Jump to content

Sandbagging Steve

Full Members
  • Posts

    586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sandbagging Steve

  1. 15 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    You should really drop it, the facts are not in your side.

    Nebraska was one of the only blueblood schools interested in going it alone and changing conferences at the time. Yes they’ve gone severely downhill, but it’s revisionist history at best to frame their additions as anything less than one of the best realignment moves in the BCS era at the time. Even now with Nebraska as shitty as they have been they are still have a following and are clearly in the top half of the B1G, in that second tier with Wisconsin and Michigan State.

    image.thumb.jpeg.c2defa762fa218077b88d45fc6fe24aa.jpeg

    UCLA is a blueblood basketball school that is also an amazing academic institution in a great media and recruiting market with good enough football appeal to get 6th best ratings of their expansion candidates (ND, Clemson, Oregon, USC, Florida St, UCLA). It doesn’t really matter what your thoughts on the matter are, but FOX/CBS/NBC all agreed that they/USC and the total ownership of the 2nd biggest media market in the nation was worth the price. If the PAC12 had retained UCLA and added SDSU it absolutely could have lowered the total valuation of the Big Ten’s TV deal since they’d have a divided market where they could be in direct competition with each other splitting the total viewership.

    Nothing new since the report about 7 ACC schools trying to dissolve their conference and/or break their GOR.

     

    1. B1G was all set to add Missouri before Nebraska talked them out of it.

    2. In 2021, Nebraska was hanging out below Iowa and right there close to Mississippi St., Stanford, TCU. They are clearly in the third tier with close to a dozen teams. And they've been trending downwards for nearly two decades.

    3. I'm not arguing anything other than the B1G isn't just adding teams worth their own weight. It's the guy I'm responding to that is saying that. The fact of the matter is, there's very little that separates 15 to 20 teams in the third tier. LTBear seems to think none of these teams have a shot at going to the B1G. The B1G has already taken some of them. Nebraska and UCLA are two of them.

  2. 1 minute ago, LTbear said:

    Again, you said "coast to coast conference with continuous borders." I call bullshit on that statement. They won't take "filler" schools they "can afford" just for the sake of filling in a map. If they all make more money by leaving out UA or ASU or whoever, they will leave them out. 

    You said I walked back what I said and that is false. All I've ever said is they would like to go coast to coast with a continuous border and if those programs get rehabbed they may get added. It is that simple. I have never wavered from that statement.  This is the reason for my last reply. It's not a secret they would in fact like to do that. It doesn't mean it will happen. I never said it will happen. It would take the right circumstances but it is something they've always wanted to do.

    Other than that, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. For one, I'm pretty sure the B1G would have made more money by leaving out UCLA and Nebraska but they added them anyway.  There is no way UCLA is worth anywhere near 60, 70, or 80 million dollars right now with USC in the fold. But UCLA was a good addition to the conference and probably helped secure USC as well as allowed more teams to play in LA for recruiting purposes. It wasn't just about revenue. They wouldn't be chasing UVA if that was their concern. UVA has never had the numbers to bring that kind of revenue to the B1G. But they will chase them at some point in time. It's always been one of their top priorities (UVA/UNC).

    Which programs are going to bring $80 million to the B1G? Notre Dame? Yes. Florida State:? I don't think FSU can even get that high. So the B1G is done with expansion forever once they land Notre Dame? Maybe they force the cable providers to pay a premium for the B1GN in San Fran? Bring in tiny little Stanford? And then you believe they are done? Couldn't they just force cable providers to pay a premium in every B1G state at this point? They have more leverage now. That changes the value of more teams moving forward.

    What teams do you think are worth $80 million per year right now that the B1G will eventually add? Because from what you are saying, that's the requirement.

  3. 3 minutes ago, LTbear said:

    That's the longest-worded walk back of a statement I've ever seen. And selectively reading to appease the Big XII? What?

    My original wording was on the previous page. The one where I mentioned Colorado:

    B1G (24 to 28): Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Miami, Duke (basketball only)

    *I could see the B1G adding Stanford, Arizona (rehabbed), Utah and Colorado (rehabbed) down the road. The B1G will have 4 of the 5 behemoths in tOSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. This allows them to finish their 30+ year plan for a national conference that stretches coast-to-coast with continuous borders. They can afford to take Georgia Tech, and Stanford and fill in geographic territory with a Colorado and Arizona.

     

    You are full of shit. I hope you aren't a real professor as you claim.

  4. 2 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

    It's a little ridiculous to laugh off the value of Nebraska and UCLA then hype up the potential of a rehabbed Arizona or Colorado.  They are all the CFB equivalent of run down homes waiting to be flipped, except Nebraska and UCLA are in the nicest neighborhoods with deep-pocketed investors attempting to flip them while Arizona and Colorado are on the outskirt part of town that may or may not boom in 10-20 years and their flips are carried out by weekend warriors using YouTube guides.

    If all of those programs went on a decade-long run of consistently playing at a CFP-level with a few years as legit title contenders Nebraska then UCLA would have much higher ratings and value than Arizona and Colorado, and not just because of conference affiliation.  Nebraska will always have some of the best fan support in all of CFB, which translates to NIL nowadays.  UCLA is in a great recruiting territory and will soon be one of only two P2 schools west of Texas.  With some success they should be able to build and maintain it easier than Arizona or Colorado would.  We don't know if any of these programs will ever be rehabbed, but you're writing off the two with the most upside as negative value while trying to sell everyone on the two with less upside and longer odds to pull off a flip.

