Page 45 of 101 FirstFirst ... 3543444546475595 ... LastLast
Results 881 to 900 of 2016
  1. #881
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    20 Minutes From The Heaven That Is Cameron Indoor
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    Do you think after all the hoopla that required poaching the Big12, they would be more enticed to grab UWV after the relative cleanliness which the ACC grabbed the Big East schools?
    I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, but, I have to believe that one, taking an additional Big12 team from here on out, won't be nearly as painful as the A&M snatching, and two, I think the SEC is so arrogant, they don't care. The SEC sees themselves as the top dog in all this who can pick and choose to their liking. They are likely right on that to be honest, except, and here comes my ACC colored glasses, I do feel there are teams in the ACC that the SEC has no chance of enticing. UNC being at the top of that list.

    In my view, there are 2 ACC teams at risk. FSU to the SEC and/or Maryland to the Big Ten. I know some feel VaTech would jump to the SEC, but I still hold firm that they won't.

    I actually hope that the SEC takes Missouri. I have nothing against the Big 12 and enjoy watching their top games in Hoops and Football, but their demise would be very beneficial to the ACC in terms of safety and stability.

    Like many others, I do not like all of this, and wish the limit was 12 teams, with the Big 12 and Big East alive and healthy, but I am afraid those days are gone...

    "[T]he tarnished Tar Heels that bear little resemblance to the revered program built by Dean Smith."- Ashville Times
    "UNC and the NCAA are trying to conceal that the fraud was specifically designed to pad the transcripts of varsity athletes" - Bloomberg

  2. #882

    Great post!

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Been kinda busy for a couple days so I had not had a chance to peruse this thread. So, I am doing some quick catching up.

    1) Football vs. Basketball -- Someone asked earlier how football could be so much more of a revenue driver than basketball because there are so many more basketball games to air. Last Saturday, ABC aired an early season football game between FSU and Oklahoma. It was a good matchup, featuring a pair of top 10 teams. But, it was not a big rivalry game nor was it late in the year with something like a BCS or conference championship going to the winner. It drew almost 10 million viewers.

    You may recall that 2 years ago, CBS put the end-of-season Duke-Carolina game in prime time. Duke and UNC are THE big names in college basketball and the Duke-Carolina game is often far and away the biggest game of the regular season in college basketball. The game was played in March, jsut as the nation was getting ready for conference tournaments and the big NCAA tourney. This was college basketball's moment to shine! The game drew fabulous rating for a college basketball game. CBS was thrilled. 4.5 million people watched.

    So, a somewhat routine Saturday night football game on ABC vs. a hugely hyped, late season rivalry basketball matchup on CBS and the football game wins more than 2-to-1. A better comparison to the Duke-UNC game might be last year's Alabama-Auburn game. It drew 12.5 million viewers, about three times what the Duke-Carolina game did.

    How about another comparison? The UConn-Kentucky national championship game in March drew 16.7 million viewers, the most for a basketball national championship in 6 years. By comparison, the Alabama-Texas 2010 national title game drew 30.8 million viewers.

    Bottom line-- football is at least twice as popular as basketball... probably more. I wish it was not that way, I really do, but that is just the reality here.

    2) Why 14? Why now? -- some people have wondered about why the ACC "rushed" to become the biggest BCS conference. I think this was a smart proactive move by the conference. And the reason is that the ACC knows it can still be plucked of teams by the SEC or Big Ten. While we are certainly a power player in the conference pecking order, we remain vulnerable. By moving to 14 we accomplish two things. First, we give ourselves a chance to boost our revenue/TV dollars when we negotiate a new deal in a couple years and are able to include Pitt and Syrac's markets in it. Those dollars should make us less vulnerable to an SEC/BigTen raid. Second, if the SEC or BTen grabs a team or two, we want to remain a strong conference. If, for example, Maryland and/or FSU were to leave the SEC and knock us down to 10 teams, we would be seen as a conference in trouble. Now, with 2 more strong BCS-calliber schools in the fold, we have a cushion to keep the league impressive in the unfortunate and unlikely event that a couple schools bolt.

    -Jason "thanks for patience reading this " Evans
    Thanks for that excellent post Jason. It answered a few questions I had and I may have been the ones to ask them of you. I was going to argue that despite more viewers, basketball had more games...almost 3 times as many. So in that regard it could be seen as 3-2 in favor of basketball, but SCMatt33 already addressed that. NCAA distributes the basketball tournament money where as the conferences get the bowl money. But what of the lucrative TV deals. It still seems as if more viewers see basketball than football. You certainly answered some of my questions, but raised a few more. 4 million viewers 30 times a year vs. 12 million viewers 10 times a year (simplified there)...seems pretty similar so I'm not sure what I'm missing.

