- Messages
- 8,093
- Location
- Augusta, Georgia
Expansion Talk 2021
- Thread starter TooTall
- Start date
- Messages
- 11,474
B12, with TX and OU still in:
(from https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances)
If you’re Texas and Oklahoma, you can look at the B12 and see that you’re subsidizing the rest of the conference. Pull Texas and Oklahoma out, and the rest of the schools will see their revenues drop once the TV rights from Oklahoma and Texas leave. The revenue tails off strongly after those two.
From an “everyone pulling their weight” point of view, the SEC and the B1G are the only two conferences of interest to those two schools, and the SEC is ahead by a nose. Moving to the ACC would give Texas and Oklahoma a little more revenue, but not enough to be worth moving.
Most of the B1G schools are top 40 in revenue, each. Northwestern isn’t listed. Many are top 10.
In the SEC, Missouri is the laggard at #37, and Vandy isn’t listed. The SEC has 5 of the top 10 revenue generating programs, and 10 of the top 20. Texas A&M is #2, and the biggest revenue school in the SEC.
In the ACC, FSU is #12 nationally in revenue. Georgia Tech is last in the ACC at #50. Miami and Duke are private, and not listed.
In the Pac12, USC and Stanford are not listed, and USC is possibly the strongest revenue team. However, that conference overall is weaker in revenue per team than the ACC.
AAC schools like Cincinnati and UCF make less revenue than Georgia Tech. Adding AAC schools to the ACC isn’t a big boost to revenues.
From the ACC point of view, most of the teams we could add from the B12 would pull our average revenue per team down, but they’re better than the AAC. There aren’t many teams that would improve our revenues unless we pull from the B1G or SEC, which would cut into the revenues of the team moving to the ACC.
The Pac12 stays about the same adding many of the schools from the B12.
The B1G doesn’t get much out of Kansas, but doesn’t lose much either. They’re below the B1G average, but they’re a top 30 team.
The B1G could merge with the Pac 12 or the ACC, but it doesn’t help their income. A better deal for them might be a recurring B1G-ACC classic, where we have home-and-home games against the B1G.
This is a huge win for the SEC. The remaining B12 schools are going to be worse off either staying in the B12 or finding a new conference. Their budgets will shrink.
(from https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances)
| School | Revenue | Expenses |
| 1. Texas | $224k | $204k |
| 8. Oklahoma | $163k | $156k |
| 28. Kansas | $121k | $109k |
| 40. West Virginia | $103k | $98k |
| 43. Texas Tech | $97k | $95k |
| 44. Iowa State | $95k | $95k |
| 45. Oklahoma State | $95k | $95k |
| 48. Kansas State | $90k | $83k |
If you’re Texas and Oklahoma, you can look at the B12 and see that you’re subsidizing the rest of the conference. Pull Texas and Oklahoma out, and the rest of the schools will see their revenues drop once the TV rights from Oklahoma and Texas leave. The revenue tails off strongly after those two.
From an “everyone pulling their weight” point of view, the SEC and the B1G are the only two conferences of interest to those two schools, and the SEC is ahead by a nose. Moving to the ACC would give Texas and Oklahoma a little more revenue, but not enough to be worth moving.
Most of the B1G schools are top 40 in revenue, each. Northwestern isn’t listed. Many are top 10.
In the SEC, Missouri is the laggard at #37, and Vandy isn’t listed. The SEC has 5 of the top 10 revenue generating programs, and 10 of the top 20. Texas A&M is #2, and the biggest revenue school in the SEC.
In the ACC, FSU is #12 nationally in revenue. Georgia Tech is last in the ACC at #50. Miami and Duke are private, and not listed.
In the Pac12, USC and Stanford are not listed, and USC is possibly the strongest revenue team. However, that conference overall is weaker in revenue per team than the ACC.
AAC schools like Cincinnati and UCF make less revenue than Georgia Tech. Adding AAC schools to the ACC isn’t a big boost to revenues.
From the ACC point of view, most of the teams we could add from the B12 would pull our average revenue per team down, but they’re better than the AAC. There aren’t many teams that would improve our revenues unless we pull from the B1G or SEC, which would cut into the revenues of the team moving to the ACC.