    Personally, I wouldn't have any interest in Colorado to the B1G even if they did rehab.  Their football team has been flaming dogshit almost every year beginning with a 2 and their AD was apathetic to it.  They do nothing in basketball.  They don't bring much in recruiting and they don't have a rabid fanbase.  They wouldn't help USC/UCLA with travel.  If you're going to be in the air that long from LA you might as well fly the extra 45 minutes or so until you get to Lincoln.  They were perfectly content to do the bare minimum required to get that sweet conference revenue sharing check.  They only started to give a fuck about onfield performance when the gravy train they were living off departed for the B1G, which isn't something I'd like to reenact after Prime Time gets poached by the SEC and they hire another Dorrell.  Arizona would be alright as a "last flight out of Saigon" invitation to put a bow on B1G realignment.  They have elite basketball, AZ recruiting is better than CO recruiting and they actually do help LA schools with travel, unlike other schools that call themselves LA travel partners.

    I'm not writing off anyone. it's not me trying to say that all these added programs bring big bucks to the B1G on their own merit. That's where this argument got started. That the B1G will only add teams that bring massive value to the conference with no help from their bluebloods. My argument is some of the teams they've already added don't really carry their own weight. One poster basically thinks it's Notre Dame and I guess no one else. Maybe FSU? I'm arguing the opposite. B1G is going to grow and it's not going to be just about every program adding some massive amount of money to the conference. And they absolutely want to go coast to coast if they can make it work.

    I agree and disagree with you. If the wins are equal, UCLA, Arizona and Colorado blow Nebraska out the door. But the wins aren't equal. If UCLA, Arizona and Colorado won at old Nebraska's pace for many decades, they would have a massive following that Nebraska could not match. But none of that is ever happening for any of the 4 programs. Just like there's a 0% chance Nebraska ever wins another national championship and their so-called diehard fan base will continue to shrink. They can win again, but not like the old days and there will be way more ups and downs, which doesn't help their cause in a state in the middle of nowhere with less than 2 million people.

  5. 10 minutes ago, Lou_Sassle said:

    I dont know why... but I just get the feeling you're not very fun to be around at parties. 

    You'd be correct! Next week I'm leaving on a six-month road trip through parks, mountains, and geological formations. I'd be miserable at a party at this point in my life. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Rutgers and Maryland bring in well over $100m a year to BTN alone due to allowing it to charge in-market rates for NYC and Baltimore/DC DMAs for the millions of Big Ten alums in those areas.  Rutgers couldn't have done it alone, but Rutgers playing Ohio State and Michigan and Penn State all in NYC does.   Same holds true for USC/UCLA.

    Colorado is in Denver's DMA of 1.7m households, but that's less than half of what Maryland brings and less than a quarter of Rutgers.   Arizona is in the Tuscon DMA, which is the size of Des Moines/Ames.  ASU has a better argument in the Phoenix DMA, which is still half of Maryland's households.

    Nebraska is a brand add.   Even with decades of mediocrity, they're Big Red.   They make you money on T1 negotiations.

    I understand those numbers and I get it. It was still a leverage move and doesn't work any other way. The same goes for Maryland. 

    How does Nebraska make T1 revenue anywhere near the B1G per team numbers? For the most part, they have a regional following in the modern era. The national titles are never coming back. The B1G was originally planning to take Missouri until Nebraska got on its knees and begged.

    There will come a point when the B1G is in enough states across the country that they will start charging everyone the tier 1 price. The states of Colorado and Arizona are doable. This is something I've been arguing about since they first expanded. That's one of the goals IMO. Charge everyone a premium for the B1GN. Also, a revived Colorado/Arizona brings in some decent T1 value. It's not B1G money, but they both have fanbases waiting for wins. Arizona and Colorado had solid ratings in the 90s and even through part of the 2000s. They would be playing bigger programs in the B1G.

    Arizona State is worth more, but the B1G won't consider them unless they make strides in the classroom.

    I'm not saying these programs are going to get added, but under the right circumstances, they will be considered.

  7. 14 minutes ago, Sandbagging Steve said:

    They brought in that money because B1G/Fox had the power and the leverage to force it down cable providers' throats. It wasn't Maryland and Rutgers. If a powerful entity with all the leverage wants to make something work, it can usually find a way to make it work. Rutgers would not bring that money to the ACC Network or the PACN because they can't really bring that market. If the B1G wants to add a team, and as long as they can just find a slither of an argument to sell it, they'll make it happen. It's why Texas got $300 million for the LHN, which had no real value in any unleveraged business deal. That's my point.

    Nebraska LULZ

    UCLA? a sidekick

    If the B1G lands UNC/UVA (UVA is actually a loss leader as well) and Notre Dame, they would take a rehabbed Colorado/Arizona and make it work. They would no doubt consider Georgia Tech. That's a long, long way away anyway. They have enough leverage and they want the borders closed. You can't sell it in its current state, but any kind of revival (CU, Arizona) and they will force it some way or another. There are 3 million people in the Denver metro alone and over 7 million in the state of Arizona.

    We see this kind of stuff play out in the business world every day. Leverage and power can sometimes trump reality.

    Trump Idiot GIF - Trump Idiot Dumb - Discover & Share GIFs

  8. 13 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Rutgers brought in a metric shit ton of money.   Maryland brought in just shy of a metric shit ton of money.   

    They brought in that money because B1G/Fox had the power and the leverage to force it down cable providers' throats. It wasn't Maryland and Rutgers. If a powerful entity with all the leverage wants to make something work, it can usually find a way to make it work. Rutgers would not bring that money to the ACC Network or the PACN because they can't really bring that market. If the B1G wants to add a team, and as long as they can just find a slither of an argument to sell it, they'll make it happen. It's why Texas got $300 million for the LHN, which had no real value in any unleveraged business deal. That's my point.

    Nebraska LULZ

    UCLA? a sidekick

    If the B1G lands UNC/UVA (UVA is actually a loss leader as well) and Notre Dame, they would take a rehabbed Colorado/Arizona and make it work. They would no doubt consider Georgia Tech. That's a long, long way away anyway. They have enough leverage and they want the borders closed. You can't sell it in its current state, but any kind of revival (CU, Arizona) and they will force it some way or another. There are 3 million people in the Denver metro alone and over 7 million in the state of Arizona.