    As for your "why now" comments, if you believe we're heading to 16 it was a great move. A peculiar move since we picked up basketball powers and all this expansion is based on football, but a great move. But if you believe we're not necessarily destined to end up there then it is seen as a rushed move. I'm in the minority with this regard, but definitely not alone. Particularly outside of the conference.

    I still appreciate you taking the time to answer. It doesn't clear it up completely, but it does clean the glass a little for me

  3. #883
    It's only a matter of time before 4 or 5 super conferences are a reality.

    Sure, now that P12 backed off of Oklahoma, Okie St, Texas and Texas Tech, that author can Monday morning QB and say ACC was reactive, but at the time it was brilliant (IMO, still is now in retrospect because it totally caught the B1G by surprise. The B1G would have loved to steal MD for ACC and Pitt from BE to keep Penn St happy and as a way to ultimately getting their main target Notre Dame, plus Rutgers for that NY/NY market. B1G will keep spots 15-16 open until Notre Dame goes somewhere else.

    B1G is very picky about Assoc of American Universities (AAU) membership, and has the majority of them. Notre Dame is not AAU member but I am sure B1G would make an exception in that case. The list of AAU and football not in B1G who are geographically close to B1G is pretty small and dilutes football in many cases. So to get to 16, B1G would want to add Notre Dame and 3 AAU schools from a very finite list: MD (55), Pitt (58), Rutgers (68), Missouri (90), Iowa State (97) and Kansas (101).

    So if ACC can keep MD and Pitt, who are the two highest ranked academically on B1G wish list, the B1G choices are down to Rutgers, Missouri, Iowa State, and maybe KU if even an option without K-St and that will not help them convince Notre Dame.

    If KU is tied to K-State, no way the B1G takes that duo. Others in AAU not so close to B1G country are: Duke (10), Vandy (17), UVA (25), UNC (29), GA Tech (36), Texas (45), plus Florida (58) would never leave SEC and A&M (also 58 who just joined SEC) or Colorado (94 who just joined P12).

    That's it for AAU with football programs, unless you water it down with Rice (17) or west coast teams who would never join B1G.

    I think ACC will wait for at least one of ND and PSU too, as long as it can, before going to 16. So getting to 14 hedges bets about the race to 16 while also adding some insurance if there is attrition, even after the increased $20 milion buyout.

    More importantly it takes away one of the plums that would have helped B1G eventually attract Notre Dame (and retain Penn State). It also leaves the door open to try and get any of these combinations:

    1, Notre Dame and Penn State, no time soon, but maybe not needed soon either if race to 16 slows down.

    2. Penn State and Vandy, neither very likely at moment, but each are attractive to the other and to ACC.

    3. Notre Dame and Vandy, equally unlikely, albeit very attractive to all parties, at moment.

    4. Penn State and (Rutgers or UCONN but not both).

    5. Notre Dame and (Rutgers or UCONN but not both).

    UCONN might be acceptable to ACC but not to B1G because they are not AAU members. So of the two, if there is ACC attrition or further BE collapse, may be better to take Rutgers out of play from B1G than water down ACC ethics with Calhoun types.

    Holding out for any one of these 5 would eventually satisfy the football ACC schools while adding both UCONN and Rutgers or any two that weak in football would immediately tee them off and open up the ACC to football exodus.

    Given that ACC would sometime this decade have to get to 16, name 4 teams better than Pitt and Syracuse that the ACC could have realistically attracted,

    Does anyone really come up with 4 or think that standing pat rather than adding Pitt/Cuse would have put ACC at less risk of losing some of its football "powers" (in ACC not nationally)?

    On that question BTW forget about low ranked academics for Memphis (Tier 4), ECU (194), USF (181), UCF (177), West VA (160), Louisville (160), URI (160), Cincy (143), Temple (132), UK(124). The low water mark in ACC is NC State and FSU tied @ 101 with KU, TN, and others. South Carolina not bad at 111 but not going to switch from SEC to ACC.

    I am confident adding Pitt and Syracuse helps retain Maryland, (could still lose Terps but not if they keep losing to Temple 38-7) and further increases the odds against B1G adding Notre Dame, where the odds of B1G or ACC adding ND any time soon were extremely low already.
    Last edited by Newton_14; 09-25-2011 at 08:32 PM.

