be a death by a thousand cuts while their rivals get an extra $30 million a year in television revenue.

People just casually throw this number around, though we saw an ESPN article last month backtrack on that a bit and say "20s" or "high 20s". The truth is that Warren was shouting the largest number that he could possibly conceive of b/c he wanted more Pac schools (and also maybe ACC or even SEC schools?), and Petitti has been dealing with the fallout ever since. I don't know what the final difference will look like when we look at Conference revenues years down the road, but I'm highly confident that it will be less than $30m, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than $20m.

We know the Big 10 numbers Bryan. We don't yet know the SEC's numbers other than a lowball guess made on a failed CBS offer.

This is a better article than most. They recognize the changes in preferences based upon the transition of the payout calculations to actual number of viewers. This is key to understanding FSU and Clemson's value to the SEC. I wish they would quit mentioning Finebaum because he is a paid ESPN disinformation distributor.

In 1991 Clemson and Florida State were sought by the SEC. Clemson's interest proved to be tepid at the time. F.S.U. had three times applied for SEC membership in the 80's. There was some irritation at the SECs consistent rejections. But the SEC made a mistake in '91. I was told that the SEC used ESPN for a valuation. Therefore, ESPN knew how much we would offer and when we were scheduled to make the offer and in those days with the market footprint model just getting underway ESPN likely saw a way to help the value of a conference whose rights they wished to purchase (ACC) and do it, in their minds, without hurting the SEC's value since we had Florida already. In fact, the networks loved to divide the schools in large states into different conferences, so they could double dip the state ad rates for two different conferences if the network held rights to both conferences.

This is why in 2011 ESPN was allegedly pushing plans to put Texas into the ACC and A&M into the SEC, and to send Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. That way Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia would be divided. No need to do that in Georgia since Tech joined the ACC in 1978.

What changes with the shift from market footprint to actual viewers is that now Clemson and Florida State are worth more in the SEC to ESPN than they are in the ACC. Simply put they will face schools that draw as well as they do and the brand on brand competition will NET the network significantly more than splitting the advertising footprints can. This is why PAC 12 schools with brand are worth more in the Big 10 than together. It is why the two highest drawing conferences are now the loci of super conference formation.

North Carolina is an important market and top brand which draws viewers even if they are hoops first because the football team is better than average, especially with Mack Brown there.

Those three are absolutely more valuable to ESPN in the SEC even at 35 million more per year cost to ESPN. The fourth school is unnamed for a reason. What that reason is can only be speculated. Perhaps it's a school not in the ACC. Perhaps it's a school in the ACC which needs to be packaged with North Carolina. Perhaps they don't want a fuss over who it is. I guess we'll find out when it happens.

The other thing reinforced by this article is that the announcement for departure and negotiated settlements predicated by it will come a lot sooner than 2036. And if Clemson stories are to be believed likely before the end of October.

This brings us back to the Magnificent 7. If the inventory requirements for the super conferences (which as they grow replaces the need for the rights of smaller conferences with lesser TV draw) creates the need to pick up a larger number of schools, then the taking of the remaining best brands will accelerate. IMO, this is one reason why the Big 10 went ahead with Washington and Oregon and may like to nab Stanford if the ACC does lose key players. If the Magnificent 7 are all bound for the SEC, perhaps the ACC schools wanted to sneak in an 8th to begin with in the first group of four to announce. Or perhaps ESPN wanted to sneak in one not in the ACC before the final four came in. That's why I think the mystery school is either Duke or Kansas.

The story also lines up with the rumors I heard two years ago that had non administrative representatives of North Carolina and Clemson meeting with the SEC just a few days after the OU and UT story broke. I was told that the Clemson spokesperson doing the inquiring did so for FSU too which would mean they have been linked for two years now, and that the UNC representative spoke for another as well. In 2011 their AD asked questions which included Duke. Hence my suspicions. But ESPN has long had a keen interest in Kansas supporting their T3 rights until ESPN purchased all of the T3 rights to the Big 12. So this seems to me (the silent 4th) to be either the insertion of Kansas with the necessitated limitation of only one other UNC school, or the inclusion of Duke at the insistence of UNC with N.C. State already possibly being part of a larger move to 24. It's intriguing and we won't know until it's done.

What happens if they move 8 over? Then those not coming become instant potentialities for the Big 12.

Do that and ND is free to affiliate or move to the Big 10 possibly with Kansas and 4 more former PAC 12 schools, likely Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona schools. That's my guess anyway.

We don’t actually know the B1G numbers. That huge spread of $7b-$8.4b looks more like $7b with some unlikely every single day. At our current pace, both the SEC and the Pac will beat the B1G’s ratings this year, and the Big 12 could beat the B1G next year if CU continues at this pace. FSU is tearing it up in the ACC, too. NBC has been getting lower ratings than the BTN. Are any of those bonuses tied to ratings, or to ratings relative to other conferences? How hard will NBC and CBS work to pay as little as possible for their low ratings?