    We see this kind of stuff play out in the business world every day. Leverage and power can sometimes trump reality.

  9. 2 minutes ago, LTbear said:

    You said "a coast to coast conference with continuous borders." That does not happen without some combo of Colorado/ Utah/ Arizona/ ASU/ etc. And that is the entirety of what I called bullshit on. The B1G will not take programs that don't bring in the money just to fill out a map. So if you're now going back on that statement, then we have no disagreement.

    I said that has always been their plan and they would take a REHABBED Colorado and Arizona from the Big 12 IF those programs showed any progress. To add to it, they wouldn't take them, even rehabbed, if they were located in Boise, Idaho. And they've already done it! They've taken a bunch shitty schools that bring nothing without the big programs in the B1G. You're reading what you want to read and selectively avoiding certain facts that appease the Big 12. 

    "a coast-to-coast conference with continuous borders" isn't really my thing. It's what the B1G prefers and it's been the case for a very long time. It doesn't mean it will happen, but they are going to try and make it happen. 

    I've never seen someone not only change what someone said but also dispute prior facts.

    Nebraska did not bring in the money. UCLA did not bring in the money. Rutgers did not really bring in the money. Maryland most certainly did not bring in the money. The B1G brands brought in the money and it helped them create chaos and eventually land USC and will help them eventually land Notre Dame. 

    The B1G had to expand to survive. They could see the future and they needed more than the Rust Belt.

  10. 1 hour ago, Bama Llama said:


    The shades of Royal and Bryant will be roaming around, causing field goals to hook and passes to be dropped.

    You better hope that's not the case because we all know Bear Bryant can't beat St. Darrell anywhere near a football field!

    3-0-1

    If it's a burnt-orange sunset, ballgame over.

    Fun Fact GIFs | Tenor

    • Hook 'Em 3
  11. 3 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

    The closer we get to the end of cable, the less UNC is worth to a conference media deal.  They're basically Kansas if they can't point toward "in-state subs" tied to cable.  

    Their football program has way more potential than Kansas, although it isn't a power player. Their basketball program is one of probably 2 or 3 in America big enough to make a difference. 

    North Carolina and Kentucky, maybe Syracuse and Kansas. UCLA could be there but they just don't care enough

    Not even Duke basketball has a fan base large enough to make a difference 

    UNC can recruit and play solid football. In a better conference, they will produce solid football numbers for such a powerhouse in basketball.

    Kansas spends too much time getting blown out in a high school stadium in a state of 3 million. If they could fix that issue, they'd be in the SEC/B1G.

    UNC's value would actually go up with no cable TV.  That massive, rabid basketball fan base in a state of 11.5 million and growing, not to count their national following. 

    They will reach borderline top 25 football attendance numbers in the SEC/B1G. They typically average 50k to 55k in attendance while playing a terrible ACC schedule. I think they see the importance of their football program moving forward. They don't need to win championships, but just remain competitive in order for UNC basketball to pull the rest of the weight. They are an upgraded version of Kentucky in the SEC.

  12. Just now, Not a cat said:

    Perhaps this is covered in one of the 545 other pages I'm not going to read, but how was UCLA able to just leave Cal Berkeley behind like that?  You'd think the UC system with 2 crown jewels would make sure to protect each one.  The answer may be as simple as the UC system doesn't give a shit about football, but damn this is going to cost Berkeley a lot of money going forward.

    I'll give a few:

    Because Cal cares about CR more than football.

    Because politics shouldn't be allowed in these decisions.

    Because the UC system includes nine campuses and Cal is already one of the most privileged of those nine.

    Cal-Berkeley wipes their ass with money. Any issues they're having are of their own stupidity. Maybe the politicians should ask why Cal needs the money so badly. 

    And because UCLA is only going to the B1G because USC got an invite and the B1G wants 2 teams in LA. In other words, UCLA doesn't have much say in this and the PAC is dead man walking.

    Despite all that, the politics in California did get involved and may force UCLA to give B1G revenue to Cal every year., which should be against the damn law.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 11 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

    A relatively sensible path forward:

    1. Big 12 takes the 4C (maybe they get spooked by the ACC implosion talk)
    2. Big Ten adds Oregon/Washington after the 4C move
    3. SEC adds FSU/Clemson at some point
    4. ACC - now stable b/c nobody wants the rest of their membership - adds Big 12's eastern flank
    5. Big 12 adds more from out west. 

    The Big Ten and SEC are both at 18.  The Big 12 and ACC are both around 16.  It's not perfect, but it's pretty rivalry-friendly.  Other than  the B1G's western schools (their long-time Rose Bowl partners), the geography of each conference makes sense.  We don't have any giant football brands sharing a conference with small brands anymore (easier media rights negotiations going forward, more stable intra-conference dynamics, etc.) 

    Not a terrible look at it, but...

    I can't see UNC staying in that conference if FSU/Clemson leaves for the SEC. And if UNC leaves, UVA is probably going with them.

    Short term, the ACC could dissolve and kick out Wake Forest, Duke and Boston College (maybe one more), play a 9-game conference schedule and probably add $10+ million dollars per team to a "new" ACC. It would be a short-term stopgap. 

  14. 1 minute ago, LTbear said:

    Rutgers and Maryland weren't fillers via the revenue model when they were added. Notre Dame does not give a rat's ass about playing in Arizona (which is required to create a coast to coast conference with continuous borders). And the B1G is not going to add UA or ASU just to create a pretty "continuous" map.

    One can argue the B1G was getting the revenue with or without Rutgers. 

    Many can argue some of the teams I put on my list are worth more to the B1G than Rutgers.