  4. #884
    Quote Originally Posted by ACCBBallFan View Post
    It's only a matter of time before 4 or 5 super conferences are a reality

    ...

    Given that ACC would sometime this decade have to get to 16, name 4 teams better than Pitt and Syracuse that the ACC could have realistically attracted,

    ...
    A couple of weeks ago few would have argued, but I don't think that's the case anymore. The Pac-12 has said no. The Big East and Big 12 are fighting for survival. The Big 10 has made no indication of a desire to expand. Could they be hedging their bets, are they working behind the scenes to expand, it's certainly possible. Will the SEC grabbing one more team set everything in motion, that's possible too. But I don't think you can claim mega conferences as a certainty anymore. You certainly can't say "it's only a matter of time" or that it's a "given" anymore.

    That being said, if it does happen the rest of your post makes alot of sense to me and shows alot of research. Thanks for adding it to the discussion

  5. #885
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
    A great column about how Texas' arrogance and nastiness has come home to roost. Their two biggest rivals just don't want to be anywhere near them anymore.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/...nt-bolting-sec
    Yawn. A&M fell into a more stable position with the SEC. Good for them. This is their manifest destiny since 1993.

    I'm not going to deny Texas arrogance. We all here are Duke fans after all. But please give me a specific example of Texas "nastiness" outside of the context of the rivalry itself, which is what this article basically summarized, a rivarly which isn't much different than, say, UNC-NC State or Michigan-Michigan St, and which most Texas fans had third on the list behind OU and Arkansas until Arky left, and then an easy second to OU. Anyway, this article doesn't say anything about "nastiness," whatever that means, in the context of conference realignment. I guess everyone should run away from their rivals when things "just aren't fair." Texas isn't doing anything A&M couldn't have done themselves. They just executed better, and A&M is going to a conference where, perhaps (OK, definitely), the *conference* executes better.

    Texas built the infrastructure for a network with its own money to air its third tier media, got paid handsomely for it, and A&M is pissed. Everyone agrees no high school games now. Fine. I agree that ESPN and Texas didn't push for a Big XII conference game on LHN in the most diplomatic way, but it's going to happen, and KU will benefit from it financially.

    So what then? Why does everyone want to leave the Big XII? It's easy --- it's clearly not the "best" conference unless your at the top. Fine. No one begrudges Nebraska and A&M for the moves they made. More money and stability (or in A&M's case, just stability since they'll be making less money for the next 3-5 years than they did this year under the new Big XII deal when you take exit fees into account). But both had to leave pointing fingers on the way out. And generally, what they were crying foul about either they were the lone wolf in defending (NU) or they consistently voted for prior to leaving (A&M and NU).

    The fact is, upon creation, the Big XII was a hybrid and a shotgun marriage. If the Big Ten/SEC/Pac 10 were going to expand, the Big XII was always going to be the easy target, along with the Big East. NU left for money in the Big Ten. A better situation. A&M is leaving for stability at the likely expense of their rising football program (cough --- excuse, me, I just choked on my buffalo wing, kinda like you know who yesterday afternoon. Tastes like Ryan Tannehill interception) and their east Texas recruiting base. But to spin it politically, there is a need to point outwardly at others for causing them to leave. That's what is happening here. No more, no less. Good luck.

  6. #886
    I am not sure what the board policy is on posting links from other Bball sites, so I will not post the link here.

    For the people who say Penn State to ACC would never happen, take a look at the Scout thread on "Expansion Talk" (page 25) or at least allow me to give credit to a poster named kwc222 who did the driving distance analysis. I will just show the order and not steal all their distance and times:

    Penn State clsoest to:

    1. Pitt
    2. Maryland

    (Rutgers)

    3. Syracuse
    4. UVA

    5. Ohio St is B1G school closest to State College PA.

    6. VA Tech

    7. Michigan but Penn State in other conference
    8. Mich St ditto on other conference


    9. Boston College

    (Notre Dame)

    10. Eight other B1G in this order Indiana/Purdue, NW, Illini, Wisc, Iowa, MN and Nebraska

    I was too lazy to look up all the other ACC teams but obviously also a hike from Penn St to eight other ACC schools Miami, FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, 4 Carolina schools etc.