I’m predicting now that the SEC contract ends up paying as much as or more than the B1G contract, plus we get the bonus of the 24/7 ESPN hype machine.

Meh, SEC always wins the ratings race; it's nothing new. IMO,the SEC is underpaid compared to the BIG, I've mentioned this before. What do you say we revisit that claim about the PAC ratings when the season is over?

(10-03-2023 01:05 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Interesting excerpt from the article:

Florida State and Clemson realize that staying in the ACC until 2036 will be a death by a thousand cuts while their rivals get an extra $30 million a year in television revenue.

People just casually throw this number around, though we saw an ESPN article last month backtrack on that a bit and say "20s" or "high 20s". The truth is that Warren was shouting the largest number that he could possibly conceive of b/c he wanted more Pac schools (and also maybe ACC or even SEC schools?), and Petitti has been dealing with the fallout ever since. I don't know what the final difference will look like when we look at Conference revenues years down the road, but I'm highly confident that it will be less than $30m, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than $20m.

We know the Big 10 numbers Bryan. We don't yet know the SEC's numbers other than a lowball guess made on a failed CBS offer.

This is a better article than most. They recognize the changes in preferences based upon the transition of the payout calculations to actual number of viewers. This is key to understanding FSU and Clemson's value to the SEC. I wish they would quit mentioning Finebaum because he is a paid ESPN disinformation distributor.

In 1991 Clemson and Florida State were sought by the SEC. Clemson's interest proved to be tepid at the time. F.S.U. had three times applied for SEC membership in the 80's. There was some irritation at the SECs consistent rejections. But the SEC made a mistake in '91. I was told that the SEC used ESPN for a valuation. Therefore, ESPN knew how much we would offer and when we were scheduled to make the offer and in those days with the market footprint model just getting underway ESPN likely saw a way to help the value of a conference whose rights they wished to purchase (ACC) and do it, in their minds, without hurting the SEC's value since we had Florida already. In fact, the networks loved to divide the schools in large states into different conferences, so they could double dip the state ad rates for two different conferences if the network held rights to both conferences.

This is why in 2011 ESPN was allegedly pushing plans to put Texas into the ACC and A&M into the SEC, and to send Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. That way Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia would be divided. No need to do that in Georgia since Tech joined the ACC in 1978.

What changes with the shift from market footprint to actual viewers is that now Clemson and Florida State are worth more in the SEC to ESPN than they are in the ACC. Simply put they will face schools that draw as well as they do and the brand on brand competition will NET the network significantly more than splitting the advertising footprints can. This is why PAC 12 schools with brand are worth more in the Big 10 than together. It is why the two highest drawing conferences are now the loci of super conference formation.

North Carolina is an important market and top brand which draws viewers even if they are hoops first because the football team is better than average, especially with Mack Brown there.

Those three are absolutely more valuable to ESPN in the SEC even at 35 million more per year cost to ESPN. The fourth school is unnamed for a reason. What that reason is can only be speculated. Perhaps it's a school not in the ACC. Perhaps it's a school in the ACC which needs to be packaged with North Carolina. Perhaps they don't want a fuss over who it is. I guess we'll find out when it happens.

The other thing reinforced by this article is that the announcement for departure and negotiated settlements predicated by it will come a lot sooner than 2036. And if Clemson stories are to be believed likely before the end of October.

This brings us back to the Magnificent 7. If the inventory requirements for the super conferences (which as they grow replaces the need for the rights of smaller conferences with lesser TV draw) creates the need to pick up a larger number of schools, then the taking of the remaining best brands will accelerate. IMO, this is one reason why the Big 10 went ahead with Washington and Oregon and may like to nab Stanford if the ACC does lose key players. If the Magnificent 7 are all bound for the SEC, perhaps the ACC schools wanted to sneak in an 8th to begin with in the first group of four to announce. Or perhaps ESPN wanted to sneak in one not in the ACC before the final four came in. That's why I think the mystery school is either Duke or Kansas.

The story also lines up with the rumors I heard two years ago that had non administrative representatives of North Carolina and Clemson meeting with the SEC just a few days after the OU and UT story broke. I was told that the Clemson spokesperson doing the inquiring did so for FSU too which would mean they have been linked for two years now, and that the UNC representative spoke for another as well. In 2011 their AD asked questions which included Duke. Hence my suspicions. But ESPN has long had a keen interest in Kansas supporting their T3 rights until ESPN purchased all of the T3 rights to the Big 12. So this seems to me (the silent 4th) to be either the insertion of Kansas with the necessitated limitation of only one other UNC school, or the inclusion of Duke at the insistence of UNC with N.C. State already possibly being part of a larger move to 24. It's intriguing and we won't know until it's done.

What happens if they move 8 over? Then those not coming become instant potentialities for the Big 12.

Do that and ND is free to affiliate or move to the Big 10 possibly with Kansas and 4 more former PAC 12 schools, likely Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona schools. That's my guess anyway.

