Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[tarcone]

More interesting points on B1G expansion. GA Tech and UNC bring the Atlanta and Charlotte TV markets to the BTN. That means the BTN has Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Indianapolis. NYC, Philly, Minneapolis, Cinci, Cleveland, Detroit.

Those are alot of TVs

And now Florida St. may be in the mix.

B1G will go first to get the cream of the ACC. That will signal the end of the ACC.

[bob]

GT gives you the 15 fans in Atlanta off campus that care about them. I'm one. Jon's another. Enjoy it.

Unless Tech is top 15, Im guessing a Vandy-Miss game outdraws them.

[digamma]

You're a Notre Dame fan, and Jon's a non-Georgia fan.

The ACC isn't going anywhere.

[bob]

I'm a ND fan that went to Tech. But fair point. So there are 13 fans off campus.

Agreed that it would take crazy amounts of money to break up the ACC.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bob

GT gives you the 15 fans in Atlanta off campus that care about them. I'm one. Jon's another. Enjoy it.

Unless Tech is top 15, Im guessing a Vandy-Miss game outdraws them.

TV ratings are not kind to 95% to non-SEC games in the ATL period. Even when GT plays, unless it's prime time or a big opponent (basically FSU, Miami or ND) the 3rd or 4th SEC game of the week opposite them pulls a better number most of the time.

Having a team in a market is vastly different from having the market care about the team (or the conference they're in). I've seen coaches shows post better ratings than an random ACC game of the week, and the random ACC GOTW outdraws the current Big10 telecasts in Atlanta (again, aside from the most marquee of marquee pairings)

[bob]

I'd love if it happened, because as a ND fan i grew up with the teams they played against from the Big 10 and never really embraced the ACC rivals of Tech, but its pretty unlikely unless the whole system gets destroyed.

[Logan]

I'm not even sure how much individual games' ratings matter. Having a B1G team in the state/DMA (I say DMA because Rutgers includes New York here) allows the network to increase the rate from like $0.39/subscriber to $1. Estimates were that BTN revenues increased by about $50MM the first year just from Rutgers being added.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Having a team in a market is vastly different from having the market care about the team (or the conference they're in).

Yup. Way too many people look simplistically at TV markets without considering how many people in those markets watch (or are likely to watch) games involving that team and/or conference.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

I'm not even sure how much individual games' ratings matter. Having a B1G team in the state/DMA (I say DMA because Rutgers includes New York here) allows the network to increase the rate from like $0.39/subscriber to $1. Estimates were that BTN revenues increased by about $50MM the first year just from Rutgers being added.

At some point the TV side of the equation will have to figure out what a sucker bet that is too.

They increased the rate & got away with it ... but for the carrier it's a deal that makes no real sense.

*Now I realize, the carriers are among the dumbest bunch of mothers I've ever come across. Many don't seem to be run by people who could find their ass with both hands, a bloodhound, a map and a GPS. But still, sooner or later (and I'd suspect sooner) operators will figure out that the value of networks that have no audience in their market aren't a good bet.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

At some point the TV side of the equation will have to figure out what a sucker bet that is too.

They increased the rate & got away with it ... but for the carrier it's a deal that makes no real sense.

*Now I realize, the carriers are among the dumbest bunch of mothers I've ever come across. Many don't seem to be run by people who could find their ass with both hands, a bloodhound, a map and a GPS. But still, sooner or later (and I'd suspect sooner) operators will figure out that the value of networks that have no audience in their market aren't a good bet.

Agree, but the networks that provide live sports are very likely to be stickier than the vast majority of the others. So I'd disagree with the "sooner" part of your statement, at least in comparison to a lot of the rest.

[tarcone]

Soon, the B1G will sell games to any network. BTN is an absolute cash cow for the conference. The B1G wont need to sign a new contract with a network when they will be able to sell game individually. Dont think FS1 wont bid high doillars on a Michigan/Ohio St. game. And the lesser games will remain on BTN.

And TV is not how many watch, it is how many are in the area. If The B1G were to get Ga Tech and Texas, the BTN would be in 50% of all households in the US. And they see the channel to the satellite and cable companies.

Dont think that wouldnt bring in big dollars.

Delaney has been a genius when it comes to TV. He absolutely nailed it. And none of the other conferences can touch what the BTN is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

And TV is not how many watch, it is how many are in the area. If The B1G were to get Ga Tech and Texas, the BTN would be in 50% of all households in the US. And they see the channel to the satellite and cable companies.

Only if you aren't parsing who gets the money / in which transaction.