  7. #887
    Great points, ACCbballfan, on the ACC jumping on Syracuse and Pitt before the Big TwelEveN had a chance. Getting Syracuse and Pitt also leaves no question as to who the big dog on the east coast is going to be. Regardless of whether other conferences go to 14 or 16, it took the ACC 14 to lock down a dominant all sports conference on the east coast. It only really took the Pac-n eight schools to do the same on the west coast, and they don't need to go past their current 12 (and really didn't need to go past 10) to firm up their grip on that region. Now the other conferences can fight for the middle of the country and the Big East is stuck being a league focused on basketball with mixed membership, unequal revenue sharing, and preferential treatment for certain members.

  8. #888
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by ACCBBallFan View Post
    I am not sure what the board policy is on posting links from other Bball sites, so I will not post the link here.

    For the people who say Penn State to ACC would never happen, take a look at the Scout thread on "Expansion Talk" (page 25) or at least allow me to give credit to a poster named kwc222 who did the driving distance analysis. I will just show the order and not steal all their distance and times:

    Penn State clsoest to:

    1. Pitt
    2. Maryland

    (Rutgers)

    3. Syracuse
    4. UVA

    5. Ohio St is B1G school closest to State College PA.

    6. VA Tech

    7. Michigan but Penn State in other conference
    8. Mich St ditto on other conference


    9. Boston College

    (Notre Dame)

    10. Eight other B1G in this order Indiana/Purdue, NW, Illini, Wisc, Iowa, MN and Nebraska

    I was too lazy to look up all the other ACC teams but obviously also a hike from Penn St to eight other ACC schools Miami, FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, 4 Carolina schools etc.

    I don't think anyone is arguing that PSU isn't geographically close to some ACC teams, its just that most people realize that it doesn't matter. Money drives all this, and unless the ACC can guarantee them more money than the B10, they're not going to be enticed to leave.
    usa

  9. #889
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    I don't think anyone is arguing that PSU isn't geographically close to some ACC teams, its just that most people realize that it doesn't matter. Money drives all this, and unless the ACC can guarantee them more money than the B10, they're not going to be enticed to leave.
    If Penn State is in the ACC in the next 5 years and the Big Ten still exists at that time, I will go to the first Duke at PSU game in State College dressed in nothing but boxer shorts and all blue body paint and cheer the Blue Devils on. And I'm almost 36. And in bad shape. And in (and will be in) Texas.

    I agree. It's not happening.

  10. #890
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Penn State? -- Fuhgedaboutit!

    Quote Originally Posted by ACCBBallFan View Post
    I am not sure what the board policy is on posting links from other Bball sites, so I will not post the link here.

    For the people who say Penn State to ACC would never happen, take a look at the Scout thread on "Expansion Talk" (page 25) or at least allow me to give credit to a poster named kwc222 who did the driving distance analysis. I will just show the order and not steal all their distance and times:

    Penn State clsoest to:

    1. Pitt
    2. Maryland

    (Rutgers)

    3. Syracuse
    4. UVA

    5. Ohio St is B1G school closest to State College PA.

    6. VA Tech

    7. Michigan but Penn State in other conference
    8. Mich St ditto on other conference


    9. Boston College

    (Notre Dame)

    10. Eight other B1G in this order Indiana/Purdue, NW, Illini, Wisc, Iowa, MN and Nebraska

    I was too lazy to look up all the other ACC teams but obviously also a hike from Penn St to eight other ACC schools Miami, FSU, GA Tech, Clemson, 4 Carolina schools etc.
    ACC Ball Fan -- I appreciate your diligence, but the Penn-State-to-the-ACC bit is getting tedious. First the Big Ten is a money machine without parallel. No one is changing conferences to get "fewer dollars." Second distances between schools, although important, are secondary. Third, with apologies to A-Tex Devil, our OP and a hard-working poster, and any well-meaning Aggie and Oklahoma fans, Penn State does not seem like the kind of "home wrecker" these folks have turned out to be. I don't see Penn State jumping ship without being pushed by extraordinary events. This is the flip side of my argument that the ACC is a secure conference because the schools are comfortable in it, like each other OK (the fans are another matter), and have a measure of loyalty common to college athletics.