The Pac12 stays about the same adding many of the schools from the B12.
The B1G doesn’t get much out of Kansas, but doesn’t lose much either. They’re below the B1G average, but they’re a top 30 team.
The B1G could merge with the Pac 12 or the ACC, but it doesn’t help their income. A better deal for them might be a recurring B1G-ACC classic, where we have home-and-home games against the B1G.
This is a huge win for the SEC. The remaining B12 schools are going to be worse off either staying in the B12 or finding a new conference. Their budgets will shrink.
Northeast Stinger
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 10,712
I keep wondering, vainly perhaps, if there is anyway to pitch academics, culture, future revenues and the future of football to a prospective team or a prospective conference that does not do a “Hacksaw Al” destruction of long term institutions for the sake of money. Sigh.
SteamWhistle
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 4,434
- Location
- Rome, GA
This is all so f*cked. It’s like we let a 12 year old kid turn his NCAA 14 Dynasty into real life. 30 Years from now everyone will look back and say boy we screwed up.
1979jacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 625
This is interesting but a lot of teams missing - as you say Duke and Miami - but what about pitt and bc too - I do worry how low we are and think it is an important measure. Not the only one but very important. With a major shakeup, we are a bit weak on this. Isn't the ACC low on revenue sharing until redo their contract? Right way - and I know virtualy impossible - woud be to look at without conference revunue sharing included. The ranking likely would be very similar so may not prove anything just wonder would schools like Maryland still be ahead of us.
Technut1990
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 960
I was watching a guy on you tube ( I know, my first mistake), he said Texas and Oklahoma are good fits for the SEC because they bring a high level of talent and they are proof that you can have winning programs AND high academic standards. I’ll pause here until the laughter subsides ………
on the outside chance this is true, why can’t the ACC ?
on the outside chance this is true, why can’t the ACC ?
Backstreetbuzz
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 519
FSU and Clemson to the SEC.
Miami, North Carolina, Virginia and GT to the Big 10. GT’s best assets are Atlanta market, recruits from Georgia, and, believe it or not, academics.
Miami, North Carolina, Virginia and GT to the Big 10. GT’s best assets are Atlanta market, recruits from Georgia, and, believe it or not, academics.
RonJohn
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 4,988
The TV rights money will probably drop if Texas and Oklahoma leave the Big12. However, using the table of revenues doesn't indicate that Texas and Oklahoma are subsidizing the rest of the conference. Both of those schools get a payout from the Big12, they don't pay money into the Big12. The other revenue comes from ticket sales, branded merchandise licensing, donations, etc. Neither school shares any of that money with any other school in the Big12.
Take a look at FSU. They are the top ranked ACC team in revenue. They don't share any of their revenue with the ACC. The ACC benefits from their TV markets and from their ability to bring fans to games at other schools. The ACC does not benefit from their ability to sell home tickets, their ability to sell swag, nor their ability to gain donations. GT is $9 million behind them in ticket sales, $28 million behind them in contributions, and $20 million behind them in licensing. If GT wants to compete financially with other schools, we can't wait on TV rights money to increase. Everybody's revenue will increase with that. GT has to sell more tickets, have more donations, and sell more merchandise. Right now GT's revenue is in the middle of FBS. We are third from last in the P5. Only Washington State and Oregon State have less revenue than GT.
- Messages
- 11,474
Private schools don’t have to report their financials. Schools like Notre Dame (which would be top 10), Stanford, and Duke aren’t listed for that reason.
I wouldn’t say that conferences provide TV revenue to teams so much as they reallocate it.
FSU and Clemson share TV revenue evenly with the rest of the conference and they share bowl revenue. While we contribute more to that pool than Wake Forest, we are not the reason for our TV contracts, and we are not bringing in nearly as much money as other schools. Our ratings are not nearly as strong a pull as Clemson, UNC, FSU, or a number of other schools. We are clearly subsidized by other members. If you doubt that, our last bowl game and the swan song for an impressive coach was the Quick Lane Bowl. If we pulled powerful ratings, we’d get into the Dukes Mayo bowl ahead of other teams.
Oklahoma and Texas prop up the Big12 even more than Clemson and FSU bring in revenue for us. If you even think about the Longhorn Network, Texas gets coverage for their tier 3 games (baseball, games against small non-conference schools), and has more cable networks than the ACC Network, which has conference games.
