Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hurtlocker

  1. 13 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    Avowed junkie here. I’ll watch every Big 12 and SEC game I can lay my eyes on. 

    Many Big Ten games are a beating. Every Iowa game for instance. 

    Same, I'd rather watch the Sunbelt than the Big Ten West.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Haha 1
  2. 3 hours ago, statsman said:

    You seem pretty sure about that. 
     
    ESPN got a benefit from UT and OU leaving. Mind telling me how much ESPN is paying the B12 vs how much Fox is paying the B12?

    I haven’t been able to find the numbers. That’s why I think the real reckoning will be on the next contract. 

    ESPN pays two thirds and Fox pays a third, of what is probably around a half billion dollar contract at this point.   Most of the top football properties go to the mouse and Fox picked up weekly basketball.   

    And it was already turned to market.   Without movement the B12 was closer to the $50-55m a year number, now they're closer to $30-35m.   Their current contract is likely slightly undervalued due to 1) taking whatever you could in a terrible market.   As the Pac showed, it was a bad time to ask for more and 2) as it reads in press releases, the B12 is getting a portion of the value returned in marketing.   It cost them money, but it is a smart move in the long run.  The SEC has the product on the field over the past decade, but 20 years ago they were helped greatly by CBS pumping tons of marketing into their brand on a weekly basis.

    The next contract, in 2031, will be reflective of how well they do in this new structure.

     

    2 hours ago, Magus Ossis said:

    I think one question (to which we obviously can't have an answer until at least 2024) is to what degree the audience that has interest in Texas and OU has a secondary viewing interest in teams that are in a league with them. Does, e.g., a tOSU fan have more interest in watching Northwestern than he would Georgia Tech? The numbers for the B12 contract are based on, among other factors, viewership to date of the remnants. They do not account for the potential decline in secondary interest after the departures. This is one reason why some say that the next contract will be the one that establishes how the 12 can do longer term without Texas and OU.

    There are two things at play here that may actually balance out each other.    There is no doubt that Oklahoma and Texas have THE followings in the old Big 12, that's not really open for debate.   So most other schools see a bump in viewership when they play them.

    However, outside winning, one of the things that grows audiences the fastest is where you play.   Texas and Oklahoma utterly dominated the T1 programming slots for the B12.   When people tried to do spreadsheets pulling out these games you found you couldn't really compare what was left.   If the B12 was on ABC or Fox, 80% of the time it was a team playing Texas or Oklahoma.

    That's going to be a MAJOR change for the new B12.   They have interest, for instance TCU/ISU drew over 4m this last year in a blow out, the CCG not featuring Texas nor Oklahoma was only 10% behind the B1G/SEC, but double the ACC/PAC.   What ends up occuring when ESPN is not only featuring new teams on T1 outlets and marketing them more like the did the B1G when they had them is the wild card in all of this.

    If the new B12 can get some post season success with multiple teams and put together really competitive games on T1 match ups, they'll get a boost in the next contract.   If they don't, they won't.

    • Hook 'Em 4
    • Like 1
  3. 38 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

     

    The ACC only has 14 Football schools;  15 is with ND in non-football sports.   I assume if any one of those 15 leave it would allow ESPN to renegotiate.

    The problem with Brett McMurphy's point is that he doesn't explain how the ACC could drop below 15 schools.   They all signed the GOR that goes through 2036.   FSU wants to leave really bad. If they had a way to do that, they would be doing it. 

    Unless Georgia Tech or Wake just decides to bail out of all sports, I'm not seeing the ACC going below 15....So there is no need to add teams as an insurance policy. 

    Am I missing something?

    No, I can't think of a more terrible idea from the ACC.   I had heard the first time they looked for expansion they talked about taking 8 Pac teams, THEN found out they'd already moved to the B12.  

    I cannot imagine this passing over the objections of FSU/Clemson to favor ND going to end well for the ACC.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  4. 1 hour ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

    Because god forbid we get the actual best 12 teams into the playoffs. And god forbid we actually make non-SEC and non-Big 10 teams play competitive games in their

    out of conference schedule to boost their playoff resume instead of having Baylor play Long fucking Island.

     

    So let's:

    • Remove any benefit from playing an FCS opponent, e.g. does not count as a win on the record
    • Force the ACC/B1G/B12/SEC to play a minimum of 10 P4 games a season. allowing 2 regional FBS/G5 games
    • Playing more than 10 either provides a bonus or provides a safety net as only your best 10 games are rated, with the other two being tie breakers.

    Not doing that bars you from participation in the CFP.   Then everyone's resume would be at least slightly similar.

    • Hook 'Em 6
    • Like 1
  5. 4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

     

    No--they're not going to make every home game a night game.  But I expect they will have USC and UCLA playing a lot more night games than they currently do.