If nobody is watching (and frankly, the number of viewers for random B1G in any southern market, including Atlanta, is sparse and even that word might be kind) then the carriers are fucking stupid to pay top dollar to add it. They can't sell ads on stuff nobody is watching at a price high enough to recover their costs. And cable systems don't lack for worthless (i.e. unwatched networks) inventory to give away as it is.

My argument is that, sooner or later, the stupidity of that has to stop.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My argument is that, sooner or later, the stupidity of that has to stop.

It's matter of when, not if. With the number of people cutting cable networks are going to realize that raw numbers of potential subscribers doesn't mean a damn thing.

Making people pay more money to watch a school they have no interest in watching is going to catch up to the conferences and the networks at some point.

[Logan]

The stupidity comment needs to be directed at the subscribers who pay for it but don't watch it, either out of ignorance (not realizing they're paying for it) or laziness (not wanting to go through the trouble of calling and downgrade their package).

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It's matter of when, not if. With the number of people cutting cable networks are going to realize that raw numbers of potential subscribers doesn't mean a damn thing.

Making people pay more money to watch a school they have no interest in watching is going to catch up to the conferences and the networks at some point.

Agree overall, but again I'll come back to live sports still being king. I'm making up the numbers here, but if BTN needs to start charging 10x what they are currently charging every month (so from $1/month to $10/month) in order to maintain the same revenue base once only the real fans decide they want it, they'll probably have a much better likelihood of achieving that than HGTV does in getting their audience from $0.30/month to $3/month.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It's matter of when, not if. With the number of people cutting cable networks are going to realize that raw numbers of potential subscribers doesn't mean a damn thing.

Making people pay more money to watch a school they have no interest in watching is going to catch up to the conferences and the networks at some point.

I think pretty much everybody involved already knows that, except for the most ignorant of advertisers.

But it isn't the networks (from MTV to B1G) that has to have the light bulb for it to stop, it's the carriers.

The number of subscribers they gain with something like a random regional sports network outside its footprint is negligible. And their portion of the commercial inventory (the "local avails") has little value since the audience is so small 99% of the time. There simply isn't, in a direct transaction, any reason for them to pay (made up figure) $5.00 per subscriber to the network to get rights to carry. They can't make that money back, there's negative ROI.

If B1G (or any network) says "you can't have us in Indiana if you don't carry us on the same deal in Georgia" then you have number crunching to do in order to see if there's a figure that makes sense for the carrier.

The sports networks -- conference owned or otherwise -- badly want a national footprint, because otherwise they become more limited in who they can sell advertising to (i.e. "the network inventory"). And that's a problem because the usual multipliers for live sports costs -- often 5x - 10x the cost of the same demographic in another program -- mean you have to have relatively deep pockets in order to participate. So the networks need those carriers in order to maximize that revenue stream.

The carriers, honestly, have very little need for these sort of networks outside their true footprint (and, no, Atlanta doesn't become B1G territory if GT joins tomorrow any more than Boston suddenly became an ACC town)

[Kodos]

College Football Is About To Change

Haven't read the whole thing yet, but figured why not post it here.

[cuervo72]

At that point, we can probably assume that FBS vs. FCS games will either cease to exist or be extremely limited. (Here’s a solution to the argument that it’s okay to see the big boys bludgeon the little guys so FCS programs can pick up a much-needed paycheck: add a 13th game to each FBS season with the caveat that it has to be a game against an FCS opponent. Play them the first couple weeks of the season, possibly treating them as exhibition games, kinda like college basketball already does.)

Meanwhile Power 5 vs. mid-major games will also be strictly limited. Perhaps Florida gets one game a year against, say, Florida Atlantic, but that’s it. Again, perhaps those are games that must all be played before September is over.

In the end, I’d expect the top level of NCAA Football to consist of roughly 64 teams that will carve up the vast majority of the financial pie.

Do. It.

[molson]

I think those top 64 games should be strictly professional deal outside of the NCAA, but assuming they don't go that far, I think the lower-tiered teams in that group won't be worth as much as perennial 1 and 2 win teams as they are when they start every season 4-1 against competition outside that group.

[cuervo72]

Could USF and UCF join the Power 5 party? All other things being equal, if you’re the SEC or ACC, would you rather have the programs located in Tampa (market #11) and Orlando (#19) in your conference or would you rather have largely noncompetitive programs in big, but still smaller markets?

On the other hand, this is the same logic that gave us the friggin' Jaguars. Florida is covered.