    Rutgers and  Maryland absolutely are filler programs being propped up by the big brands in the B1G. It's why that model works. B1GN works because the big brands play ball in that conference. It has nothing to do with Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska or UCLA. Rutgers and Maryland give them a pathway to the ACC all the way down Florida. Nebraska gives them a gateway to the West. That's been one of their plans all along. 

    It isn't a secret the B1G wants continuous borders if they can pull it off and make it work financially. Like, it's never been a secret that's the desire, whether they can make it work or not is another story.

    They want UVA desperately, which is a net loser for the conference. But they won't be because they will be propped up by the big programs in the B1G.  Why do they want UVA? Because academics matter to them and mainly because UVA opens up the possibility to UNC, the next state over!

    Nowhere did I say anything about Notre Dame wanting to play in Arizona. Where did you get that? You seem mad? 

    If Arizona were to start winning in football again, with their basketball program, it will be something they absolutely consider. I never said Arizona, Utah or Colorado were going to the B1G, btw. 

     

  15. 14 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Not to the B1G and SEC, to the Big 12 maybe.   By FSU's own consultants they're currently worth $40m.  That's around 40% less.

    The best way to look at it is compare against who just moved.    Is VTech bringing the same brand power as Texas?   No, so they're not breaking even.   There are no properties in the ACC that add up to that level of value.   None.   FSU the biggest football brand in the ACC, even after Clemson's titles, and they're below Oklahoma in brand value.   

    Any ACC move to the B1G or SEC is not for short term gain.   It's to secure something for the future.  

    The only conference who can add to their current contract by addition with this chaos is the Big 12 and maybe, MAYBE, the B1G with Notre Dame.   

    Very true, but the $40 million is what FSU is worth in a losing decade and playing in a terrible conference against terrible opponents. In other words, as you said, it's a long-term play and we know they're really worth way more than that in the long run. Take their average winning/losing over a 50-year period, and look at what the viewership would be when they play with that average record against the type of teams they would play in the B1G/SEC and that's the long-term value. That's how these decisions will be made.

  16. Just now, LTbear said:

    They will not add "fillers" that don't bring in just as much new money for the sake of making a map look pretty. 

    They've already done it and they'll do it again. You've already been proven wrong (Rutgers/Maryland/Nebraska). The big programs can carry a certain amount of slightly lesser programs. I revived Colorado playing big brands in the B1G close to Denver isn't losing money for the B1G. B1G brands playing in Atlanta aren't losing money for the conference. Notre Dame is going to want a national conference as well and they can carry at least 2 (maybe 3) teams with their value. The less percentage of B1G games that includes Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, and Rutgers creates some value for the conference. 

    You are forgetting that not only will these teams need to rehab their programs, but:

    1. Large B1G teams will be playing them, which drives big TV viewership.

    2. That the B1G owns a large stake in the B1GN.

    3. That Notre Dame is a BEHEMOTH and they will want some of those teams in the conference (Stanford, GT, Miami and national schedule).

    4. More conference teams allow them to force 10, 11, or 12 conference games on their peers, which increases revenue.

    5. This was their whole reason for expanding in the first place!!

  17. 33 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

    The economics absolutely do not support the B1G going to 24 or 28 teams. I think we are headed to 3 power conferences of 18-20 in football, plus possibly a 4th "power conference lite" that arises out of the rubble of the left behinds plus some of the other fringe schools being talked about in all of the realignment discussions. That would seem to make more sense rather than schools like Duke, Georgia Tech, Utah, Arizona State, etc going down to G5. Their alumni bases would not tolerate that. 

    Sure it does. My post wasn't a short-term move. I'm looking down the road. As I stated in my post, the B1G started realignment over 30 years ago with a long-term plan of building a coast-to-coast conference of like-minded teams with continuous borders. That's what started all of this. That is the "mission statement" of conference realignment.

    First, Georgia Tech, Utah and ASU are never going any lower than the Big 12. And UNC is a slam dunk to the P2.

    B1G, with Notre Dame, will have 4 of the 5 BEHEMOTHS of college athletics. I don't think some of you realized just how much those 5 are worth to the landscape of college athletics. B1G brings in as much or more money than the SEC despite having several deadweight teams in their conference. That's because of tOSU, Michigan and PSU. Once they add Notre Dame, to go along with the entire LA metroplex, they can afford to add some filler programs to round out their long-term plan of a coast-to-coast conference with continuous borders. 

    I didn't write that post as if it were about to happen. As I said, Colorado and Arizona would have to rehab their programs in the Big 12 first. It's not a slam dunk all those teams will be added to the B1G on the first round of ACC realignment. And if UNC/UVA goes to the SEC, the B1G's dream is dead in the water...until the SEC and B1G consolidate their brands.

     

  18. The long-term goal isn't about a conference. It's about consolidating brands to create rules by like-minded programs and create a much more exciting brand of football. The long-term goal is to take the schedule out of the hands of the universities in order to maximize profits by playing more conference opponents. It just takes time to get there because there are a lot of different agendas with some say in the process. When push comes to shove, the bluebloods, commissioners and TV execs always get their way.

  19. I looked at the realignment posts before Bob Thompson and the posts after Bob Thompson and it's amazing what a little brainwashing can do to the human population. A complete reversal of program evaluation on message boards across the country. Night and day difference. All because one guy released some propaganda to give his sources leverage. We see it every day in CR and it's very effective. Humans can't help but allow themselves to be brainwashed and influenced by people of a certain status. They forget many times that person has an agenda.

    We see it in recruiting every year and fanatics never learn their lesson.

    There are way too many basic assumptions using way too narrow a focus to determine program value.  This wasn't happening before Bob Thompson. Now everyone is looking for numbers that back up Bob Thompson and they are forgetting all the variables that determine valuation. Value investing is a long-term strategy.

    Many of these are very easy to predict. 