We don’t actually know the B1G numbers. That huge spread of $7b-$8.4b looks more like $7b with some unlikely every single day. At our current pace, both the SEC and the Pac will beat the B1G’s ratings this year, and the Big 12 could beat the B1G next year if CU continues at this pace. FSU is tearing it up in the ACC, too. NBC has been getting lower ratings than the BTN. Are any of those bonuses tied to ratings, or to ratings relative to other conferences? How hard will NBC and CBS work to pay as little as possible for their low ratings?

I’m predicting now that the SEC contract ends up paying as much as or more than the B1G contract, plus we get the bonus of the 24/7 ESPN hype machine.

Meh, SEC always wins the ratings race; it's nothing new. IMO,the SEC is underpaid compared to the BIG, I've mentioned this before. What do you say we revisit that claim about the PAC ratings when the season is over?

Anyone with ESPN has traded some revenue for added exposure and a good deal of pimping by the Mouse. The Big 10's schedule is backloaded when it comes to the big games. It's too early to determine their ratings. Your ratings are always low in the first 3 weeks when you play your OOC slate and 2/3rds of them are lousy matchups. The SEC spreads those out and has some premier games every week. The PAC 12 got a boost IMO, because of the teams headed to the Big 10 and all of the fuss over their last season together. Every network has been talking about their demise and people love to watch something just before it goes away. Tell them they can't have crushed red pepper on their pizza and there will be a run on crushed red pepper.

Heck during COVID I had no trouble getting toilet paper that I liked until the news agencies said there could be shortages. Once they said that the price of TP nearly doubled and finding any of quality was a herculean task. Interest in the PAC this year, IMO, is the result of their going away.

We are in the middle of a massive transition in how players are categorized and compensated and with the kind of structure we will have going forward. It looks like a big train wreck and many of those tuning in are gawkers.

(10-03-2023 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What amazes me is the comprehensive destruction of the PAC 12, the bolting of Texas and Oklahoma, and there are still those who don't think this thing finishes with the ACC.

Some folks place their faith in things like tradition and contractual agreements to the point where they'll double down even when the winds of change are blowing in the opposite direction

(10-03-2023 01:23 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What amazes me is the comprehensive destruction of the PAC 12, the bolting of Texas and Oklahoma, and there are still those who don't think this thing finishes with the ACC.

Some folks place their faith in things like tradition and contractual agreements to the point where they'll double down even when the winds of change are blowing in the opposite direction

That's true, but the one thing you learn when you ride out a hurricane is that if you see it coming you had best make your preparations ahead of time to ride out the storm and the more flexible your structure is and the more the wind can pass through it, or over and around it, the longer it will survive, and the more rigid it is the more likely it is to collapse, and that doesn't even account for storm surge. The same is true in earthquakes.

Whether you look at what is happening in college sports as a storm to be weathered and ridden out, or as a landscape changing temblor, the point is preparation equals survival. Some schools are looking at the rigidity of the GOR, and the scope of the storm or depth of the seismic change and they know if they don't act now, they won't survive and it's as simple as that.

They survey the altered terrain which has already occurred, the devastation it has wrought, and they know when so many simply want to hold onto that tradition and rigid structure that a cataclysm will happen. Moving equals survival. It's as simple as that. Always has been, always will be. When the world changes you adapt or die. Two major conferences have already begun to adapt. A third has been as flexible as it can be. The one that tried to stand rigidly against change has been blown away and its members scattered. What will the 5th do? I think 7 of the members are already giving their opinion.

(10-03-2023 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What amazes me is the comprehensive destruction of the PAC 12, the bolting of Texas and Oklahoma, and there are still those who don't think this thing finishes with the ACC.

What amazes me is people think this thing finishes with the ACC. Sorry, it will just consolidate from there because there is too much waste in the Big Ten and even a bit in the SEC. You don't end up with two neat and tidy contracts for eternity. That's just so far from realistic.

Think of it this way: what most people think of a "P2" is in reality the American League bundled with the International League and the National League with the PCL. Eventually, the AL and NL are going to get together as MLB and ditch the minors. This is true consolidation, and what a lot of people don't know they're actually rooting for.

(10-03-2023 01:05 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Interesting excerpt from the article:

Florida State and Clemson realize that staying in the ACC until 2036 will be a death by a thousand cuts while their rivals get an extra $30 million a year in television revenue.

People just casually throw this number around, though we saw an ESPN article last month backtrack on that a bit and say "20s" or "high 20s". The truth is that Warren was shouting the largest number that he could possibly conceive of b/c he wanted more Pac schools (and also maybe ACC or even SEC schools?), and Petitti has been dealing with the fallout ever since. I don't know what the final difference will look like when we look at Conference revenues years down the road, but I'm highly confident that it will be less than $30m, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than $20m.

We know the Big 10 numbers Bryan. We don't yet know the SEC's numbers other than a lowball guess made on a failed CBS offer.

This is a better article than most. They recognize the changes in preferences based upon the transition of the payout calculations to actual number of viewers. This is key to understanding FSU and Clemson's value to the SEC. I wish they would quit mentioning Finebaum because he is a paid ESPN disinformation distributor.

