Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RamblinRed" data-source="post: 955714" data-attributes="member: 1776"><p>Keep in mind, neither Clemson nor FSU were among the ACC schools reportedly vetted by the B1G recently.</p><p>Those were GT, UVA, UNC, Miami and Duke. (FWIW, the other 5 schools vetted were WA, OR, Stanford, Cal and Utah).</p><p>WA and OR were grabbed by the B1G because the situation had changed - not because they all of a sudden were more valuable. If B1G had to give them a full share they would have passed on them. They only brought them in because they were basically able to get them at a 50% discount. It was bargain shopping at its finest.</p><p></p><p>IMO UNC and UVA have the most overall value because both the SEC and B1G would be interested in adding them. Both fit into the long term strategies of the Big 2. For SEC it gives them the 'state' school in 2 states contiguous to its current footprint that it has no presence in. For B1G they are the 'state' school that is also highly regarded academically (and part of the AAU) in two states with large and growing populations.</p><p></p><p>Duke was likely vetted as a partner with UNC.</p><p>Miami and GT would give B1G a presence in the largest city in the 2 most populous states it currently does not have a team in. </p><p></p><p>All that being said, the environment has changed as well. If GT had been offered and accepted a spot in the B1G a decade ago it would be in a much different place financially (though not necessarily competitively) than it currently is. But the market is different now. It is pretty clear what the value of a non-Blue Blood school is. I think UNC and UVA could potentially get a full share due to the likely bidding war that would ensue over them, but very few other schools would. None of the other ACC schools vetted by the B1G fit into the SEC's strategy so they are likely worth less as they would not create a bidding process.</p><p></p><p>GT, Duke, Miami would be more likely to get an offer similar to WA or OR and that type of offer would make no sense to move right now. That is where the market is. </p><p>The next time to watch is going to be at the end of the decade as both the B1G and B12 contracts expire. If the environment is similar to what it is now then just getting a contract that kept the money flat would be considered a win. But we don't know what the environment will be, so maybe contracts will escalate again, but there is no guarantee there. </p><p></p><p>The idea that B1G didn't have much interest in FSU or Clemson goes deeper than just the GoR. It goes to what their strategy is for their conference. The fact they haven't even vetted Clemson or FSU when it has vetted at least 1/3 of ACC schools suggest they are pretty far down a list. What alot of programs are starting to find out now is that they are not nearly as attractive as they thought they were. Clemson and FSU are negatively impacted by the fact that neither really fits in with the long term strategies of the Big 2. Does that mean they would be left out - no, but it does mean they may not be the automatics that they think they are. Sankey has already implied that FSU is not worth a full share and SEC is not going to bring on anyone that isn't worth a full share. </p><p></p><p>There are demographic patterns at play that run against the idea of any big escalations in future college football contracts. While it is a major sport in the US, it doesn't really possess the demographics that are going to make it attractive to advertisers over the next 10-15 years, which could mean less money available. College football is largely an older sports fan sport (particularly an older, white sports fan sport). 82% white, 44% over 55 according to a Neilson study of viewership. Only 4% Hispanic viewership in a country that is now almost 20% Hispanic. I expect Soccer to be the biggest sport gainer over the next decade in the US and to potentially take some windows away from college football.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RamblinRed, post: 955714, member: 1776"] Keep in mind, neither Clemson nor FSU were among the ACC schools reportedly vetted by the B1G recently. Those were GT, UVA, UNC, Miami and Duke. (FWIW, the other 5 schools vetted were WA, OR, Stanford, Cal and Utah). WA and OR were grabbed by the B1G because the situation had changed - not because they all of a sudden were more valuable. If B1G had to give them a full share they would have passed on them. They only brought them in because they were basically able to get them at a 50% discount. It was bargain shopping at its finest. IMO UNC and UVA have the most overall value because both the SEC and B1G would be interested in adding them. Both fit into the long term strategies of the Big 2. For SEC it gives them the 'state' school in 2 states contiguous to its current footprint that it has no presence in. For B1G they are the 'state' school that is also highly regarded academically (and part of the AAU) in two states with large and growing populations. Duke was likely vetted as a partner with UNC. Miami and GT would give B1G a presence in the largest city in the 2 most populous states it currently does not have a team in. All that being said, the environment has changed as well. If GT had been offered and accepted a spot in the B1G a decade ago it would be in a much different place financially (though not necessarily competitively) than it currently is. But the market is different now. It is pretty clear what the value of a non-Blue Blood school is. I think UNC and UVA could potentially get a full share due to the likely bidding war that would ensue over them, but very few other schools would. None of the other ACC schools vetted by the B1G fit into the SEC's strategy so they are likely worth less as they would not create a bidding process. GT, Duke, Miami would be more likely to get an offer similar to WA or OR and that type of offer would make no sense to move right now. That is where the market is. The next time to watch is going to be at the end of the decade as both the B1G and B12 contracts expire. If the environment is similar to what it is now then just getting a contract that kept the money flat would be considered a win. But we don't know what the environment will be, so maybe contracts will escalate again, but there is no guarantee there. The idea that B1G didn't have much interest in FSU or Clemson goes deeper than just the GoR. It goes to what their strategy is for their conference. The fact they haven't even vetted Clemson or FSU when it has vetted at least 1/3 of ACC schools suggest they are pretty far down a list. What alot of programs are starting to find out now is that they are not nearly as attractive as they thought they were. Clemson and FSU are negatively impacted by the fact that neither really fits in with the long term strategies of the Big 2. Does that mean they would be left out - no, but it does mean they may not be the automatics that they think they are. Sankey has already implied that FSU is not worth a full share and SEC is not going to bring on anyone that isn't worth a full share. There are demographic patterns at play that run against the idea of any big escalations in future college football contracts. While it is a major sport in the US, it doesn't really possess the demographics that are going to make it attractive to advertisers over the next 10-15 years, which could mean less money available. College football is largely an older sports fan sport (particularly an older, white sports fan sport). 82% white, 44% over 55 according to a Neilson study of viewership. Only 4% Hispanic viewership in a country that is now almost 20% Hispanic. I expect Soccer to be the biggest sport gainer over the next decade in the US and to potentially take some windows away from college football. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Conference Realignment
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top