    But between USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon, someone is going to be playing a late-night game every Saturday.  

    Remember though, ESPN isn't a part of the B1G media package.   Pac After Dark is an ESPN construct.   Fox could put late night games on FS1, or more likely BTN, but these slots are not THAT valuable, they're just more valuable to ESPN than airing bowling.     Oregon/Indiana, prime time in Oregon, so late on the east coast, is a perfect BTN game and a good way to pay $30m a year.   I doubt USC will play an evening west coast game, but will play a lot of prime-time east coast slots, e.g. 4:30 pt.

    The B12 is in bed with ESPN, so I'd expect a lot of filler 4C games to end up later, like Iowa State at ASU or Kansas at BYU or Utah.   They don't have enough to fill them all, however, so the MWC will fill that niche very well with Oregon State and Washington State vs SDSU/Fresno/Boise.   That could maybe even get some juice like Maction does on Tuesdays.   If Stanford/Cal slide into that bed it just gets a bit better.

  6. 1 hour ago, statsman said:

    I have been googling, trying to find revenue breakdowns for the conferences- annual revenue from each media channel, revenue (when applicable) from conference networks or other tier 3. It seems intentionally clouded. For example, the amount paid to the B12 by ESPN and Fox combined is known, but I can’t find the individual contributions. Presumably, ESPN and Fox wouldn’t collude to maintain secrecy, so my guess is the conference is clouding it. 
     
    The B12 is not the only conference like this. I can find the ACC media revenue distribution, but not the discrete amount from the ACC network. 
     
    God only knows how the PAC net is accounted for. 
     
    Anyway, revenue ranks for colleges will grow to be reflective mainly of conference membership. The B10 and SEC get almost twice what the others get, and have the biggest attendances (presumably, greater ticket sales and merchandise sales). 
     
    NIL and the transfer portal have degraded the traditional small program “cheat codes” (hire a great coach and pay what it takes to keep him, and pay great players under the table). These are pro teams in pro leagues. Unlike the NFL and MLB, there is nothing to prop up the poorer franchises, like a draft or revenue sharing. 

    That's because the PACN is the only one that is a stand alone entity, so you see it like a corp filing.    All revenue and all expenses, which inflates the Pac pay out numbers if a beat writer does revenue only.

    • The networks never release their right agreements, outside grandiose full contract amounts.   The details are kept secret as part of winning the deal.   
    • ACC Network is structured like the SEC Network.   These are rights deals, but they have bonuses that can be achieved by increased viewership.  The payout is included in their yearly releases, just all in, they don't break it out by tier.  Both have a gigantic about of inventory on the channels, like nearly 50%.   They probably account for a quarter to a third of revenue though.
    • The B12's deal is a bit less on revenue, but higher on exposure; e.g. they gave up cash for marketing.  They'll have more games on broadcast and less on what would go to a channel, in this case ESPN+.   ESPN is about 2/3rds of their media deal revenue.   Fox took less good football games, but added a lot of basketball.
    • The B1G's used to have an ownership component that paid out differently, but back in the pandemic they controlling interest for cash.   Then they put all of their rights into BTN until the mid 2030s and BTN now does their agreements.   Which basically means Fox does their agreements.   So they won't break out who pays what either, likely as part of the agreement.

    At the end of the day, the Ohio State and Alabama's of the world aren't going to be more powerful due to media revenues.    The difference between the SEC and ACC in payouts, for Ohio State, for example, is like 10% of their full revenue.   The real question is can the top end of the B12/ACC keep up with the middle of the pack of the B1G/SEC.  

  7. not sure if this showed up here...

    ACC expansion: Stanford and Cal (and SMU, really?) would add nothing to a proud conference

    Quote

    It’s Stanford’s fault it’s so easy for me to explain to all of you why it’s such a terrible idea for the Atlantic Coast Conference to consider adding the Cardinal, California Golden Bears and – maybe, for some unfathomable reason, the SMU Mustangs – because Google was conceived on the “The Farm” by a couple of the many brilliant minds that have studied on that lovely campus.

    And, man, is Google handy in explaining how nondescript their revenue sports programs – the programs the ACC might drag all the way from the Pacific Coast – have been through most of the past several decades.

    I don’t need to have handy the Stanford or Cal football and basketball media guides to examine their records and attendance and (lack of) achievements. Google does that all for me, with a few typed words and the simple push of a button.

    Thanks, Stanford!

    There is the question of competence:

    – Stanford owns only seven seasons of double-digit football wins in its history, with an average record of 7-5 (73-50) over the past 10 seasons. Cal has posted seven seasons with double-digit wins, also, but four of them were before 1950. Its record over the past decade is 49-66.