In 1991 Clemson and Florida State were sought by the SEC. Clemson's interest proved to be tepid at the time. F.S.U. had three times applied for SEC membership in the 80's. There was some irritation at the SECs consistent rejections. But the SEC made a mistake in '91. I was told that the SEC used ESPN for a valuation. Therefore, ESPN knew how much we would offer and when we were scheduled to make the offer and in those days with the market footprint model just getting underway ESPN likely saw a way to help the value of a conference whose rights they wished to purchase (ACC) and do it, in their minds, without hurting the SEC's value since we had Florida already. In fact, the networks loved to divide the schools in large states into different conferences, so they could double dip the state ad rates for two different conferences if the network held rights to both conferences.

This is why in 2011 ESPN was allegedly pushing plans to put Texas into the ACC and A&M into the SEC, and to send Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. That way Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia would be divided. No need to do that in Georgia since Tech joined the ACC in 1978.

What changes with the shift from market footprint to actual viewers is that now Clemson and Florida State are worth more in the SEC to ESPN than they are in the ACC. Simply put they will face schools that draw as well as they do and the brand on brand competition will NET the network significantly more than splitting the advertising footprints can. This is why PAC 12 schools with brand are worth more in the Big 10 than together. It is why the two highest drawing conferences are now the loci of super conference formation.

North Carolina is an important market and top brand which draws viewers even if they are hoops first because the football team is better than average, especially with Mack Brown there.

Those three are absolutely more valuable to ESPN in the SEC even at 35 million more per year cost to ESPN. The fourth school is unnamed for a reason. What that reason is can only be speculated. Perhaps it's a school not in the ACC. Perhaps it's a school in the ACC which needs to be packaged with North Carolina. Perhaps they don't want a fuss over who it is. I guess we'll find out when it happens.

The other thing reinforced by this article is that the announcement for departure and negotiated settlements predicated by it will come a lot sooner than 2036. And if Clemson stories are to be believed likely before the end of October.

This brings us back to the Magnificent 7. If the inventory requirements for the super conferences (which as they grow replaces the need for the rights of smaller conferences with lesser TV draw) creates the need to pick up a larger number of schools, then the taking of the remaining best brands will accelerate. IMO, this is one reason why the Big 10 went ahead with Washington and Oregon and may like to nab Stanford if the ACC does lose key players. If the Magnificent 7 are all bound for the SEC, perhaps the ACC schools wanted to sneak in an 8th to begin with in the first group of four to announce. Or perhaps ESPN wanted to sneak in one not in the ACC before the final four came in. That's why I think the mystery school is either Duke or Kansas.

The story also lines up with the rumors I heard two years ago that had non administrative representatives of North Carolina and Clemson meeting with the SEC just a few days after the OU and UT story broke. I was told that the Clemson spokesperson doing the inquiring did so for FSU too which would mean they have been linked for two years now, and that the UNC representative spoke for another as well. In 2011 their AD asked questions which included Duke. Hence my suspicions. But ESPN has long had a keen interest in Kansas supporting their T3 rights until ESPN purchased all of the T3 rights to the Big 12. So this seems to me (the silent 4th) to be either the insertion of Kansas with the necessitated limitation of only one other UNC school, or the inclusion of Duke at the insistence of UNC with N.C. State already possibly being part of a larger move to 24. It's intriguing and we won't know until it's done.

What happens if they move 8 over? Then those not coming become instant potentialities for the Big 12.

Do that and ND is free to affiliate or move to the Big 10 possibly with Kansas and 4 more former PAC 12 schools, likely Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona schools. That's my guess anyway.

We don’t actually know the B1G numbers. That huge spread of $7b-$8.4b looks more like $7b with some unlikely every single day. At our current pace, both the SEC and the Pac will beat the B1G’s ratings this year, and the Big 12 could beat the B1G next year if CU continues at this pace. FSU is tearing it up in the ACC, too. NBC has been getting lower ratings than the BTN. Are any of those bonuses tied to ratings, or to ratings relative to other conferences? How hard will NBC and CBS work to pay as little as possible for their low ratings?

I’m predicting now that the SEC contract ends up paying as much as or more than the B1G contract, plus we get the bonus of the 24/7 ESPN hype machine.

Meh, SEC always wins the ratings race; it's nothing new. IMO,the SEC is underpaid compared to the BIG, I've mentioned this before. What do you say we revisit that claim about the PAC ratings when the season is over?

I mean, sure, if you like. I’m anticipating that colorados ratings will decline and Michigan-OSU gets 15m, but the Pac is getting a whole lot of free hype from having so many quality teams, and thus so many games that matter. The other day, I was doing some research and looked back through ratings as far back as 2013, and I didn’t see any 5 week span for any team like CU has had this year. Not the best Urban teams at OSU. Not Peak Saban. Nobody. Deion could be the personification of that celebratizing that Yormark was so keen to talk about last year, in the best possible meaning of the word.