[BillJasper]

Ohmigodohmigodohmigod, what happens when Notre Dame or Ohio State gets relegated. THAT CAN’T EVER BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN! Actually, it won’t happen. Ever. Okay, so Notre Dame had that 3-9 disaster in 2007. That, friend, is a massive outlier.

This makes no sense. If every team is playing strong competition year around, then they will have relegation seasons. Even Alabama eventually.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Kodos

College Football Is About To Change

Haven't read the whole thing yet, but figured why not post it here.

Written by someone who doesn't understand college football fanaticism in the slightest apparently. What it doesn't grasp at all (based on the hypothetical of the Vandys & Kentuckys of the picture playing SEC basketball but CUSA football) is that fans of any SEC team are equally or even more interested in seeing Bama-Kentucky than the are in seeing Bama vs other conferences midcarders. And even in the hypothetical 64 team universe there will still be midcarders. No meaningful number of fans at Bama, Florida, LSU, whomever are jazzed about replacing Directional State with Illinois.

(I recall very specifically hearing that stuff when UGA played Colorado in 2006 and 2010 ... "why the hell did they go to Colorado when they could have played somebody at home?" as well as the home game version of "why the hell are we playing ... Colorado?") edit to add: Hell that still happens when it's conference expansion teams like Missouri or even Arkansas to some extent, and how long have the Razorbacks been in the SEC now?

Even the media aspect includes a fallacy early in the article

In the media, the bigger the market — the more people who can watch your product — the more revenue you generate.

Nooooo ... the more people who watch your product the more revenue you will generate. As quoted, it's true only for potential revenue, not actual dollars.


What's described here isn't college football ... and I'm fine with that. I've long said that athletic departments were an extension of the marketing department for the university & I have no real problem with turning it into a full blown professional league for the football factory level & making them university employees at that point.

But as described here, a mere illusion of college football, they'll kill the golden goose just the same way NASCAR did/has.

[cuervo72]

Eh, kill it? This plan would be going more of an NFL route -- and I think the NFL is doing just fine (and from the number of teams standpoint, they'd have two NFLs).

Fans of an SEC team might care about Bama-Kentucky (I think games like Bama-Western Kentucky are more the issue), but there are a lot more eyeballs out there to be had, I think.*

* Though yes, yes NASCAR ran into issues thinking that too. But this is football. It's not a regional endeavor.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Eh, kill it? This plan would be going more of an NFL route -- and I think the NFL is doing just fine (and from the number of teams standpoint, they'd have two NFLs).

Fans of an SEC team might care about Bama-Kentucky (I think games like Bama-Western Kentucky are more the issue), but there are a lot more eyeballs out there to be had, I think.*

* Though yes, yes NASCAR ran into issues thinking that too. But this is football. It's not a regional endeavor.

College football is a regional endeavor, in a sense. It's far closer to NASCAR in how fan support works than the NFL.

Trying to shoehorn a professional format into college football would a great way to kill off interest.

[cuervo72]

Well it would still have regions. SEC teams are going to predominantly play SEC teams, etc. You're not introducing a new sport to a new area though. Big deal if that SEC team plays an extra ACC team instead of a cupcake.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Well it would still have regions. SEC teams are going to predominantly play SEC teams, etc. You're not introducing a new sport to a new area though. Big deal if that SEC team plays an extra ACC team instead of a cupcake.

But it isn't entirely about regionality for football-as-religion fans (and that's a very big part of the audience in CFB hotbeds).

Picking on UCF 'cause I remember them being in the article specifically. Location doesn't give them much advantage with a Bama/Auburn fan, it's simply not enough on its own to make them more interesting -- or even equally interesting -- than Vandy* that you've played since 1903.

Hell, there are still people in major fanbases who think of South Carolina as an ACC, rather than SEC, team. And they've been in the SEC for 24 years, and out of the ACC for 44 years.

*picking on Vandy here, like my Kentucky reference earlier, specifically because they were mentioned by name in the article.

[cuervo72]

Ok, I get Vandy. Or Kentucky, or Iowa St, really. Any league is still going to have bad teams, and I really don't have any problem with the dregs being the same teams 9 out of 10 years. Even in the NFL we have that (HI, BROWNS!*) I really have no problems cutting out the teams below that out. As I've said time and time again, I don't need to see anyone playing Louisiana Tech though. Or Tennessee Tech. Or Kent State. I'd rather see Penn State face Virginia, or North Carolina rather than Kent State.