    And the instability in the Big East has nothing to do with Penn State and the Big Ten. I mean, the Big East makes a lot of sense as a large basketball conference (16/17 teams) and no sense as a football conference with 8/9 teams. As a measure of its irrationality, Notre Dame voted against the $1B football TV deal, and it doesn't even play football in the conference. That seems to have been the final straw for Pitt, if not Syracuse.

    sagegrouse

  11. #891
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    If Penn State is in the ACC in the next 5 years and the Big Ten still exists at that time, I will go to the first Duke at PSU game in State College dressed in nothing but boxer shorts and all blue body paint and cheer the Blue Devils on. And I'm almost 36. And in bad shape. And in (and will be in) Texas.

    I agree. It's not happening.
    Sounds like a pretty safe bet. Just like Klemnop running naked down Franklin Street (or hanging nekkid upside down by/on the sundial or whatever he promised) if Clemson ever beats unc in chappaheeya.

    It ain't happening.

  12. #892
    Quote Originally Posted by fan345678 View Post
    Great points, ACCbballfan, on the ACC jumping on Syracuse and Pitt before the Big TwelEveN had a chance. Getting Syracuse and Pitt also leaves no question as to who the big dog on the east coast is going to be. Regardless of whether other conferences go to 14 or 16, it took the ACC 14 to lock down a dominant all sports conference on the east coast. It only really took the Pac-n eight schools to do the same on the west coast, and they don't need to go past their current 12 (and really didn't need to go past 10) to firm up their grip on that region. Now the other conferences can fight for the middle of the country and the Big East is stuck being a league focused on basketball with mixed membership, unequal revenue sharing, and preferential treatment for certain members.
    Thanks.

    I agree with those that say PSU and ND are long shots til 2015 or later, but never hurts to increase one's odds.

    I also agree with those that say race to 16 may slow down a bit, but still think it happens sometime this decade.

    From the other post, you can see that the two AAU schools that B1G values are also the closest to its most eastern team, PSU.

    The 4 ACC schools in NC that the other poster on scout board did not calculate are also closer than the 2 B1G in Indiana, and not much further than Michigan State, ND and BC.

    I used Mapquest with just the city, not the exact address. I have not compared results to that post on other site. Some of the relative distances among NC Schools seem a little off below, but ball park, or stadium if you will.

    Pitt (AAU) is 2 hours and 40 min 136 miles from State College PA

    Maryland (AAU) 3 hours and 51 min 205 miles.

    Rutgers (AAU) is 4 hr 6 min and 229
    Cuse (no longer AAU) 4 hours and 29 min and 241 miles

    UVA (another AAU) 5 hours 5 min 288 miles
    Ohio State (AAU) is 5 hr 45 min and 336

    VA Tech (not AAU) is 6 hr 18 min and 366
    UCONN (not AAU) is 6 hr 23 min and 367
    Michigan (AAU) is 6 hr 25 and 390

    Mich St (AAU) is 7 hr 21 min and 455
    Notre Dame (not AAU but still envied by B1G) is 7 hr 38 min 479 miles
    Boston College is 7 hr 39 min and 443 miles
    Wake (no longer AAU) is 7 hr 57 min and 474
    Duke (AAU) is 7 hr 58 min and 465

    UNC (AAU) is 8 hr 9 min and 444 miles
    NC St (not AAU) is 8 hr 10 min and 490

    Indiana (AAU) is 9 hr 30 min and 561
    Purdue (AAU) is 9 hr 30 min and 569
    Northwestern (AAU) is 9 hr 36 and 585 miles

    Illinois (AAU) 10 hr 29 min and 633
    Clemson (not AAU) is 10 hr 54 min and 648 miles

    Wisky (AAU) is 11 hr 46 min and 713

    Iowa (AAU) is 12 hr 27 and 773 miles
    GA Tech (AAU) is 12 hr 34 min and 759 miles

    Minnesota (AAU) 974 miles
    FSU (not AAU) 1065 miles
    Nebraska (no longer AAU) 1072 miles
    Miami (not AAU) 1250 miles

  13. #893
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorp4me View Post
    4 million viewers 30 times a year vs. 12 million viewers 10 times a year (simplified there)...seems pretty similar so I'm not sure what I'm missing.
    I think what you're missing is 4 million viewers is the top regular season game of the year in college basketball. It doesn't happen close to 30 times a year. My guess is pretty much every week in the season a college football game gets at least 10 million viewers. I have no idea whether the totals come out to 2-to-1 or 3-to-2 or something else, but it's not even. More people watch college football than college basketball.

    Why they'd want to do so is another matter entirely.