(10-03-2023 01:57 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What amazes me is the comprehensive destruction of the PAC 12, the bolting of Texas and Oklahoma, and there are still those who don't think this thing finishes with the ACC.

What amazes me is people think this thing finishes with the ACC. Sorry, it will just consolidate from there because there is too much waste in the Big Ten and even a bit in the SEC. You don't end up with two neat and tidy contracts for eternity. That's just so far from realistic.

Think of it this way: what most people think of a "P2" is in reality the American League bundled with the International League and the National League with the PCL. Eventually, the AL and NL are going to get together as MLB and ditch the minors. This is true consolidation, and what a lot of people don't know they're actually rooting for.

I've never believed for a second that it will end with that. It will just end with that for now. Next round will be more consolidation, but we don't get there unless we go here. I suspect the 3 emerging conferences will become 2 at some point in the not too distant future, and then a little more culling of the herd will happen from there.

And remember Esayem my original post here. Corporations were bringing the changes and College Football was the subject of a hostile takeover. We've been going through product placement for the sake of maximizing sales and profit. Reduction of underperforming SKUs will happen until we have a streamlined product with guaranteed returns. In the process we will lose all the niche products that made the line complete. And when the corporations have tampered enough to kill it they will sell it to the highest bidder and look for something else to raid and ruin. It's happened in all of our lives to the point where through PAC money they control both sides of the aisle of our government and keep us all pitted against one another, so we don't rally and toss their butts out.

It's all played out as I saw it 12 years ago. I'm not for it. I've just been bewildered by the fact that so few still can't see it. Until there is universal recognition of the problem there is no solution because it is an issue that cannot be approached with a divided will to change it.

Here we are today with all that is ramping up around us and all we are still doing is blaming each other rather than the hand that pulls the strings.

(10-03-2023 01:57 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What amazes me is the comprehensive destruction of the PAC 12, the bolting of Texas and Oklahoma, and there are still those who don't think this thing finishes with the ACC.

What amazes me is people think this thing finishes with the ACC. Sorry, it will just consolidate from there because there is too much waste in the Big Ten and even a bit in the SEC. You don't end up with two neat and tidy contracts for eternity. That's just so far from realistic.

Think of it this way: what most people think of a "P2" is in reality the American League bundled with the International League and the National League with the PCL. Eventually, the AL and NL are going to get together as MLB and ditch the minors. This is true consolidation, and what a lot of people don't know they're actually rooting for.

A duopoly can be very strong and very stable, especially when combining them into a MONOpoloy could ignite unwelcome regulatory scrutiny.

I still see the ACC getting raided, but their situation is very different than the Big 12's and Pac 12's were. OUT announced they were joining the SEC starting in 2025 (albeit 4 years before that date), which was after their current GoR expired. They ended up negotiating an exit 1 whole year before that date, but only after all interested parties had a vested interest in working something out. The Pac splintered when and how it did b/c they had no GoR and no exit fees. On the other hand, there is no precedent in College Sports, or perhaps in case law for that matter, of an entity signing a Grant of Rights, receiving compensation for roughly half the term of that Grant, and then arbitrarily backing out of the deal b/c they were unsatisfied with the financial terms of the arrangement. However, there are many examples of renegotiating new contracts or of negotiating an early end to an existing contract, which is FSU/etc's only way out of their current predicament. Looking at all of the information available to us, including ESPN's recent aggressive cost-cutting and a failure of new media companies like Apple or Amazon to step up and try to outspend ESPN, I just find it far more likely that FSU/etc will escape in the 2030s instead of 2020s. If things change and ESPN and the ACC decide that they'd rather have FSU and some others in another conference? Ok, that's a different ballgame, and if that happens in 2024 or 2028 or 2034 or whenever, then something will probably happen at that time.

(10-03-2023 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 01:57 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What amazes me is the comprehensive destruction of the PAC 12, the bolting of Texas and Oklahoma, and there are still those who don't think this thing finishes with the ACC.

What amazes me is people think this thing finishes with the ACC. Sorry, it will just consolidate from there because there is too much waste in the Big Ten and even a bit in the SEC. You don't end up with two neat and tidy contracts for eternity. That's just so far from realistic.

Think of it this way: what most people think of a "P2" is in reality the American League bundled with the International League and the National League with the PCL. Eventually, the AL and NL are going to get together as MLB and ditch the minors. This is true consolidation, and what a lot of people don't know they're actually rooting for.

I've never believed for a second that it will end with that. It will just end with that for now. Next round will be more consolidation, but we don't get there unless we go here. I suspect the 3 emerging conferences will become 2 at some point in the not too distant future, and then a little more culling of the herd will happen from there.

And remember Esayem my original post here. Corporations were bringing the changes and College Football was the subject of a hostile takeover. We've been going through product placement for the sake of maximizing sales and profit. Reduction of underperforming SKUs will happen until we have a streamlined product with guaranteed returns. In the process we will lose all the niche products that made the line complete. And when the corporations have tampered enough to kill it they will sell it to the highest bidder and look for something else to raid and ruin. It's happened in all of our lives to the point where through PAC money they control both sides of the aisle of our government and keep us all pitted against one another, so we don't rally and toss their butts out.