Depending on what happens with current TX and OU rights, the only thing saving the B12 contract is that it’s already in place. I expect the Big 12 will struggle to get their contract renewed for less money without Oklahoma and Texas. They’ll be better than the MAC, but they’ll pull less viewership than any other major conference. Who out of Kansas, Oklahoma State, and WVU brings football ratings?
RonJohn
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 4,988
ESPN's business model for the last 30 years or more hasn't been based on ratings or viewership. It has been based solely on number of TV subscribers. FSU and Clemson probably do provide more eyes on TV sets, but that is only about 15% of ESPN's revenue. For the ACC Network, Greenville, SC (Clemson's TV market) means much less than Atlanta (GT's TV market). I have complained about ESPN's business model and their tactics(They basically force the 60% of people who don't watch sports to subsidize those who do), but they are what has been driving revenue for NCAA athletics. That business model seems to be falling apart as people cut the cord. All of the conferences should be trying to predict what the next 10 years will be like and prepare for that.
The ACC does distribute bowl money and NCAA tourney money thru the conference, but it isn't even. If you go to a big bowl, your cut of the bowl money is bigger. It isn't purely proportional to the money the bowl pays, but it is different than what other teams get. If you go deep in the NCAA tournament, you get a larger cut of the NCAA tourney money. Once again, it isn't a one-for-one to what the NCAA pays out, but it is greater than what other teams get.
I think there is a lot of confusion in how Sports TV contracts have been working for the last few decades. Subscriber fees have been much, much, much more important than advertisement. ESPN/ABC have put the marquee games on ABC prime time Saturday night in order to sell high value ads. However, the majority of the games during the day and even on more minor channels at night, the ads probably only pay the production costs of carrying the game. They want to have subscribers first, then except for a few marquee games, they want to spend as little as possible to get enough content on TV so that subscribers don't drop their subscriptions, and ESPN's channels don't become irrelevant. It is a house of cards they have been playing in, and that house of cards is imploding.
Oldgoldandwhite
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,759
And the pieces of pie the SEC slices will be smaller.
Root4GT
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,966
Keep looking for the tin foil hats, there you will find more realistic scenarios then in this thread. Occasionally it helps to deal in reality!
Southpawmac
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,111
GoJacketsInRaleigh
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 996
We're going to eventually get to a point where everyone that wants to play big boy football ends up in the SEC and it's the NFL-lite. Then they'll be a division between that and FCS. Only question I have is will the big boy football league be invite only or who/how gets excluded?
ChicagobasedJacket
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 419
We didn’t get the better bowls because we didn’t draw eyeballs while running the TO. We had back to back to back nationally televised games last fall (FSU, UCF, and Clemson) and drew strong ratings nationally and locally. The Clemson ratings were the worst for obvious reasons
Technut1990
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 960
well the only thing that can be done about that is to be the biggest boy in whatever division you are in. Kick *** and talk crap, winning is winning and the only difference in the trophies is the name on the cup. Thats why I’m a proponent of the brushback pitch in T BAll, show them who you are so that they fear you, makes it less likely they will take u for granted.
in other words it dosent matter where Tech lands as long as they act like they are mad about it !
Coloradojacket
Banned
- Messages
- 2,034
LOL..FSU is the top revenue in the ACC and one of the worst teams...yea money makes the program. It is so great...we are turning college football into a factory where maybe the top schools put 5 in the NFL each year, 2 actually make it and the rest of the kids work at a car wash.
This is all going to end badly. When Saban retires all the money in the world will not keep Alabama on top. Coaching still wins in the end.
This is all going to end badly. When Saban retires all the money in the world will not keep Alabama on top. Coaching still wins in the end.
- Messages
- 4,862
I still don’t get the financial arithmetic for the non revenue sports affording the travel for all of this geographic misalignment
Adadu
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,101
WVU feels like a perfect fit especially with Pitt in the conference now. Granted the academics are....uh....of lacking importance but I would love for WVU to fit in the conference alongside another team like Notre Dame if we can weasel them into being a full-time member.
WreckinGT
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,152
This would slowly kill college football.