  14. #894
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    ACC Ball Fan -- I appreciate your diligence, but the Penn-State-to-the-ACC bit is getting tedious. First the Big Ten is a money machine without parallel. No one is changing conferences to get "fewer dollars." Second distances between schools, although important, are secondary. Third, with apologies to A-Tex Devil, our OP and a hard-working poster, and any well-meaning Aggie and Oklahoma fans, Penn State does not seem like the kind of "home wrecker" these folks have turned out to be. I don't see Penn State jumping ship without being pushed by extraordinary events. This is the flip side of my argument that the ACC is a secure conference because the schools are comfortable in it, like each other OK (the fans are another matter), and have a measure of loyalty common to college athletics.

    And the instability in the Big East has nothing to do with Penn State and the Big Ten. I mean, the Big East makes a lot of sense as a large basketball conference (16/17 teams) and no sense as a football conference with 8/9 teams. As a measure of its irrationality, Notre Dame voted against the $1B football TV deal, and it doesn't even play football in the conference. That seems to have been the final straw for Pitt, if not Syracuse.

    sagegrouse
    On the scheduling thread, I too had made the point that distance is not as big a deal in football since it is only on weekends, whereas in basketball it is also mid-week.

    Easy for me to say since I do not go to any college football games. Another poster corrected me and said that may be true for the team, but not for the students who want to go to the game in person.

    As you say though, $$ for the schools drive it, not how far the students have to drive. They're young and can switch drivers.

    A lot will depend on how much better a TV deal both in football and in Bball that the 14 team ACC can make over the next four years to close the advantage B1G 10 Network has. ACC has a weather advantage over B1G in other sports.

    They have huge universities but from a rankings perspective both conferences have 4 in top 25, B12 has 3, P12 has 3, BE has 3, and SEC 7.

    It's when you look at Top 10 where SEC has 4, P12 and B1G two each and B12 one, plus Boise St, and also when you look at received votes but not in top 25 that ACC after a terrible weak - I mean week (maybe too comfortable now, though when Clemson plays FSU someone has to lose) and BE slide with no one else while SEC has 4 more, and 3 more for B12, P12 and B1G.
    Last edited by ACCBBallFan; 09-26-2011 at 12:22 AM.

  15. #895
    Maryland losing to Temple 38-7 at home may have done more to fend off B1G poaching and team them with Rutgers than this, but the time and distance analysis applies here too (only 4 of 13 other ACC schools further to travel to than B1G's second closest Ohio St):

    Maryland (55-AAU) Time Miles


    Naval Academy 0.62 27 have not heard anything about B1G trying to persuade Notre Dame with service academies, just BE and Navy talk
    UVA (25-AAU) 2.72 131
    Rutgers (68-AAU) 3.45 191 has appeal to B1G and long term to ACC for that NY/NJ market, not for football or Bball per se
    Penn St (45-AAU) 3.85 205
    Pitt (58-AAU) 4.37 244
    Duke (10-AAU) 4.65 272
    VA Tech (~AAU-71) 4.68 283
    NC St (~AAU-101) 4.85 297
    UNC (29-AAU) 4.93 284

    Army 4.97 268 not interested in joining BE or B1G at this time

    Wake (~AAU-25) 5.95 349
    Clemson (~AAU-68) 5.95 349
    Cuse(~AAU-58) 6.27 364

    UCONN (~AAU-58) 6.72 360 IMO not a B1G candidate unless they go AAU, and not ACC in short term except to replace somebody who leaves

    Ohio St (55-AAU) 7.02 417
    B C (~AAU-31) 7.98 435
    Mich (28-AAU) 8.60 522

    Mich St (71-AAU) 9.55 587

    Notre Dame (19) 9.83 610

    Indiana (75-AAU) 10.80 642
    Purdue (62-AAU) 10.92 655
    GA Tech (36-AAU) 10.95 676
    Illinois (45-AAU) 11.78 713
    N.W. (12-AAU) 11.78 716

    FSU (~AAU-101) 13.80 886
    Wisc (39-AAU) 13.97 845
    Iowa (71-AAU) 14.65 905

    Miami (~AAU-38) 16.73 1071
    Minnesota (68-AAU) 18.13 1106
    Nebraska (~AAU-101) 19.30 1204

  16. #896
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    1. poach teams
    2. ?????
    3. profit

    Ah, the siren song of the Expansion Gnomes. Well-played.

    I think at some point, it comes down to ND either making a move or staying put. Once that issue is resolved, the other cards play themselves.