* I mean, I would be against the NFL saying "London is a bigger market than Cleveland, so no more Browns." Or Green Bay, or Minnesota. That would be stupid. History does have its place. I do also think it's dumb to try to carve out new fan bases in "covered" areas - like UCF. Really, I think most allegiances down in Florida are pretty determined. Like my point with JAX - pretty sure my in-laws near Daytona can't stand that they have to watch the Jaguars when the Dolphins or Bucs are also on.

That said, I really wouldn't mind seeing Temple build their program...

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Hell, there are still people in major fanbases who think of South Carolina as an ACC, rather than SEC, team. And they've been in the SEC for 24 years, and out of the ACC for 44 years.

Oh, well yeah. I still think of the Oilers for Houston, consider the Brewers an AL team (never mind the Astros), and only begrudgingly accept the Braves as a divisional foe over the Cards, Cubs, and Pirates.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'd rather see Penn State face Virginia, or North Carolina rather than Kent State.

Ok, double dola. I just looked at Maryland's schedule, and they open with Howard, FIU, and UCF. I get this is what Big 5 schools do. But shit, Maryland - you've been in that group, but you really haven't established yourself and DON'T have that huge a following. I don't think you're drawing fans by playing those teams (wait, and you're AWAY to the latter two of those?!?). You are better off marketing like the Bullets in the 80s/90s - COME SEE MICHAEL JORDAN AND THE BULLS IN PERSON (against your hometown Generals)!!!

[cartman]

That fucking Deloss Dodds ruins everything...........

[tarcone]

B1G is negotiating their new TV contract. This Summer would be prime time for them to expand.
Here are the 4 that are on the clock: Florida St., North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia.

Of those 4, I think Geo Tech and Virginia are the 2 most likely.

[Logan]

Still no.

[Atocep]

I don't see conferences expanding any time soon. There just isn't any reason to.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by tarcone

B1G is negotiating their new TV contract. This Summer would be prime time for them to expand.
Here are the 4 that are on the clock: Florida St., North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia.

Of those 4, I think Geo Tech and Virginia are the 2 most likely.

Who is writing 300 million dollar check? 75 per...plus their TV revenues will go to the other acc teams for the next 9 years.

Sounds legit

[Young Drachma]

It's just not happening. I do love how these threads proliferate on every forum, because it'd be fun if someone had a wild ass idea and then ended up being right. But c'mon, we're only in what the going on 3rd year of the new playoff system? No new bowls? Conferences are stabilizing at least for the time being.

Even the bombshells that happened back when they were happening didn't happen this late and no team wants to deal with the whole "being denied a tournament bid for their conference tourney" situation that many teams dealt with a few years ago.

If we do see some expansion, it'll be a league like the Big East that might want to increase its footprint or something along those lines, not a major league that has nothing to really gain in the immediate by expanded and thinning the pot even more.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't see conferences expanding any time soon. There just isn't any reason to.

Besides the payouts to buy out ACC teams, I question whether the addition of any two of those teams raises the overall average distribution for the conference. Sure, they'll get a bigger TV deal from ESPN if they have North Carolina and Virginia added to the mix, but enough to offset splitting the pie 16 ways instead of 14?

[tarcone]

Dont forget the extra TVs the schools bring. Increase in revenue for the BTN.

Plus, athletic money in the B1G is tiny compared to the research dollars the conference brings in. Dont think the Presidents dont have their eyes on that. Nebraska was allowed in to appease the athletic side of the ticket. But Maryland and Rutgers were brought in for the research dollars.

That is what the B1G is concerned about.

And TV sets.

[tarcone]

And the B1G isnt going to be a reactive conference, picking up scraps from whats left over. The B1G will fire the next shot before anyone else.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Dont forget the extra TVs the schools bring. Increase in revenue for the BTN.

Plus, athletic money in the B1G is tiny compared to the research dollars the conference brings in. Dont think the Presidents dont have their eyes on that. Nebraska was allowed in to appease the athletic side of the ticket. But Maryland and Rutgers were brought in for the research dollars.

That is what the B1G is concerned about.

And TV sets.

The networks are already regretting the latest round of TV deals. None of the schools mentioned are going to stop people from dropping cable at the current rate. That's what cable companies and networks are really looking at right now.

[tarcone]

But with the best sports network outside of ESPN and Fox, the B1G could survive easier with out the big networks than the networks could live without the B1G.

Also, the B1G is looking at a pay per event type deal with networks. They may not go all in with a network. Who does that hurt more?

[cuervo72]

The B1G is starting to sound like Best Conference.


FWIW, I will watch whomever is on ESPN/ABC/CBS. I've turned on the BTN maybe once. Ever.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by tarcone

But with the best sports network outside of ESPN and Fox, the B1G could survive easier with out the big networks than the networks could live without the B1G.

