Conference Realignment

[WreckinGT]

Where will they go? The SECheat is now at 16 teams. The B1G is now at 18. How big is it feasible for them to go? This is a key question when thinking about who leaves.

Next would be who are they best suited for? F$U and Clem are far more suited to the SECheat than the B1G, but the SECheat doesn’t need them. UVA and UNC would fit much better in the B1G, but do they want them? They are not at all a fit for the SECheat.

Any of the four could go to either of the two P2 conferences. They are all attractive candidates. My only lean for any of them is Clemson to the SEC. Just call that a gut feeling. Im not sure why you think these conferences can't continue growing though. What do you think is going to stop them? They are obviously setting things up for these to be the two meaningful conference in college football in an NFL lite type of model. What would stop them from going to 20 or 24?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

What would stop them from going to 20 or 24?

Dilution of per school payment. Before either conference expands any more they are going to make sure that they get enough additional revenue to accommodate the new additions without the existing members taking a cut in revenue.

The Law of Diminishing Returns is a real thing...

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I am sure your amicus brief is atop the stack in both courts.

 

[WreckinGT]

Dilution of per school payment. Before either conference expands any more they are going to make sure that they get enough additional revenue to accommodate the new additions without the existing members taking a cut in revenue.

The Law of Diminishing Returns is a real thing...

Well yeah, obviously negotiations with media partners and potential reduced payouts for some time period are always on the table in these things. That didn't really stop the Big 10 from taking Oregon and Washington nor did it stop the ACC from taking Stanford, SMU, and Cal, nor did it stop the Big 12 from taking multiple teams after their media agreement was in place. Long term that isn't really going to be a problem. None of those 4 teams are going to dilute the media payout for any conference.

 

[WreckinGT]

lol. He is just upset that others have opinions that differ from some guy he knows who knows another guy who talked to another guy who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

[orientalnc]

lol. He is just upset that others have opinions that differ from some guy he knows who knows another guy who talked to another guy who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

You got it! Holiday Inn Express is the real deal when it comes to legal opinions.

 

[stinger78]

Dilution of per school payment. Before either conference expands any more they are going to make sure that they get enough additional revenue to accommodate the new additions without the existing members taking a cut in revenue.

The Law of Diminishing Returns is a real thing...

Yep. The flat top of the S-curve. Has to be getting close. Do we want to cut games to 3 quarters so sEcSPN can have more time for commercials? Their money to pay all those schools comes from those commercials.

 

[stinger78]

Well yeah, obviously negotiations with media partners and potential reduced payouts for some time period are always on the table in these things. That didn't really stop the Big 10 from taking Oregon and Washington nor did it stop the ACC from taking Stanford, SMU, and Cal, nor did it stop the Big 12 from taking multiple teams after their media agreement was in place. Long term that isn't really going to be a problem. None of those 4 teams are going to dilute the media payout for any conference.

If not, then why is the ACC lagging? I’ll guarantee you that GT, VPI, NCSU, Pitt, Louisville, and Miami are all in the same ballpark as UNCheat and UVA in terms of TV appeal. So then, if the ACC really has not just F$U and Clem, but also 8 other teams at/near that level then why is our TV deal 10-20M per team less?

 

[orientalnc]

Do we want to cut games to 3 quarters so sEcSPN can have more time for commercials?

I hope we don't go back to quarters. I lost credits going to semesters and I ain't going back. (TIC alert)

 

[RonJohn]

Yep. The flat top of the S-curve. Has to be getting close. Do we want to cut games to 3 quarters so sEcSPN can have more time for commercials? Their money to pay all those schools comes from those commercials.

The majority of ESPN's revenue comes from cable/sat/streaming subscription, not from commercials. Commercials do have an impact, but they could not pay for the broadcast rights fees without the subscription money.

EDIT: That is why more teams to a conference wouldn't bring in the same level of additional revenue. Even if a very good team brings in more advertising dollars, that is only a small part of ESPN's revenue.

 

[Vespidae]

If not, then why is the ACC lagging? I’ll guarantee you that GT, VPI, NCSU, Pitt, Louisville, and Miami are all in the same ballpark as UNCheat and UVA in terms of TV appeal. So then, if the ACC really has not just F$U and Clem, but also 8 other teams at/near that level then why is our TV deal 10-20M per team less?