It's all played out as I saw it 12 years ago. I'm not for it. I've just been bewildered by the fact that so few still can't see it. Until there is universal recognition of the problem there is no solution because it is an issue that cannot be approached with a divided will to change it.

Here we are today with all that is ramping up around us and all we are still doing is blaming each other rather than the hand that pulls the strings.

Oh, I'm very aware of everything you're saying. We saw it in the early 2000's with ESPN pushing the ACC to include outsiders into the league. Then furthermore with ND, Pitt, and Syracuse—meanwhile former Big East fans trash the ACC like it was some idea we came up with in Greensboro.

There isn't really any deviation from a true singular football consolidation unless the universities become the corporations. Which, I can tell you from the inside looks like a very real possibility in some cases. This will probably happen once the older generation is no longer a market factor and the money isn't as free flowing as it is now.

(10-03-2023 02:20 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 02:09 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 01:57 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What amazes me is the comprehensive destruction of the PAC 12, the bolting of Texas and Oklahoma, and there are still those who don't think this thing finishes with the ACC.

What amazes me is people think this thing finishes with the ACC. Sorry, it will just consolidate from there because there is too much waste in the Big Ten and even a bit in the SEC. You don't end up with two neat and tidy contracts for eternity. That's just so far from realistic.

Think of it this way: what most people think of a "P2" is in reality the American League bundled with the International League and the National League with the PCL. Eventually, the AL and NL are going to get together as MLB and ditch the minors. This is true consolidation, and what a lot of people don't know they're actually rooting for.

I've never believed for a second that it will end with that. It will just end with that for now. Next round will be more consolidation, but we don't get there unless we go here. I suspect the 3 emerging conferences will become 2 at some point in the not too distant future, and then a little more culling of the herd will happen from there.

And remember Esayem my original post here. Corporations were bringing the changes and College Football was the subject of a hostile takeover. We've been going through product placement for the sake of maximizing sales and profit. Reduction of underperforming SKUs will happen until we have a streamlined product with guaranteed returns. In the process we will lose all the niche products that made the line complete. And when the corporations have tampered enough to kill it they will sell it to the highest bidder and look for something else to raid and ruin. It's happened in all of our lives to the point where through PAC money they control both sides of the aisle of our government and keep us all pitted against one another, so we don't rally and toss their butts out.

It's all played out as I saw it 12 years ago. I'm not for it. I've just been bewildered by the fact that so few still can't see it. Until there is universal recognition of the problem there is no solution because it is an issue that cannot be approached with a divided will to change it.

Here we are today with all that is ramping up around us and all we are still doing is blaming each other rather than the hand that pulls the strings.

Oh, I'm very aware of everything you're saying. We saw it in the early 2000's with ESPN pushing the ACC to include outsiders into the league. Then furthermore with ND, Pitt, and Syracuse—meanwhile former Big East fans trash the ACC like it was some idea we came up with in Greensboro.

There isn't really any deviation from a true singular football consolidation unless the universities become the corporations. Which, I can tell you from the inside looks like a very real possibility in some cases. This will probably happen once the older generation is no longer a market factor and the money isn't as free flowing as it is now.

Or when the NFL subsidizes the culled down upper tier. The corporatization is coming to the Universities and camel's nose under that tent will be the revenue sports, but the real objective is the acquisition of intellectual property, research and patents through corporate grants. Already a problem now, when they start appointing presidents who have spent time inside corporate boardrooms you will know academic freedom is waning. Political agenda, both left and right has already eroded it, and those supported by the corporations. You aren't wrong. The past 30 years they have been probing that perimeter looking for unsecured ways inside.

(10-03-2023 02:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I just find it far more likely that FSU/etc will escape in the 2030s instead of 2020s. If things change and ESPN and the ACC decide that they'd rather have FSU and some others in another conference? Ok, that's a different ballgame, and if that happens in 2024 or 2028 or 2034 or whenever, then something will probably happen at that time.

All bases covered

(10-03-2023 02:09 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 01:05 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:01 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  Interesting excerpt from the article:

Florida State and Clemson realize that staying in the ACC until 2036 will be a death by a thousand cuts while their rivals get an extra $30 million a year in television revenue.

People just casually throw this number around, though we saw an ESPN article last month backtrack on that a bit and say "20s" or "high 20s". The truth is that Warren was shouting the largest number that he could possibly conceive of b/c he wanted more Pac schools (and also maybe ACC or even SEC schools?), and Petitti has been dealing with the fallout ever since. I don't know what the final difference will look like when we look at Conference revenues years down the road, but I'm highly confident that it will be less than $30m, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's less than $20m.

We know the Big 10 numbers Bryan. We don't yet know the SEC's numbers other than a lowball guess made on a failed CBS offer.