    You aren't giving some of these teams nearly enough credit. Whether the program is at a low/high point on the field triggers a mistake of value. The conference opponents (the schedule) can and do create a mistake of value.  The channels played on (because of the conference or current team standing) gives off a mistake of value. 

    You aren't giving these teams a fair value. It's a long-term investment and the new conference creates a brand new value.

     

  20. 12 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

    Agree, i like that map.   So, let's play the 60 game:

    B1G 16 + 4: ND/Stanford, then who?   UVA/UNC, BC (hockey, Irish/B1G Alums, massive market), Colorado to have a layover, Georgia Tech?  Does Oregon/Washington still make sense?    I'm going with ND/Stanford/UVA/UNC because that feels like how a B1G President would vote.

    SEC 16 + 4: If UVA/UNC is off the board - FSU/Clemson/NCSt/VTech   Not as sexy, but condensed, plants a flag in two fast growing states, gains a multiple recent natty not too far from the ATL, and doubles up on both Florida and Texas.

    B12 + 8: Could have the following to choose from - Arizona, ASU, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Pitt, Miami, Utah, Louisville, Gtech?   Looking at monetization I'd likely go: Oregon, Miami, Washington, Arizona, ASU, Colorado, Pitt, then either a knife fight between Louisville and Utah, or plant a flag in Cal.

    Possible Left-out: BC/Cuse/Wake/Duke/GTech/Cal/Oregon State/Washington State

    Break away and focus all football on those three.   Only need half the autos any more.  Also don't need to share with the left-outs nor the Gs.    If you really wanted to skyrocket the money, take all 60 to the market at the same time through a consolidated entity.   You could get to stupid money if all 60 only played themselves and managed/negotiated as a single group.

    I will put what I think has at least a realistic option in the long run and that is best for college football

    I also see 10/11/12-plus-game conference schedules in the future with few to no OOC games before the playoff.

    SEC (20): VT, NC State, FSU, Clemson

    *But I could see UNC/UVA added or taking the place of VT, NC State. 

    *VT and NC State could also end up in the Big 12

    B1G (24 to 28): Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, UNC, UVA, Georgia Tech, Miami, Duke (basketball only)

    *I could see the B1G adding Stanford, Arizona (rehabbed), Utah and Colorado (rehabbed) down the road. The B1G will have 4 of the 5 behemoths in tOSU, Michigan, Penn State and Notre Dame. This allows them to finish their 30+ year plan for a national conference that stretches coast-to-coast with continuous borders. They can afford to take Georgia Tech, and Stanford and fill in geographic territory with a Colorado and Arizona.

    *I gave the B1G UNC/UVA not because I'm confident they go there, but because I think it's best for college football. The more I think about it, the more VT and NC State fit in the SEC and the more the B1G really needs UNC/UVA to fill in geography to reach Flordia and help their lagging recruiting efforts.

    With the Big 12, we first must look at the long-term new goals of the new, aggressive commissioner. He's looking to build a national conference of programs that bring stabilization and financial security. What kind of profile fits this description?

    1. Big public universities OR large geographical areas and new territory

    2. Competitive on the field but not necessarily measured in wins

    3. Investment in football/basketball facilities and hiring of coaches

    4. Basketball success with a solid football program

    5. Potential for growth

    Big 12 (20-22 + 3 basketball giants): SDSU, Fresno State, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Colorado, Pitt, Louisville, Memphis, South Florida, UCONN (all sports but football), Gonzaga (all sports but football), Syracuse (all sports but football)

    *This may be harder to predict. Will the B1G eventually come back and fill in geography? Will the B1G take GT to get to Atlanta and open the gate to Florida? I think GT is 50/50 to the B1G vs. Big 12 in the long run. Will Cal be forced to put their academic snobbery on hold, get desperate and hold their nose while joining the Big 12? Will VT and NC State get left out of the P2 and end up in the Big 12? Does Oregon State eventually get an invite? I don't think so.  SDSU, Memphis, South Florida, and Fresno State are down-the-road picks based on potential. 

    *I would like to see the Big 12 play a 12 or 13-game conference schedule and no OOC games. Add a 4 team conference playoff at the end up of the season. Teams worthy of the national playoff get invited. Some of this stuff, if anything like it ever happens, is still down the road.

    66 teams + 4 basketball programs breakaway but still invite some other conferences to the Big Dance. 

    All conference game schedules (no more than one OOC game) in order to increase competitiveness, which increases revenue generated and makes for happy fans.

  21. 1 hour ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    I hate this shit. Some regarded Inside Texas poster actually suggested adding the ACC Magnificent 7 + Duke, and an 8 game conference schedule. No. F*** no. We didn’t join the SEC to play Florida and Georgia once every 10 years. 
     

    The ACC’s problems are of their own making. Let them solve it. They were dumb enough to accept an ESPN IOU on the ACC Network and some bjorked Tier 3 revenue projections. 
     

    Stay at 16. 3-6 conference schedule model. Play everyone every other year. Profit. This isn’t hard. 

    Not all those teams should be added but the worst part of this idea is 8 conference games. The future is actually 10, 11, 12 conference games and that's a win for all involved. Taking the game selection out of the hands of the universities and forcing them to lineup and play each other.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  22. I was reviewing the new 2022 attendance numbers.

    These aren't TV viewership numbers, but sometimes TV viewership numbers don't tell the full story. Some teams have no choice but to play below-average and uncompetitive conference teams while the SEC/B1G play large fan base vs large fan base in competitive contests. Some teams are on a historical losing streak and others are on a historical winning streak.  Some teams have to play on generic channels in bad time slots and others play in much better positions. 

    Just watch Texas/OU and their massive jump in viewership in the SEC. ATM has already shown major improvement from their Big 12 days. It's not all the other teams, it's two big fan bases playing competitive football that draws the full viewership from both fan bases and attracts new viewers from around the country.