Because except for Clemson and FSU, the ACC has no teams in the Top 40 for average viewership. The SEC has 13. (11 if you exclude TX and OK).

 

[WreckinGT]

If not, then why is the ACC lagging? I’ll guarantee you that GT, VPI, NCSU, Pitt, Louisville, and Miami are all in the same ballpark as UNCheat and UVA in terms of TV appeal. So then, if the ACC really has not just F$U and Clem, but also 8 other teams at/near that level then why is our TV deal 10-20M per team less?

UNC and UVA are big state schools in territory that they SEC and Big 10 cannot currently claim. That's the main reason they are attractive. Plus they are fairly good at other sports (both won men's basketball championships recently), great academically, AAU members, etc. They are attractive expansion candidates. Miami is an interesting candidate as well. Unfortunately, they are being overshadowed a bit by FSU. I think we are still somewhat attractive to the Big 10. I fear we missed that boat though. I don't think the rest are all that attractive to the P2 honestly.

 

[roadkill]

I hope we don't go back to quarters. I lost credits going to semesters and I ain't going back. (TIC alert)

I also felt that pain. Freshman Chem or Physics come to mind...

 

[CEB]

I hope we don't go back to quarters. I lost credits going to semesters and I ain't going back. (TIC alert)

The looming change to semesters was one of the biggest reasons for me getting out when I did! I was not about to let Ma Tech have another swipe at me.

 

[Vespidae]

UNC and UVA are big state schools in territory that they SEC and Big 10 cannot currently claim. That's the main reason they are attractive. Plus they are fairly good at other sports (both won men's basketball championships recently), great academically, AAU members, etc. They are attractive expansion candidates. Miami is an interesting candidate as well. Unfortunately, they are being overshadowed a bit by FSU. I think we are still somewhat attractive to the Big 10. I fear we missed that boat though. I don't think the rest are all that attractive to the P2 honestly.

I just looked at the viewership numbers. UNC is at about 850K in average viewership. I’m not sure what the SEC gains but … dilution. Big schools, yes. Big viewing numbers they can leverage? No.

 

[stinger78]

Yes, but they have to generate media $$$ equal to or exceeding what they would be being paid. That's the issue. Those 8 ACC schools I named are all in the same ballpark as far as total media $$$ generation. UNC, because of basketball, is probably ahead, but not conspicuously so. If all those ACC teams are that close to the SEC/B1G media $$$ generation, then the ACC media contract wouldn't be so far behind those two.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

That didn't really stop the Big 10 from taking Oregon and Washington nor did it stop the ACC from taking Stanford, SMU, and Cal, nor did it stop the Big 12 from taking multiple teams after their media agreement was in place.

It was absolutely factored in. Oregon and Washington are not entering the B1G on full shares. Stanford and Cal are not entering the ACC on full shares. SMU is getting no money for a while. They were not admitted until the current schools not only didn't lose money, but actually got a little bump by admitting them. The Big-12 agreement guaranteed full shares for new P5 members who joined them.

 

[Vespidae]

Yes, but they have to generate media $$$ equal to or exceeding what they would be being paid. That's the issue. Those 8 ACC schools I named are all in the same ballpark as far as total media $$$ generation. UNC, because of basketball, is probably ahead, but not conspicuously so. If all those ACC teams are that close to the SEC/B1G media $$$ generation, then the ACC media contract wouldn't be so far behind those two.

What data are you looking at that’s says they are close? Their ratings are a fraction of the top B1G and SEC teams.

 

[stinger78]

The majority of ESPN's revenue comes from cable/sat/streaming subscription, not from commercials. Commercials do have an impact, but they could not pay for the broadcast rights fees without the subscription money.

EDIT: That is why more teams to a conference wouldn't bring in the same level of additional revenue. Even if a very good team brings in more advertising dollars, that is only a small part of ESPN's revenue.

Certainly. If that's the case then Clem is screwed. SC is not a populous state and their subscribers are not so many. I think it's a combination.

 

[stinger78]

What data are you looking at that’s says they are close? Their ratings are a fraction of the top B1G and SEC teams.

I'm saying that UNC, UVA, NCSU, GT, Pitt, etc. are all fairly close to each other - not close to SEC/B1G. Otherwise we would have the big media contract and none of this would be happening.