This is a better article than most. They recognize the changes in preferences based upon the transition of the payout calculations to actual number of viewers. This is key to understanding FSU and Clemson's value to the SEC. I wish they would quit mentioning Finebaum because he is a paid ESPN disinformation distributor.

In 1991 Clemson and Florida State were sought by the SEC. Clemson's interest proved to be tepid at the time. F.S.U. had three times applied for SEC membership in the 80's. There was some irritation at the SECs consistent rejections. But the SEC made a mistake in '91. I was told that the SEC used ESPN for a valuation. Therefore, ESPN knew how much we would offer and when we were scheduled to make the offer and in those days with the market footprint model just getting underway ESPN likely saw a way to help the value of a conference whose rights they wished to purchase (ACC) and do it, in their minds, without hurting the SEC's value since we had Florida already. In fact, the networks loved to divide the schools in large states into different conferences, so they could double dip the state ad rates for two different conferences if the network held rights to both conferences.

This is why in 2011 ESPN was allegedly pushing plans to put Texas into the ACC and A&M into the SEC, and to send Virginia Tech and N.C. State to the SEC. That way Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia would be divided. No need to do that in Georgia since Tech joined the ACC in 1978.

What changes with the shift from market footprint to actual viewers is that now Clemson and Florida State are worth more in the SEC to ESPN than they are in the ACC. Simply put they will face schools that draw as well as they do and the brand on brand competition will NET the network significantly more than splitting the advertising footprints can. This is why PAC 12 schools with brand are worth more in the Big 10 than together. It is why the two highest drawing conferences are now the loci of super conference formation.

North Carolina is an important market and top brand which draws viewers even if they are hoops first because the football team is better than average, especially with Mack Brown there.

Those three are absolutely more valuable to ESPN in the SEC even at 35 million more per year cost to ESPN. The fourth school is unnamed for a reason. What that reason is can only be speculated. Perhaps it's a school not in the ACC. Perhaps it's a school in the ACC which needs to be packaged with North Carolina. Perhaps they don't want a fuss over who it is. I guess we'll find out when it happens.

The other thing reinforced by this article is that the announcement for departure and negotiated settlements predicated by it will come a lot sooner than 2036. And if Clemson stories are to be believed likely before the end of October.

This brings us back to the Magnificent 7. If the inventory requirements for the super conferences (which as they grow replaces the need for the rights of smaller conferences with lesser TV draw) creates the need to pick up a larger number of schools, then the taking of the remaining best brands will accelerate. IMO, this is one reason why the Big 10 went ahead with Washington and Oregon and may like to nab Stanford if the ACC does lose key players. If the Magnificent 7 are all bound for the SEC, perhaps the ACC schools wanted to sneak in an 8th to begin with in the first group of four to announce. Or perhaps ESPN wanted to sneak in one not in the ACC before the final four came in. That's why I think the mystery school is either Duke or Kansas.

The story also lines up with the rumors I heard two years ago that had non administrative representatives of North Carolina and Clemson meeting with the SEC just a few days after the OU and UT story broke. I was told that the Clemson spokesperson doing the inquiring did so for FSU too which would mean they have been linked for two years now, and that the UNC representative spoke for another as well. In 2011 their AD asked questions which included Duke. Hence my suspicions. But ESPN has long had a keen interest in Kansas supporting their T3 rights until ESPN purchased all of the T3 rights to the Big 12. So this seems to me (the silent 4th) to be either the insertion of Kansas with the necessitated limitation of only one other UNC school, or the inclusion of Duke at the insistence of UNC with N.C. State already possibly being part of a larger move to 24. It's intriguing and we won't know until it's done.

What happens if they move 8 over? Then those not coming become instant potentialities for the Big 12.

Do that and ND is free to affiliate or move to the Big 10 possibly with Kansas and 4 more former PAC 12 schools, likely Colorado, Utah, and the Arizona schools. That's my guess anyway.

We don’t actually know the B1G numbers. That huge spread of $7b-$8.4b looks more like $7b with some unlikely every single day. At our current pace, both the SEC and the Pac will beat the B1G’s ratings this year, and the Big 12 could beat the B1G next year if CU continues at this pace. FSU is tearing it up in the ACC, too. NBC has been getting lower ratings than the BTN. Are any of those bonuses tied to ratings, or to ratings relative to other conferences? How hard will NBC and CBS work to pay as little as possible for their low ratings?

I’m predicting now that the SEC contract ends up paying as much as or more than the B1G contract, plus we get the bonus of the 24/7 ESPN hype machine.

Meh, SEC always wins the ratings race; it's nothing new. IMO,the SEC is underpaid compared to the BIG, I've mentioned this before. What do you say we revisit that claim about the PAC ratings when the season is over?

I mean, sure, if you like. I’m anticipating that colorados ratings will decline and Michigan-OSU gets 15m, but the Pac is getting a whole lot of free hype from having so many quality teams, and thus so many games that matter. The other day, I was doing some research and looked back through ratings as far back as 2013, and I didn’t see any 5 week span for any team like CU has had this year. Not the best Urban teams at OSU. Not Peak Saban. Nobody. Deion could be the personification of that celebratizing that Yormark was so keen to talk about last year, in the best possible meaning of the word.