Huh?

The B1G could cease to exist tomorrow & the amount of shits the networks would give would be limited at best. It currently has one team that consistently matters nationally, it could stretch that to two if Sideshow Bob continues to find amusing ways to annoy the NCAA. Otherwise they're are as interchangeable to the national landscape as midcarders on the TNA roster.

[tarcone]

I believe you. But how much would a network pay for the Michigan/Ohio St. game?
The B1G has always been the standard bearer in these type of situations.
Look at the title of this thread. The B1G has been very proactive.

I believe they will continue to do so.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Huh?

The B1G could cease to exist tomorrow & the amount of shits the networks would give would be limited at best. It currently has one team that consistently matters nationally, it could stretch that to two if Sideshow Bob continues to find amusing ways to annoy the NCAA. Otherwise they're are as interchangeable to the national landscape as midcarders on the TNA roster.

Really?
You think ABC would rather have Kentucky vs. Vanderbilt over Ohio St. vs. Wisconsin?

Doubtful. the B1G brings in the 2nd most revenue of the conferences. And soon it will be right there with the SEC. Or surpass them. Its the B1Gs turn to cash in.

Pay per game? Maybe and the networks would jump.
Fox Sports? They would LOVE to have the B1G. They are desperately trying to beat ESPN. The B1G helps that tremendously.

I think you underestimate the B1G.

[CU Tiger]

I think you misunderstand the grant of rights acc teams signed. They granted their TV and media rights away to the acc. The acc then pays those schools if they are still a member.

So if unc joined the big 10 and TV revenue increased 15 million. The big 10 would have to pay the acc unc entire share of the tvo rights and unc would get zero TV revenue for 10 years. Additionally if the big 10 pays a distribution. To unc the acc gets that as well.

That says nothing for the fact that unc doesn't care about football, and you are taking them away from their rivals in the only sport they do care about.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Dont forget the extra TVs the schools bring. Increase in revenue for the BTN.

I'm not forgetting, but what you have to remember is however much additional revenue that the Big Ten would get from having the TV markets from the schools they add has to be enough to make up for splitting the pie 16 ways instead of 14 ways. In other words, would adding whichever two schools they pursue going to bump the average money all of the Big Ten schools would get in a new deal? I have my doubts.

And that doesn't even begin to account for paying off the grant of rights that the ACC teams signed.

[cuervo72]

(FWIW, when I mentioned Carolina and Virginia it was only in the context of being two big state schools that Penn State could play out-of-conference that I'd rather watch over patsies, not that I think or want them to move to the Big Ten. I would have offered Maryland, but hey, they already moved. And they actually play Pitt this year. WVU could be another one. 'Cuse if they still mattered.)

[Logan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm not forgetting, but what you have to remember is however much additional revenue that the Big Ten would get from having the TV markets from the schools they add has to be enough to make up for splitting the pie 16 ways instead of 14 ways. In other words, would adding whichever two schools they pursue going to bump the average money all of the Big Ten schools would get in a new deal? I have my doubts.

And that doesn't even begin to account for paying off the grant of rights that the ACC teams signed.

I don't think this is happening either, but people questioned the B1G being able to increase the pie enough to go from 12 to 14 and that turned out to not even approach being a concern.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I think you misunderstand the grant of rights acc teams signed. They granted their TV and media rights away to the acc. The acc then pays those schools if they are still a member.

So if unc joined the big 10 and TV revenue increased 15 million. The big 10 would have to pay the acc unc entire share of the tvo rights and unc would get zero TV revenue for 10 years. Additionally if the big 10 pays a distribution. To unc the acc gets that as well.

That says nothing for the fact that unc doesn't care about football, and you are taking them away from their rivals in the only sport they do care about.

Let's not forget that the grant of rights has to have a minimum number of teams remaining in the conference to be in effect. The Big 12 is the same way. Someone can check this, but I believe in the Big 12 it's less than 6 teams voids all agreements. So it only takes five teams leaving that conference to void out all money that would be due. The ACC has a similar minimum number in their agreement. Neither of those agreements guard against elimination of the conference if it were to happen. It's the main reason why the smaller B12 teams want to add two new teams to have a bigger buffer while the bigger B12 teams want to keep it at 10. Those numbers are going to come into play when the next round hits.

The B12 is likely the more vulnerable of the two just because they could see different teams go to all three of the clear leader conferences (B10, P12, SEC). It's not that hard to think that they'll lose five teams in a hurry when the dominoes start to fall.

[cartman]