    2022 Top 25 in attendance

    https://badgerswire.usatoday.com/lists/top-25-college-football-teams-in-home-attendance-for-2022-season

    Some thoughts:

    Despite a decade of losing and a 3-8 season, Virginia Tech still ranks in the top 25 in attendance and pulled as much as USC while they were on a playoff run with their new hotshot coach.

    23. Virginia Tech (3-8) 64,356

    22. USC (11-3) 64,487

    SEC/B1G made up 20 of the 25 teams on the list. Incredible

    SEC: 12

    B1G: 8

    B1G strength is they will more than likely control 4 of only 5 behemoth fan bases in college athletics

    tOSU, Michigan, Penn State, Notre Dame (national brand but not yet in the B1G)

    SEC only has Texas

    B1G will control 5 of the 8 bluebloods in college football, but Nebraska is to be determined.

    SEC strength is big brands with competitive history. Vanderbilt is the only weak point in the SEC and Mississippi State is the only other program that is average. State is typically competitive, so it makes it hard to complain.

    SEC: 12 of the 25 with numbers 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 25

    I might add that Missouri and Mississippi State crack the top 25 from time to time and Kentucky, a basketball blueblood, typically averages close to 55,000 fans. That's 7,000 to 10,000 more than the average of the entire PAC 12 Conference! Vanderbilt is the only pure deadweight in the entire conference. I'd guesstimate that Vanderbilt football costs the SEC $85,000,000 per year moving forward. Every time an SEC team has to play them, it's costing the conference a ton of money. Every game against Vandy could be against a FSU or Clemson instead of a team that not only lacks a fan base but isn't competitive on the field. I'm not talking wins, I'm talking just avoiding blowouts that keep viewers away.

    5 teams on the list not in the P2:

    24. Washington

    23. Virginia Tech

    21. Florida State

    15. Notre Dame

    14. Clemson

    Florida State is still trying to recover from an abysmal run. All these teams play in conferences and against competition that hurts their overall attendance and TV viewership. They all have the potential for improvement in the stands and on the TV sets in a better conference. This is why Oregon hasn't expanded its stadium. They would be on this list with huge draws in the few big games every year, but they don't want empty seats against 4-8/7-5 Arizona, Stanford, Cal, Arizona State, Colorado, etc.

    For some reason, the 2019 season is the last year showing up for all attendance records straight from the NCAA

    http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2019.pdf

    Only major changes:

    21. Iowa State

    22. BYU

    25. NC State

    Virginia Tech and USC are once again neck-and-neck at 23 and 24

    I post the NCAA list to review the schools that missed the top 25

    26. Mississippi State

    27. West Virginia

    28. Oklahoma State

    29. Missouri

    30. Purdue

    The one outlier, Purdue on an uptick is the one that ranks much higher in attendance than they can probably get in TV viewership. Their numbers also fall off a cliff when losing. 

    There's an argument that there's less a gap between UNC/UVA and VT/NC State than some perception leads the fanatics to believe. If Duke has to tag along, it may actually be more beneficial to add VT/NC State. One could also argue VT and NC State could be "rehabbed" with more like-minded culture in the SEC. And with the SEC stacked with very little deadweight, two large public universities in healthy new states bordering SEC country aren't going to cost the conference at the box office.

    2019 Conference Attendance:

    Average attendance per game 

    SEC: 72,723

    B1G: 65,065

    Big 12: 57,467

    ACC: 48,243

    PAC: 46,080

    ACC/PAC can't even average 50,000 attendance and that includes USC/UCLA in the PAC. You can see the challenges facing the top-tier teams in both of these conferences. They play uncompetitive teams with small fan bases on obscure channels in bad time slots way too often. Just think about what they could bring to the SEC/B1G. Heck, even the Big 12 would be a major improvement in the stands and on TV for the top-tier in the PAC/ACC.

    SEC/B1G increase their long-term potential every time they add a competitive football program with a large fan base from a flagship university. Every team added that meets this profile (or Notre Dame), brings down the percentage of conference games played against net negative football programs like Vanderbilt, Indiana and usually Purdue. You can even throw in current Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois and Northwestern. 

    Oregon and Washington added to the B1G means less times tOSU and company play the above net negative teams.

    Florida State and Clemson added to the SEC means less times Alabama and company play Vanderbilt.

    The long-term potential of adding big brands pays off down the road, especially with added conference games and less OOC games no doubt on the horizon in the future. Take it out of the hands of the universities and the money goes up.

    Where are you going to put these games? Lots of places. The premium channels now get a bigger selection to make sure they get massive ratings every single week. And then you can sell lesser packages to streaming services and cable channels like USA Network, if needed. Live TV is KING.

    I don't see any way the P2 passes on any of the five teams on this top 25 list plus Oregon/UNC. I also cannot see Miami being left out when the B1G needs helmet programs that can recruit and bring speed to the conference. They can get that in one of the largest states in the country. No way they turn that down, if it's an option.

    I'd put it at less than 5% any of these teams get left behind

  23. The Ross Dellenger article stands out in a world of deceit and manipulation as the best-written word on the subject for probably the last six months. I didn't see it posted, but it's worth another paste even if it has been posted here.

    But before I post it, here's a new P5 map that I like

    7h7g989bdqn71.jpg

     

    Dellenger's SI article

    https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/15/college-football-expansion-whats-next-power-5-conferences

    Spoiler

    ‘The Next Wave Is Coming’: Expansion, Realignment and What’s at Stake for Power 5 Conferences

    How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up while generating millions less than the SEC and Big Ten? Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.
     

    Two weeks ago, inside a lavish resort in suburban Phoenix, down a long hallway and two flights of stairs, executives from two conferences inched closer to further altering the landscape of college sports.

    They talked about expansion.