    – Since 1980, such football icons as Bill Walsh (17-17-1 in his second stint as head coach, from 1992-94) and John Elway (15-18 in three seasons as regular starter, from 1980-82) failed to make Stanford a consistent winner. After a brilliant start to his time as head coach that included four major bowl appearances, David Shaw recently resigned after three losing seasons in a four-year stretch that saw the Cardinal go 14-28.

    – Stanford has reached only one NCAA men’s basketball tournament in the past 15 seasons. There have been only five 20-win seasons since the great Mike Montgomery left the head coaching job to work in the NBA in 2004. Montgomery’s era accounted for 12 of Stanford’s 17 total NCAA Tournament appearances. California has been to the NCAAs six times in the past 20 years. Montgomery, who took the Cal job after the NBA experiment didn’t go great, was head coach for four of those. He was in charge for 20 of the two schools’ combined 36 NCAA Tournaments. The ACC has five members (North Carolina, Duke, Louisville, Syracuse, Notre Dame) with more NCAA appearances than Cal and Stanford combined.

    There is the question of support:

    – For the 2022 football season, Stanford drew an average of 29,965 fans to its home games, the 68th-ranked average in the NCAA FBS subdivision. And that’s with tickets available free to students who register in advance, online. Among the schools that drew better: Boise State, East Carolina, Fresno State and Navy. California’s average was not much better, the 59th-ranked total of 38,596.

    – During the five-season period that preceded the pandemic, Stanford’s average attendance of 43,263 ranked 10th among the dozen teams in the Pac-12. Cal was No. 9, at 43,457.

    – For last season’s “Big Game”, the annual rivalry between the Cardinal and Bears that once produced the unforgettable “the band is out on the field!” moment, there were more than 10,000 empty seats at California Memorial Stadium.

    – For the 2022-23 men’s basketball season, Stanford drew an average of 3,518 fans to home games. That ranked No. 130 in Division I. That was worse than Wright State, Ball State, James Madison and Weber State. Three average Kentucky home games combined would exceed Stanford’s season attendance total. California drew an average of 2,155, which ranked 187th and was the worst of any school in a top-6 basketball conference, and a smidge behind Duquesne, Stony Brook and Kent State.

    Google even served up the perfect anecdote to summarize all this, courtesy of Stanford alum Christian McCaffrey, who talked about the day he returned to his dorm after he’d almost singlehandedly destroyed the UCLA defense in a Pac-12 game at Stanford Stadium.

    “I biked back to my dorm. I’m kind of on a high horse. I walk in, and six or seven people asked where I was!” McCaffrey told The Athletic. "I think I had something like 243 yards rushing, four touchdowns. And they didn’t know where I was!”

    He had exactly 243 rushing yards and four touchdowns.

    Google found me that, too.

    Ross Dellenger of Yahoo! Sports reports the ACC’s contract with ESPN would produce roughly $24 million for each new school added to the conference, and with Stanford, Cal and SMU all apparently willing to accept a greatly reduced share of revenue, the ACC could have an extra $30 million to distribute to members by expanding to include the three schools. David Glenn of the North Carolina Sports Network reports on Twitter there also could be a bump in the fees gathered by the ACC Network.

    No matter how you slice that cash, though, unless it’s winner-take all for whichever team wins the ACC Championship in football, an average of slightly more than $2 million per full member is not going to counterbalance the mostly mediocre (or worse) football and basketball teams that would be sullying what has long been a proud league.

    Even with recent Final Four appearances by Duke and North Carolina, the ACC has declined so badly in basketball it ranked seventh in the NET rankings, according to WarrenNolan.com. Imagine how much farther off the map the league would have fallen by adding the teams ranked 97 (Stanford), 209 (SMU) and 313 (Cal).

    If the ACC feels it might one day need more members to survive the departures of a few schools, there always are plenty of those hanging around. There's a good chance that, by the time the ACC's grant of rights and contract with ESPN expires in 2036, these three schools will still be searching for a home as plush as the one the ACC can offer.

    It might be worth going all the way to Tokyo if the ACC could find a couple of schools there with the tradition and support that would enhance the league’s membership. There’s no reason, though, to stop that recruiting trip in the Bay Area.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 3 hours ago, gatormarc said:

    They missed their 8/15 deadline without getting what they wanted, so it's back to working behind the scenes since they've got at least 22 months.

    Their short term plan is probably to keep voting no on expansion until they extract the maximum amount of money from MethCalFord to at least let them redo the math.

    This is the most likely hypothesis I've heard yet.