    The LHN is a very interesting issue as well -- Texas has the gold, but no one wants to admit that they are not the same revenue-generator as the Longhorns and don't want an unequal partner. Should be interesting to see who blinks first, because the current B1G is an unhappy assortment for sure.

  17. #897
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    ACC Ball Fan -- I appreciate your diligence, but the Penn-State-to-the-ACC bit is getting tedious. First the Big Ten is a money machine without parallel. No one is changing conferences to get "fewer dollars." Second distances between schools, although important, are secondary. Third, with apologies to A-Tex Devil, our OP and a hard-working poster, and any well-meaning Aggie and Oklahoma fans, Penn State does not seem like the kind of "home wrecker" these folks have turned out to be. I don't see Penn State jumping ship without being pushed by extraordinary events. This is the flip side of my argument that the ACC is a secure conference because the schools are comfortable in it, like each other OK (the fans are another matter), and have a measure of loyalty common to college athletics.

    And the instability in the Big East has nothing to do with Penn State and the Big Ten. I mean, the Big East makes a lot of sense as a large basketball conference (16/17 teams) and no sense as a football conference with 8/9 teams. As a measure of its irrationality, Notre Dame voted against the $1B football TV deal, and it doesn't even play football in the conference. That seems to have been the final straw for Pitt, if not Syracuse.

    sagegrouse

    Correct me if I'm wrong, sage, but isn't the Big Ten second when it comes to television deals (with the SEC a very close third)? I may have outdated numbers here, but it looks like current television contracts are as follows:

    PAC 12 – $225m per year ($18.75m per member)
    BIG TEN – $214 per year ($17.8m per member)
    SEC – $205m per year ($17.1m per member)
    ACC – $185m per year ($15.4m per member)

    Sources:
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...als/index.html
    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5363743
    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6471380

    I am not trying to nitpick here...just show that the dollars are not as far apart as some make it out to be. As it stands, the ACC is not far behind the others, and it is now ostensibly able to renegotiate its ESPN contract with the addition of Pitt and Syracuse. The reason people keep talking about PSU to the ACC is because adding PSU and ND would almost certainly put the ACC at the top (in aggregate dollars), although it would have to be $300m/year to average out higher than the PAC 12 deal on a per-school basis. That may not happen, but it might get the $285m/year that would be needed to surpass the Big Ten's current per-school average.

    Of course, if we are talking about a 16-team ACC, then it means the other conferences are consolidating too. Under one such scenario, we might see the Big East and Big 12 imploding, with the SEC adding WVU/Missouri/Louisville, the PAC 12 reconsidering and taking the Texas and Oklahoma schools, and the Big Ten picking over the remaining scraps. But that wouldn't necessarily improve the per-school average for the other conferences, and the ACC would be in a pretty favorable position market-wise. While I think it's unlikely, I don't think it's all that farfetched for PSU to jump to the ACC if/when push comes to shove because further expansion likely entails diluting the Big Ten, unless they can pick off teams from the ACC and/or find a way to swoop in on some of the first-tier Big 12 schools.

    Again, I think it's unlikely, given the lack of any meaningful signals. But it's not totally crazy (since the ACC's television revenues are already pretty close and would only improve).

  18. #898
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Big Ten Economics

    Quote Originally Posted by El_Diablo View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, sage, but isn't the Big Ten second when it comes to television deals (with the SEC a very close third)? I may have outdated numbers here, but it looks like current television contracts are as follows:

    PAC 12 $225m per year ($18.75m per member)
    BIG TEN $214 per year ($17.8m per member)
    SEC $205m per year ($17.1m per member)
    ACC $185m per year ($15.4m per member)

    Sources:
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...als/index.html
    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5363743
    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=6471380

    I am not trying to nitpick here...just show that the dollars are not as far apart as some make it out to be. As it stands, the ACC is not far behind the others, and it is now ostensibly able to renegotiate its ESPN contract with the addition of Pitt and Syracuse. The reason people keep talking about PSU to the ACC is because adding PSU and ND would almost certainly put the ACC at the top (in aggregate dollars), although it would have to be $300m/year to average out higher than the PAC 12 deal on a per-school basis. That may not happen, but it might get the $285m/year that would be needed to surpass the Big Ten's current per-school average.