I definitely haven't overlooked the Deion factor. You're right, it's amazing what ratings he has brought in.

More realignment click-bait. The most telling quote: “There is too much smoke for there not to be fire behind the scenes.” The purpose of the article is to create smoke.

FWIW - if the SEC/ESPN and B1G/Fox both want to create 24-team super conferences in the near future, then the ACC would be in trouble. Given that UW and UO couldn’t get full media shares in an 18-team B1G, we know that the B1G/Fox doesn’t have the funding. It’s also against the best interests of the SEC and ESPN to destabilize the ACC.

For me, the ideal set up would have been, at the dawn of the BCS agreement, if part of signing on was was an explicit prohibition on raiding each other—you’re free to add any independent or anyone outside the 6 leagues, but no harming each other.

Frank will jump on here and scream that what I’m describing is an illegal cartel, blah, blah, blah. But I’ll ask you this, would you rather have 6 relatively equal strength leagues that see it in their best interest and the best interest of the sport to not harm each other and keep the regional rivalries that built it intact, or this mess we have now, where the financial interests of the networks motivate leagues to poach and ravage each other, destroying long established relationships in the process?

You can't compare the Big 12 to the ACC. The Big 12's contract was about to expire, Texas and Oklahoma effectively got out one year early. Everyone thinks Florida State, Clemson, or any other ACC school can get out of a GOR that is set to expire in 2036! If the Big 12's GOR were expiring in 2036 instead of 2025, Texas and Oklahoma would still be in the Big 12 right now. If the Pac 12's GOR were expiring in 2036 instead of next year, we wouldn't be talking about a Pac 2 and Pat McAfee wouldn't be insulting Washington State right now. The schools are probably bellyaching now because they know they're stuck. Just because the SEC and Big 12 were able to negotiate Texas and Oklahoma for a year early doesn't mean that the SEC and ACC or Big Ten and ACC can or will negotiate to allow anyone out TEN years early. You know how much money that would be?? You can probably feed everyone in the country with that amount of money.

The Magnificent 7 (ACC version) going to the SEC as a unit is an interesting notion. Do they have the kind of leverage to get the SEC to take them all? I’d imagine they’d be taking reduced shares for some time as part of their buy in.

(10-03-2023 04:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Magnificent 7 (ACC version) going to the SEC as a unit is an interesting notion. Do they have the kind of leverage to get the SEC to take them all? I’d imagine they’d be taking reduced shares for some time as part of their buy in.

I hope the Big Ten doesn't let that happen without a fight unless the Magnificent 7 you're referring to is Wake Forest, Louisville, and insert names of other 5 bad ACC schools.

(10-03-2023 05:04 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 04:55 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Magnificent 7 (ACC version) going to the SEC as a unit is an interesting notion. Do they have the kind of leverage to get the SEC to take them all? I’d imagine they’d be taking reduced shares for some time as part of their buy in.

I hope the Big Ten doesn't let that happen without a fight unless the Magnificent 7 you're referring to is Wake Forest, Louisville, and insert names of other 5 bad ACC schools.

Agreed.

I’m realistic in that, while there’s a good argument to pick the Big 10 over the SEC, we aren’t getting Florida St.

Clemson isn’t a cultural fit so I’m not heartbroken over them.

Miami (paired with ND) is who I really want to see in the Big 10. I’m probably good with stopping there, although I could be persuaded to take Colorado and Kansas.

UVA, UNC, and Duke just don’t do anything for me.

(10-03-2023 04:04 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  For me, the ideal set up would have been, at the dawn of the BCS agreement, if part of signing on was was an explicit prohibition on raiding each other—you’re free to add any independent or anyone outside the 6 leagues, but no harming each other.

Frank will jump on here and scream that what I’m describing is an illegal cartel, blah, blah, blah. But I’ll ask you this, would you rather have 6 relatively equal strength leagues that see it in their best interest and the best interest of the sport to not harm each other and keep the regional rivalries that built it intact, or this mess we have now, where the financial interests of the networks motivate leagues to poach and ravage each other, destroying long established relationships in the process?

LOL! I’m sorry that pointing out when a proposed solution is per se illegal (and as clear of an antitrust violation that you’ll ever get), it means that you can’t implement that solution. It doesn’t matter how much you like the outcome if the path to get there is straight up illegal.

(10-03-2023 02:39 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 02:12 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I just find it far more likely that FSU/etc will escape in the 2030s instead of 2020s. If things change and ESPN and the ACC decide that they'd rather have FSU and some others in another conference? Ok, that's a different ballgame, and if that happens in 2024 or 2028 or 2034 or whenever, then something will probably happen at that time.

All bases covered

More of a nod to the reality that, until they get everyone else on board, nothing is happening. And I've been quite clear that I think that's far more likely in the 2030s than in the 2020s.