  9. 23 minutes ago, Zhorn96 said:

    I mean...SMU comes in for free for x years and Cal/Furd come in at 60-70% shares.  That's $50Mish added to the pool of other schools.  Do they go uneven to shut Clemson and FSU up?  Or is it an even split for an extra $3-4M a year each?  Travel is negligible except for the new schools...1 trip out west for football every other year and same presumably for bball (maybe once is year) is negligible.  And Apple is definitely hovering, do they sign an auxiliary deal for another $1-2M per school for filler games (or maybe more)?  I dunno.  Shit is blowing up in 5 years anyway, so...

    The ACC Network gets a bump with DFW and the Bay Area I guess, but its not THAT big of a bump.   The ACC is paid about the same as the B12, so lets, for simplicity, call it $35m.

    If Stanford, Cal, Oregon State or WSU were worth $35m, why isn't ESPN putting them in the B12, since they just paid for that for the 4 corners?   Clearly OSU/WSU are not on par and probably value out closer to $15m, which will help the MWC.   If Calford IS worth $70m combined but turned down the B12, then you could make it make sense I guess, but only for a short period of time.    At your 60-70%, that only amounts to $25m/year back to FSU/Clemson to split, but then they have to ship a fuck ton of other schools out to the west coast?   I mean Washington mentioned $10m in increased travel to the B1G, but they'll be making $80+m in six years.

    Its all sunken money.   They'd be better off saying, "you play in the playoffs you split 50% and the remaining 50% is split to non-participants."    That would make Clemson/FSU waaaaay more money in the short and long run as the ACC will likely be making $100-150m a year from the post season going forward.

  10. 16 hours ago, bullet said:

    I think Iowa has quite a few also.  The state has a gambling problem.

    Haha, a problem in that they looked.   I would imagine politicians and HCs in 49 other states are racing to whatever powers that be to just not look.

  11. 2 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

     

    The numbers for the existing SEC are artificially deflated because of the CBS deal.  

    As a part of that deal, Disney can't show any SEC games in primetime on ABC.

    That's why SEC games in primetime are always on ESPN (except for one CBS primetime game per season), while ABC shows a BIG, ACC, B12 or PAC game.

    Bama and UGA have big numbers on that chart because 90% of the time they are one of the teams playing in the 3:30 CBS game.

     

    They could be on Prime, they couldn't be on ABC counter CBS's afternoon slot.  The new deal for the SEC the mouse is allowed to put the biggest game in any slot and any channel, as long as they pay, they're not bound to the afternoon.

    They should be counting ESPN though, its basically a T1 channel at this point.  ESPN2/U is even to FS1, those are clearly T2.

    This graph is also a good indicator of how many games have hit conference networks and who doesn't play on them.  But, at the end of the day, win and you get on the good channels.

     

  12. 10 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

    2023 Preseason AP Top 25 sorted by 2024 conference:

    BIG -- 8 teams (Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 15, 19, 25).

    SEC -- 8 teams (Nos. 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23).

    Big 12 -- 3 teams (Nos. 14, 16, 17).

    ACC -- 3 teams (Nos. 8, 9, 21).

    PAC/MWC -- 1 team (No. 18 -Oregon State).

    AAC -- 1 team (No. 24)

    ND-- (No. 13)

     

    //

    Once the ACC is divided up, we could easily be looking at a top 25 of:

    BIG -- 10 teams

    SEC -- 10 teams

     Big 12 -- 3

    PAC/MWC -- 1

    AAC -- 1 

     

    If this year's rankings are any indication, it's going to be harder than I was originally thinking for the B12 to get two teams in.

     

    That's sort of an every year thing though.   How many times has A&M started in the top ten only to struggle to get 7 or 8 wins?   It won't look like this in October once loses start showing up.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 10 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    I would love to get rid of FCS games, but I believe our BOR, which governs all 3 of Iowa's public universities (ISU, Iowa, and Northern Iowa) puts a ton of pressure on ISU and Iowa to make sure Northern Iowa plays at least one of them (some years both of them) on annual basis.  Mostly to help subsidize UNI's athletic department with the buy game.

    My guess is Campbell and Ferentz would love to quit playing the Panthers.  Being as they always play us tough (actually win about 30% of the time lately), and my wife/in-laws are huge UNI fans/alumni, I would personally be fine with never playing them again in anything.

    If they're going to make Iowa and Iowa State just send them a million for a game, why not just give them $2m more in the budget and call it a day?

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 15 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

    FCS games are always home games. It's about ticket sales and revenue to local businesses.

    I'm with statsman on this one, FCS games can't go away fast enough.   They should be Spring games, or like post camp, pre-season, warmups or something.   

    I get that some places have another state FCS state school that gets a boost, but they shouldn't count towards W/L or even be a part of the season.   Its like if the Cowboys had an XFL game on the schedule.   

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...