    Of course, if we are talking about a 16-team ACC, then it means the other conferences are consolidating too. Under one such scenario, we might see the Big East and Big 12 imploding, with the SEC adding WVU/Missouri/Louisville, the PAC 12 reconsidering and taking the Texas and Oklahoma schools, and the Big Ten picking over the remaining scraps. But that wouldn't necessarily improve the per-school average for the other conferences, and the ACC would be in a pretty favorable position market-wise. While I think it's unlikely, I don't think it's all that farfetched for PSU to jump to the ACC if/when push comes to shove because further expansion likely entails diluting the Big Ten, unless they can pick off teams from the ACC and/or find a way to swoop in on some of the first-tier Big 12 schools.

    Again, I think it's unlikely, given the lack of any meaningful signals. But it's not totally crazy (since the ACC's television revenues are already pretty close and would only improve).
    Fair enough, El Diablo, and thanks for the references. I was thinking also of the Big Ten Network. I don't have a current estimate, but here is a quote from a CBS column last year:

    The league joined with News Corp., parent of Fox Broadcasting, in a 20-year deal that could be worth $2.8 billion to the conference. That estimate was made two years ago by Sports Business Journal which included a five-year option in its estimate. Over 25 years, according to the publication, the partnership (51 percent Big Ten, 49 percent News Corp.) could earn the conference $112 million per year, which translates to $10.2 million per school. That's before factoring in other rights holders' deals.
    I dunno where the revenue stands now, but apparently the Big Ten gets about $8.40 per year per subscriber in the Big Ten area and about a buck elsewhere.

    I don't know how the ACC comes close to matching the Big Ten $$$. And I don't think Penn State will move for fewer $$$. Do you disagree?

    sagegrouse

  19. #899

    B1G $$

    El Diablo,

    That's a nice compilation of TV deals, thanks for sharing. However, your B1G numbers are for 2009. The B1G Championship adds another $1.94 million per school, bringing the B1G back to the top even with its older TV contract. The contract will also be renegotiated going into 2016 and, with the addition of Nebraska, is projected to significantly exceed the Pac-12 deal. Don't forget, the Pac-12's TV money looked anemic compared to the other major conferences prior to the new contract signed in May. Perhaps even more significantly, adding Nebraska also makes the B1G network more likely to penetrate new markets and draw more eyes in the markets its already in, thereby increasing its value, as well (Mandel's projection in your link also predated the addition of Nebraska).

    Another aspect of B1G money that is often overlooked is research dollars. While any school can individually apply directly for federal grants, B1G schools have been very successful (though admittedly, not as successful as the PAC). With the aid of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, which, among other things, helps B1G members coordinate their federal grant programs, the members net around $3.5 BILLION per year in research grants (PAC around $3.7). The ACC pulls in around $2.35 billion/year. In addition to coordinating grant funding, the CIC also serves to help member universities collaborate on curriculum, infrastructure, research, etc. If anyone doubts the value of that aspect of membership in the B1G, compare Penn State's academic profile in 1990 to where it is today.

    Regarding the Nittany Lions, while research money and intra-conference academic cooperation aren't as sexy as national championships and don't generate as much discussion on fan boards, I suspect they do register in the decision making process of the only board whose opinion matters when it comes to Penn State's conference affiliation. Maybe not as highly as direct TV revenue (though the B1G may be the one conference for which that might not be true), but probably more highly than JoePa's nostalgic yearnings for an eastern conference, or the distance that students might have to travel to watch a game.

    Cav

  20. #900
    Sage and Cavlaw,

    Thanks for the responses. As for the TV dollars, I didn't consider the added money from the Big Ten championship game, but the estimates from the Big Ten Network package are already factored into those numbers (from the SI link). But no, these numbers do not encompass the grant money--which is admittedly a bigger factor than I realized.

    I believe PSU is--at best--a long shot for the ACC, and that we will probably end up getting two out of the three of UConn, Rutgers, and ND. And since UConn and Rutgers are not going anywhere else for the time being, I think it would be best to hold out for ND, even though it's the least likely of the three. Meanwhile, we sit tight with our new 14-team league, take advantage of our new markets, and renegotiate with ESPN.

Similar Threads

  1. Baseball Realignment
    By SoCalDukeFan in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-06-2011, 11:36 PM
  2. Big East Realignment
    By johnb in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-23-2011, 09:29 PM
  3. The Kyrie Irving Toe Vigil
    By diveonthefloor in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1507
    Last Post: 02-05-2011, 06:25 PM
  4. NCAA Conference Realignment
    By A-Tex Devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 03-04-2010, 05:16 PM
  5. Sentinel: 5 Years After Realignment: Are Schools Better Off?
    By gotham devil in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 11:28 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •