Conference Realignment

Richard7125

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
450
How do you make it in CFB without a conference payout. Even ND, with the big TV contract, gets a half share with their ACC affiliation.
That's a good point. Perhaps one of the At Large spots. I don't know. My thoughts were more around neither FSU or Clemson landing in the Big12. I don't think their beef is the ACC. Their beef is not having SEC/Big10 money or having the respect of SEC/Big10 teams. The Big12 doesn't solve any of that. You can make a pretty strong argument they will get less money and respect in the Big12 than they currently get in the ACC.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,490
If the Big XII agreed to give up proportional distributions and paid more (a LOT more) to get the brand names of FSU and Clemson, then maybe they'd go there. Otherwise, this all appears to be a play for SEC membership (even at lowered revenues, I suspect).
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,792
That's a good point. Perhaps one of the At Large spots. I don't know. My thoughts were more around neither FSU or Clemson landing in the Big12. I don't think their beef is the ACC. Their beef is not having SEC/Big10 money or having the respect of SEC/Big10 teams. The Big12 doesn't solve any of that. You can make a pretty strong argument they will get less money and respect in the Big12 than they currently get in the ACC.
Although you responded to my post below, I'm not sure you understood its point.
I wouldn’t be shocked if he didn’t cut some kind of deal with FSU or Clemson that would make financial sense to them.
As for respect, that's a subjective component that hasn't been stated in the lawsuits as far as I know. It appears to be all about the money.
 

Richard7125

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
450
Although you responded to my post below, I'm not sure you understood its point.

As for respect, that's a subjective component that hasn't been stated in the lawsuits as far as I know. It appears to be all about the money.
Yeah, I saw the comment ”that would makes sense to them.” That lets you say anything without considering the Big12’s financial parameters.

What would make financial sense to FSU/Clemson? 20% more than everyone else in the Big12? If each Big12 team is getting $40m, will FSU/Clemson be satisfied with $48m when Big10 teams might be getting $75m? Is that $48m going to be a lot more than what the ACC is distributing? How about 50% more than all of the other schools in Big12? That might get them into the $55m to $60m range; however, revenue distribution is a zero-sum game so the more you give to FSU/Clemson, the less the other schools get.

There isn't going to be a massive windfall of money moving to the Big12. They are not going to get more consideration for CFP spots by being in the Big12 versus the ACC.

I can definitely see them take a partial share to join the SEC/Big10. I just don't see them going backwards or lateral. it doesn't make sense.
 

roadkill

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,792
Yeah, I saw the comment ”that would makes sense to them.” That lets you say anything without considering the Big12’s financial parameters.

What would make financial sense to FSU/Clemson? 20% more than everyone else in the Big12? If each Big12 team is getting $40m, will FSU/Clemson be satisfied with $48m when Big10 teams might be getting $75m? Is that $48m going to be a lot more than what the ACC is distributing? How about 50% more than all of the other schools in Big12? That might get them into the $55m to $60m range; however, revenue distribution is a zero-sum game so the more you give to FSU/Clemson, the less the other schools get.

There isn't going to be a massive windfall of money moving to the Big12. They are not going to get more consideration for CFP spots by being in the Big12 versus the ACC.

I can definitely see them take a partial share to join the SEC/Big10. I just don't see them going backwards or lateral. it doesn't make sense.
Your analysis assumes that the BIG12's income is constrained by its current ESPN contract. There are other possibilities.

I'm not advocating that this will happen, only that I wouldn't be shocked at Yormark coming up with some bold schemes to make it work.

At the recently concluded BIG12 Media Says, Yormark stated "I will not stop until we are the number one conference in America." Sounds like a pipe dream, but I give the guy credit for having more vision than Jim Phillips.
 

AugustaSwarm

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
793
Your analysis assumes that the BIG12's income is constrained by its current ESPN contract. There are other possibilities.

I'm not advocating that this will happen, only that I wouldn't be shocked at Yormark coming up with some bold schemes to make it work.

At the recently concluded BIG12 Media Says, Yormark stated "I will not stop until we are the number one conference in America." Sounds like a pipe dream, but I give the guy credit for having more vision than Jim Phillips.
The only way I see Clemson and FSU leaving for the BIG12 is if they are embarrassed by the outcome of their lawsuit and try to save face and just leave. I can't foresee a situation where the money will be enough to warrant them leaving their current situations.

But I do think Yormark's unconventional ideas could be a game changer and he may be the tip of the spear into a new college football...good or bad.
 

TechPhi97

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
741
Location
Davidson, NC
Yeah, I saw the comment ”that would makes sense to them.” That lets you say anything without considering the Big12’s financial parameters.

What would make financial sense to FSU/Clemson? 20% more than everyone else in the Big12? If each Big12 team is getting $40m, will FSU/Clemson be satisfied with $48m when Big10 teams might be getting $75m? Is that $48m going to be a lot more than what the ACC is distributing? How about 50% more than all of the other schools in Big12? That might get them into the $55m to $60m range; however, revenue distribution is a zero-sum game so the more you give to FSU/Clemson, the less the other schools get.

There isn't going to be a massive windfall of money moving to the Big12. They are not going to get more consideration for CFP spots by being in the Big12 versus the ACC.

I can definitely see them take a partial share to join the SEC/Big10. I just don't see them going backwards or lateral. it doesn't make sense.
That, and there's no way schools like Arizona, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Colorado, Utah are going to take smaller distributions so Clemson and FSU can get richer.
 

TechPhi97

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
741
Location
Davidson, NC
The only way I see Clemson and FSU leaving for the BIG12 is if they are embarrassed by the outcome of their lawsuit and try to save face and just leave. I can't foresee a situation where the money will be enough to warrant them leaving their current situations.

But I do think Yormark's unconventional ideas could be a game changer and he may be the tip of the spear into a new college football...good or bad.
Can you imagine leaving your regional network of rivals so you can play away games in Texas, Oklahoma and Arizona, all because of embarrassment? I would die laughing. They would be better off going independent than joining the Big 12.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,304
Location
Auburn, AL
Can you imagine leaving your regional network of rivals so you can play away games in Texas, Oklahoma and Arizona, all because of embarrassment? I would die laughing. They would be better off going independent than joining the Big 12.
It makes no sense for FSU or Clemson to join the Big 12. In 2023, FSU has 4.16M viewers, mostly because virtually all but one of its games were shown on Nielsen-rated networks. In the Big 12 of today, no team currently has more than 2.0M viewers, so it be largely dilutionary to FSU to move. And that's assuming they remain Nielsen rated. I would suspect that some games would go regional, further diluting the FSU "brand".

If they are trying to close the annual money gap, FSU really has only one option. They have to get into the SEC (who apparently, doesn't want them) or the B1G.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,004
It makes no sense for FSU or Clemson to join the Big 12. In 2023, FSU has 4.16M viewers, mostly because virtually all but one of its games were shown on Nielsen-rated networks. In the Big 12 of today, no team currently has more than 2.0M viewers, so it be largely dilutionary to FSU to move. And that's assuming they remain Nielsen rated. I would suspect that some games would go regional, further diluting the FSU "brand".

If they are trying to close the annual money gap, FSU really has only one option. They have to get into the SEC (who apparently, doesn't want them) or the B1G.
There is another alternative: for the ACC to up its play. I believe that GT, Louisville, VPI, Miami, and Syracuse, and maybe BC and Pitt, are all on the upswing. Clemson and F$u are already at or near the top, and NCSU and UNCheat are getting there. If it happens that those latter four can stay there and if 4 of the 7 named at the top can make that step up, that the ACC could have 8 teams consistently pressing for the top 25. It has happened before, but we always let it slip away.

Imagine if the ACC had F$u, Clem, NCSU, UNCheat, GT, VPI, and Pitt all vying for a top 25 spot. Guys, we were there in 2009-10. F$U was under Jimbo and had Jameis, Clem was playing us in the ACC CG, we beat a top 5 VPI at BDS, NCSU had Russell Wilson, and Pitt was a very tough out. Here's the records of those ACC teams from 2008 to 2012:

F$u: 9-4, 7-6, 10-4, 9-4, 12-2
Clem: 7-6, 9-5, 6-7, 10-4, 11-2
NCSU: 6-7, 5-7, 9-4, 8-5, 7-6
UNC: 8-5, 8-5, 8-5, 7-6, 8-4
GT: 9-4, 11-3, 6-7, 8-5, 7-6
VPI: 10-4, 10-3, 11-3, 11-3, 7-6
Pitt: 9-4, 10-3, 8-5, 6-7, 6-7

In 2014 alone, here were the records:
FSU 13-1
GT 11-3
Clemson 10-3
Dook 9-4
Louisville 9-4
NCSU 8-5

Here's the SECheat in 2014:
Bama 12-2
Missouri 11-3
UGA 10-3
Miss State 10-3
Ole Miss 9-4
Auburn 8-5
LSU 8-5
TAMU 8-5

The conference is not that far off. If it were to see those 6 teams continue to climb, might we see an increase in media rights at the next look-in?
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,304
Location
Auburn, AL
There is another alternative: for the ACC to up its play. I believe that GT, Louisville, VPI, Miami, and Syracuse, and maybe BC and Pitt, are all on the upswing. Clemson and F$u are already at or near the top, and NCSU and UNCheat are getting there. If it happens that those latter four can stay there and if 4 of the 7 named at the top can make that step up, that the ACC could have 8 teams consistently pressing for the top 25. It has happened before, but we always let it slip away.

Imagine if the ACC had F$u, Clem, NCSU, UNCheat, GT, VPI, and Pitt all vying for a top 25 spot. Guys, we were there in 2009-10. F$U was under Jimbo and had Jameis, Clem was playing us in the ACC CG, we beat a top 5 VPI at BDS, NCSU had Russell Wilson, and Pitt was a very tough out. Here's the records of those ACC teams from 2008 to 2012:

F$u: 9-4, 7-6, 10-4, 9-4, 12-2
Clem: 7-6, 9-5, 6-7, 10-4, 11-2
NCSU: 6-7, 5-7, 9-4, 8-5, 7-6
UNC: 8-5, 8-5, 8-5, 7-6, 8-4
GT: 9-4, 11-3, 6-7, 8-5, 7-6
VPI: 10-4, 10-3, 11-3, 11-3, 7-6
Pitt: 9-4, 10-3, 8-5, 6-7, 6-7

In 2014 alone, here were the records:
FSU 13-1
GT 11-3
Clemson 10-3
Dook 9-4
Louisville 9-4
NCSU 8-5

Here's the SECheat in 2014:
Bama 12-2
Missouri 11-3
UGA 10-3
Miss State 10-3
Ole Miss 9-4
Auburn 8-5
LSU 8-5
TAMU 8-5

The conference is not that far off. If it were to see those 6 teams continue to climb, might we see an increase in media rights at the next look-in?
no. The viewership isn’t there. The problem with CFB is that it’s no longer about football, it’s about views.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,004
no. The viewership isn’t there. The problem with CFB is that it’s no longer about football, it’s about views.
Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Pittsburgh, Boston, DC, Louisville, upstate NY, all of Florida and SC. Now add in Dallas and SF…. You’re kidding, right? The potential viewership the ACC is enormous - far larger than the SECheat. We’re talking about cable and streaming subscriptions. If the ACC ever gets its football in order it will dwarf most of the rest.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,304
Location
Auburn, AL
Atlanta, Miami, Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, Pittsburgh, Boston, DC, Louisville, upstate NY, all of Florida and SC. Now add in Dallas and SF…. You’re kidding, right? The potential viewership the ACC is enormous - far larger than the SECheat. We’re talking about cable and streaming subscriptions. If the ACC ever gets its football in order it will dwarf most of the rest.
No, it isn’t. You are thinking geographically. Does Boston want to see Holy Cross vs Maine, or Penn State vs Notre Dame. It’s matchups. Thats what is driving realignment.

The top 3 teams in the ACC have viewership of 4.16M, 2.90M, and 2.65M. The top 3 SEC teams have viewership of 7.12M, 5.90M, and 4.57M.

It’s not even close.
 

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,197
I’m not convinced Boston wants to see either of those games that much. Change it to NYC if you think the old Irish thing is carrying viewers in Boston. Or Dallas. Phoenix. Miami.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,004
No, it isn’t. You are thinking geographically. Does Boston want to see Holy Cross vs Maine, or Penn State vs Notre Dame. It’s matchups. Thats what is driving realignment.

The top 3 teams in the ACC have viewership of 4.16M, 2.90M, and 2.65M. The top 3 SEC teams have viewership of 7.12M, 5.90M, and 4.57M.

It’s not even close.
It’s about the fee that sEcSPN charges Comcast to carry their product. sEcSPN gets paid these fees regardless of how many people actually watch. Now how much they can charge depends on how popular that program is which is tied to many things: brand, quality, location, opponent, narrative, etc. But that is secondary to the basic fee that every single subscriber pays.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,304
Location
Auburn, AL
It’s about the fee that sEcSPN charges Comcast to carry their product. sEcSPN gets paid these fees regardless of how many people actually watch. Now how much they can charge depends on how popular that program is which is tied to many things: brand, quality, location, opponent, narrative, etc. But that is secondary to the basic fee that every single subscriber pays.
Not exactly. What you say is 100% true for the SEC Network (same for ACC Network and others), but …. those networks are not Nielsen-rated. It is the Nielsen viewers that drive the media rights values. Teams that play on non-Nielsen media are not even counted in the viewership numbers. It is simply content provided to distribution. [That is significant because it allows ESPN to report higher numbers without dilution.]

ESPN itself is rated, as is/was CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox. The Big Ten Network is also Nielsen rated … which is why I doubt the “sEcSPN” conspiracy theories. If ESPN were all that, they would have their networks also rated so they could charge more. They either can’t or don’t need/want to.

If you really want to understand what’s going on, you have to take ALL content and divide it by distribution channel and look at ad rates and costs to produce. Alignment is all about putting out the best matchups that drive the highest viewership on Nielsen networks.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,004
Not exactly. What you say is 100% true for the SEC Network (same for ACC Network and others), but …. those networks are not Nielsen-rated. It is the Nielsen viewers that drive the media rights values. Teams that play on non-Nielsen media are not even counted in the viewership numbers. It is simply content provided to distribution. [That is significant because it allows ESPN to report higher numbers without dilution.]

ESPN itself is rated, as is/was CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox. The Big Ten Network is also Nielsen rated … which is why I doubt the “sEcSPN” conspiracy theories. If ESPN were all that, they would have their networks also rated so they could charge more. They either can’t or don’t need/want to.

If you really want to understand what’s going on, you have to take ALL content and divide it by distribution channel and look at ad rates and costs to produce. Alignment is all about putting out the best matchups that drive the highest viewership on Nielsen networks.
Which is why I preceded this entire discussion with: …if the ACC can raise their game a certain amount….” If GT, VPI, Louisville, Pitt, BC, Miami - and now SMU and Stanford - really needing only about 4-5 of those 8 programs per year to go with Clemson, FSU, NCSU, and UNC (along with ND), then the inventory is there… if the next lookin allows renegotiation and if The Narrative doesn’t squeeze them out, we’re not that far away.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,964
Not exactly. What you say is 100% true for the SEC Network (same for ACC Network and others), but …. those networks are not Nielsen-rated. It is the Nielsen viewers that drive the media rights values. Teams that play on non-Nielsen media are not even counted in the viewership numbers. It is simply content provided to distribution. [That is significant because it allows ESPN to report higher numbers without dilution.]

ESPN itself is rated, as is/was CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox. The Big Ten Network is also Nielsen rated … which is why I doubt the “sEcSPN” conspiracy theories. If ESPN were all that, they would have their networks also rated so they could charge more. They either can’t or don’t need/want to.

If you really want to understand what’s going on, you have to take ALL content and divide it by distribution channel and look at ad rates and costs to produce. Alignment is all about putting out the best matchups that drive the highest viewership on Nielsen networks.
For ESPN in particular, advertisement revenue is still much much smaller than subscriber revenue. Subscriber revenue is decreasing, so ESPN is certainly looking for other avenues of revenue. However, eyes on games is not THE ONLY thing that matters as you seem to be saying. The ACC Network getting in the Dallas could mean as much as $3 million per month to the ACC Network, which is divided between ESPN and the ACC. That is only Dallas is added as a home market. If the entire state of Texas is added, that could be another $8-10 million on top of the 3.

Even the broadcast networks depend on subscribers. I have seen articles that indicate that local stations depend on carriage fees for more than half of their revenue. When cable companies were forced to negotiate individually with each TV station, the stations took that as an opportunity to gouge viewers without the viewers even knowing that it was happening. Ad revenue has dropped as more companies take out advertisement in digital markets and value TV ads less. That has made the local network affiliates dependent on carriage fees. The articles have indicated that if the carriage fee requirement was dropped that most local affiliates would go bankrupt.

I have no inside information, but I believe that ESPN and the networks are looking at multiple factors. It isn't just subscribers. It isn't just eyeballs for ads. There are many factors, and none of us know what weighting they put on those factors.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,004
For ESPN in particular, advertisement revenue is still much much smaller than subscriber revenue. Subscriber revenue is decreasing, so ESPN is certainly looking for other avenues of revenue. However, eyes on games is not THE ONLY thing that matters as you seem to be saying. The ACC Network getting in the Dallas could mean as much as $3 million per month to the ACC Network, which is divided between ESPN and the ACC. That is only Dallas is added as a home market. If the entire state of Texas is added, that could be another $8-10 million on top of the 3.

Even the broadcast networks depend on subscribers. I have seen articles that indicate that local stations depend on carriage fees for more than half of their revenue. When cable companies were forced to negotiate individually with each TV station, the stations took that as an opportunity to gouge viewers without the viewers even knowing that it was happening. Ad revenue has dropped as more companies take out advertisement in digital markets and value TV ads less. That has made the local network affiliates dependent on carriage fees. The articles have indicated that if the carriage fee requirement was dropped that most local affiliates would go bankrupt.

I have no inside information, but I believe that ESPN and the networks are looking at multiple factors. It isn't just subscribers. It isn't just eyeballs for ads. There are many factors, and none of us know what weighting they put on those factors.
I had Comcast until recently. With the de-subscription of the Bally franchise (due to their unresolved dispute) they were refunding me about $8/month.
 

Richard7125

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
450
Your analysis assumes that the BIG12's income is constrained by its current ESPN contract. There are other possibilities.

I'm not advocating that this will happen, only that I wouldn't be shocked at Yormark coming up with some bold schemes to make it work.

At the recently concluded BIG12 Media Says, Yormark stated "I will not stop until we are the number one conference in America." Sounds like a pipe dream, but I give the guy credit for having more vision than Jim Phillips.
My analysis is constrained by Big12 revenue realities. You suggest there will be some mysterious/new source of money (that has nothing to do with TV revenue) that will only be available to the Big12. I’m not saying there can’t be new sources of revenue, but if it’s the kind of windfall that would elevate the Big12 to SEC/Big10 levels, you can be sure the other conferences will follow suit.

The Pac12 had a delusional opinion of their TV value and held out for more money and we saw where that got them.
 
Last edited:
Top