    Often sparring publicly with one another, the two sets of league administrators separately met behind closed doors like a pair of boxers secretly preparing for the big fight against each other.

    In one corner was the Pac-12, an array of broad-based universities, betrayed by their Los Angeles defectors and now at the mercy of media networks to prevent further departures.

    In the other corner is the Big 12, an expanding group of universities, spanning Utah to Florida, with a brash commissioner whose aggressive nature makes him a territorial threat to the West.

    The juxtaposition of the scene was fascinating—a mere 20 feet of carpet separating the two meetings within a labyrinth of convention space at the Hyatt Regency Gainey Ranch.

    Within the meeting rooms, each league’s strategy unfolded ahead of their proverbial territorial battle. Just paces from the Pac-12’s gathering, Big 12 leaders discussed a list of expansion targets, four of them residing in the Pac-12: Colorado, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah.

    Other targets are from a variety of leagues: San Diego State and UNLV from the Mountain West; UConn, which is independent in football and in the Big East in basketball; and Memphis, from the American. There are others, too, such as Colorado State, SMU and Fresno, but they seem further down the pecking order.

    The Pac-12, meanwhile, discussed its own expansion possibilities: San Diego State and SMU.

    “It could be an active summer,” says one administrator with knowledge of the discussions.

    The near-yearlong realignment buzz surrounding these two conferences—will Pac-12 members defect to the Big 12?—is entering what appears to be its final chapter. Over the next 30 to 60 days more clarity is expected as the Pac-12’s new television deal is finalized.

    But this is a small piece of a larger puzzle.

    The Big 12-versus-Pac 12 territorial fight is one battle in a realignment war that has waged for decades. While the most recent moves were about the consolidation of football’s most valuable brands—Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, and USC and UCLA to the Big Ten—the next wave is about survival.

    How do the Big 12, Pac-12 and ACC keep up competitively while generating millions less than college football’s two behemoths? 

    Some believe all three of them cannot coexist successfully.

    “The big next issue is, can we keep the perception of college athletics as involving all of us?” asks Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. “Or, does the Big Ten and SEC become college athletics in terms of popular perception, and, if they do, how does that influence shape the future of college athletics?”

    The ACC

    This week in Amelia Island, administrators from the ACC gather for their own spring meetings.

    More frank discussions are expected about the growing revenue gap between it and the SEC/Big Ten. Handcuffed by an ESPN broadcasting contract and grant-of-rights that extends another 13 years, ACC schools could find themselves more than $30 million behind the SEC and Big Ten in annual distribution by the time 2026 arrives.

    They are not alone, as the data and analytics company Navigate showed in projections last year.

    While the Pac-12 and Big 12 fight their western expansion battle, the ACC is, in many ways, fighting internally.

    A subset of seven schools in the 14-member conference has coalesced over what many of them describe as an untenable situation. Officials from the seven schools, led by Florida State and Clemson, have met a handful of times over the past several months, with their lawyers examining the grant-of-rights to determine just how unbreakable it is.

    Per the grant-of-rights, each ACC school gives ownership of its broadcasting rights to the league in a deal with ESPN that runs through 2036. If a school breaks the deal, the ACC will continue to own the TV rights of any of that school’s home games, according to the contract.

    The ACC’s options are quite limited, both for the group of seven and the league as a whole.

    1. Seek additional revenue from ESPN. This is a long shot given the network’s current situation. ESPN, in the midst of a wave of personnel cuts, is also negotiating deals with UFC/WWE, the NBA and Pac-12. While commissioner Jim Phillips and a few ACC presidents met recently with the network over this issue, no significant cash infusion appears imminent.

    2. Secede from the league. Some of the schools, possibly the most frustrated lot such as FSU and Clemson, could pay the $120 million exit fee and hope they can break a grant-of-rights agreement that most attorneys—though maybe not their own—say is airtight. That then leaves a very big question: Where do they go? The SEC and Big Ten seem quite comfortable with their current membership, but potential western realignment could trigger them to expand more.

    3. Create another league. If the seven agree to dissolve the current grant-of-rights agreement (we don’t know yet if this is a possibility), they may add a couple of more schools and begin their own association in hopes of it being more lucrative. This comes with its own issues, of course. You’d need a broadcast partner or private equity to fund such an endeavor. And, as one official asks, “Will it really be that much more lucrative?”

    Basically, there are no easy answers.

    No one seems to really be blaming the current commissioner, Phillips. The lengthy ESPN contract was signed by his predecessor and has put the conference at a disadvantage to the Big Ten and SEC, which signed new deals somewhat recently for more heftier payouts.

    “It’s not a Jim Phillips thing,” says one high-ranking ACC official. “It’s a revenue thing.”

    A fourth option for the league will be further explored this week at meetings: changing the revenue distribution model to a more merit-based system. Instead of equally distributing revenue, this system would award more dollars to those programs excelling on the field.

    Administrators have spent the last couple of months discussing this festering issue. It has divided a conference that is less like-minded than most leagues in the country: big football revenue-generators like Florida State, Clemson, Miami and even North Carolina grouped with the likes of Boston College, Syracuse and Wake Forest.

    While a vote on a revenue distribution model isn’t expected this week, proposals are likely to be explored as university presidents are now examining the issue.

    During a Board of Trustees meeting in February, FSU athletic director Michael Alford seemed to publicly fire a warning shot at the rest of the conference: Change the revenue distribution model or else.

    “At the end of the day for Florida State to compete nationally, something has to change going forward,” Alford told his board in a wide-ranging presentation in which he suggested that FSU brings in 15% of ACC media rights value but receives only 7% in distribution.

    However, any change in the distribution model falls short of significantly closing the gap between the SEC and Big Ten. In the most successful year under a merit-based model, a school might receive an extra $5 million, one administrator estimates.

    An unequal distribution model can also impact the culture of a conference. It can sow divisiveness within a league, says one athletic director from outside the ACC.

    “It won’t stop there,” the AD says. “This will be the beginning of the end.”

    The Big 12 and Pac-12

    Back to that fight out West.

    The Pac-12-Big 12 realignment battle will either cause small ripples across the national landscape (this happens if the Pac-12 remains intact), or trigger a tidal wave of change stretching from coast to coast (this happens if the Pac-12 has more defections).

    It all hinges on the viability of the Pac-12’s new broadcasting contract, both from a financial and visibility perspective (sure, the money could be better or the same as the Big 12, but what if most of the games are on streaming?). The league is in the 10th month of negotiations. And believable details from those negotiations have been scarce.

    The Pac-12’s potential instability has been the single most speculated subject across the college sports landscape over the past few months. Through it all, the conference has publicly shown confidence in the face of assumptions of its impending doom.

    One experienced executive describes the entire situation as the most “perplexing” he’s ever witnessed in media rights negotiations.

    Factions have formed.

    Those inside the Big 12, gunning for Pac-12 defections, believe the league is cooked. Those in the Pac-12, wanting to protect its 10 schools, believe the league will arrive at a strong-enough deal coinciding with a short grant-of-rights (four to six years). And then there is the media, which has produced varying reports of the situation, even sometimes sparring with one another over those reports.

    One thing is certain: The Pac-12 plans to expand by adding San Diego State and maybe SMU coinciding with its completion of a new TV deal. But there is a deadline. To start play in 2024, San Diego State owes the Mountain West an exit fee of about $17 million. That triples in cost July 1, a reason for a quasi-deadline to the situation.

    One athletic administrator offers his own prediction on the outcome: “I think the highest odds—and it may not be more than 50%—is that the Pac-12 salvages something in the short term to keep it together and it is Dead Man Walking for four years, with the Big Ten and Big 12 sitting there.”

    But what if it doesn’t salvage something?

    Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark is aggressively pursuing expansion targets in an attempt to reach 14 or 16 members. Top priority are the Arizona schools, Colorado and Utah, but there are plenty of other potential replacements if the Pac-12 programs choose to stay.

    Though San Diego State seems bound for the Pac-12—it is their preference—Yormark has held conversations with the school’s leadership about being the Big 12’s only program in the Pacific Time Zone. UConn, the reigning men’s basketball champions, is a play for a foothold in the Northeast as well as adding another basketball powerhouse to what currently is the best hoops league in the country. And of Memphis, the Tigers finished as a finalist the last time the Big 12 expanded.

    Yormark’s interest in UNLV seems like a calculated maneuver. Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff, a former casino executive who resides in Las Vegas, is slowly shifting the conference’s hub to Sin City. In an interesting wrinkle, could Kliavkoff’s targeting of SMU be a similar play? SMU is located in the Big 12’s own hub city of Dallas.

    The Big 12’s expansion decisions could be solidified in a matter of weeks. Conference administrators meet at the end of the month in West Virginia, including school presidents.

    The Big Ten and SEC

    This past winter, Big Ten commissioner Kevin Warren made a push to expand again, this time targeting Washington and Oregon as a pair of West Coast neighbors to go along with new additions USC and UCLA.

    To expand again, more broadcasting dollars (at least $200 million a year) were needed to assure that school distribution remained whole. The most likely broadcasting dollars would come from ESPN or streamers Amazon and Apple. Neither happened.

    “It was ‘Show me the money!’ and there wasn’t any money,” says one Big Ten administrator.

    Money aside, many of the league’s athletic directors and presidents did not have the appetite for further expansion—and still do not. As one recently told Sports Illustrated, “We are done.” But will that change if the Pac-12 begins to crumble? Will there be any new money, potentially from Big Ten partner Fox or even ESPN?

    If there are defectors in the Pac-12 South to the Big 12, the Big Ten could add Pac-12 north schools like Washington and Oregon, at that point desperate for a home, at likely a discount (they’d almost certainly accept a partial distribution rate). And if the Big Ten again expands, what then does that mean for the SEC, which has long fielded interest from ACC schools?

    There’s been a long history of interest from the SEC in certain ACC powers as well. In fact, in 1990, when the league voted to expand, officials explored a variety of targets, seriously vetting Florida State before settling on South Carolina and Arkansas. Years later, then coach Bobby Bowden and several athletic administrators involved in the process revealed they turned down an invitation.

    Three decades later, the Seminoles are eyeing an exit path, but a route to the SEC isn’t easy. There is little appetite from risk-averse league presidents to entangle themselves in a potentially sticky legal situation over a grant-of-rights. In another note, the league already has a foothold in Florida with the Gators (and as for Clemson, the SEC is already in South Carolina with the Gamecocks). For the SEC, the more attractive options may be schools in new states like North Carolina and Virginia.

    For now, the SEC door feels closed, and the Big Ten door seems only slightly ajar. But as is the case with conference realignment, the tide changes quickly.

    Everyone is watching the West.

    The Pac-12 and Big 12 enter the biggest realignment battle in years, a fight that could expedite what many believe is an inevitability: the football powers consolidating for what seems to be a semiprofessional future model.

    “The next wave is coming,” says one Power 5 university president. “It’s not going to stay still. It’s just a matter of when.”

     
    •  
    •  
     
     
     

     

    • Like 1
  24. 6 minutes ago, gatormarc said:

    It's not clear to me whether they have a vote or not. The Notre Dame section only states that they can't vote if an issue specifically relates to football.

    Nothing in the board voting requirements excludes Notre Dame that I can find.

    It makes no sense that an entity would have no voting power over its own future. As you said, this isn't just a football issue. Notre Dame plays sports in the ACC other than football. They would almost certainly have voting power in those sports, which gives them voting power in this process. If they signed that away, heads need to roll in South Bend. I have a hard time believing that to be the case.

×
×
  • Create New...