Conference Realignment 2022-23

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

These ACC schools finished in the top 20 of the 2021-2022 Directors Cup:
6. North Carolina – 1087.25
8. Notre Dame – 1021.00
11. Virginia – 942.50
14. Florida State – 910.00
17. NC State – 870.00
21. Duke – 849.50
That’s 30% of the top 20 from one of five power conferences.

You make some excellent points and ask some good questions I don't have answers to, but including Duke at #21 on a list of the top 20 is the most awesomely DBR thing ever. I spork you, good user!

[uh_no]

I wouldn't worry. How would you explain it to the Duke faculty?

"we reduced your annual parking pass fee by 5%"

[Kdogg]

I would think Clemson would much rather go to the SEC, not that they would necessarily be wanted. I just think they don't see themselves as a second tier football school. We'll see.

Does the highlighted language mean that you are saying these areas are already represented in the new "P2" world, because they are SEC states? If I'm understanding you correctly, that would be a legitimate consideration if we were talking about, say, a true pro sports league that integrates all of its marketing/TV efforts and money; there's no impetus for the NFC to build a presence in Jacksonville, or the AFC in New Orleans. However, that is not what we are talking about in college football, because B1G money (primarily Fox) and SEC money (primarily ESPN/CBS) are entirely separate pools, so the B1G money can potentially increase by getting eyeballs in current SEC states. That said, I doubt the B1G is all that interested in being sort of second-fiddle in SEC strongholds--and remember that that now includes Texas, where any school the B1G can get will definitely be a little sibling compared to SEC schools Texas and Texas A&M. All of this increases the attractiveness of the Virginia and North Carolina markets, of course.

My apologies. I meant to say why would the SEC want Clemson, FSU and Miami. These schools don’t increase their footprint while UNC and UVA do. Their next TV deal would have to be that much higher to break even. It seems it would be cutting the pie (which they have a massive slice all to themselves) unnecessarily. The B1G would get a better ROI but they aren’t clearing the academic bar. UNC and UVA would be the next logical targets for either conference.

[1Devil]

Off topic, but there are many ruffled feathers here about Saudi LIV Golf, but none about the PGA’s kowtow to the CCP to expand in China. The PGA has no high horse.

[lotusland]

Well I hate golf so I’m not so much interested in that. But inviting Saudi investment in college athletics to balance the B1G and SEC payouts is a different animal. Eff that.

[JasonEvans]

To be clear, I was kinda joking about the ACC getting some cash from the Saudis. The Saudi investment in sport has been a hot topic lately, so I just threw it out there. It has unnecessarily distracted some folks from the topic at hand and probably needs to be nipped in the bud.

If you really want to talk about the Saudis and the LIV tour, there is a PGA tour thread that has an extensive conversation about it on the off-topic board. Please head there and let's get this thread back on topic.

[LeadingEdge]

You make some excellent points and ask some good questions I don't have answers to, but including Duke at #21 on a list of the top 20 is the most awesomely DBR thing ever. I spork you, good user!

Oops! As an outsider, I don't know what "spork" means but presume my vaccinations will protect me from whatever comes my way.

[Steven43]

Oops! As an outsider, I don't know what "spork" means but presume my vaccinations will protect me from whatever comes my way.

Well, anonymous poster, we now know one thing for certain: You are not Kyrie Irving. Nor are you Novak Djerkovic (spelling?).

But other than those two guys you could be just about anybody!

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

My apologies. I meant to say why would the SEC want Clemson, FSU and Miami. These schools don’t increase their footprint while UNC and UVA do. Their next TV deal would have to be that much higher to break even. It seems it would be cutting the pie (which they have a massive slice all to themselves) unnecessarily. The B1G would get a better ROI but they aren’t clearing the academic bar. UNC and UVA would be the next logical targets for either conference.

I will reiterate my confusion over "footprints." By the footprint logic, there's no sense in securing UNC and Duke, because footprints overlap. Aren't Clemson and USC wholly unique subsets of fans? The Venn Diagram would have some small overlap, but I can't imagine that it's statistically significant.

Don't you basically double the eyeballs by locking down UNC/Duke or Clemson/USC? Doesn't it basically guarantee you that every sports fan in NC or SC is watching your conference play ball?

I get that getting BC opens up the New England market. That's significant. But doesn't doubling down in a state like SC guarantee that you get basically double the eyeballs?

How many people in NC would say "well, I was gonna watch Duke, but I already watched UNC on Thursday."

I'm sure there's a economic rationale that I'm missing. Please someone explain.

[budwom]

I will reiterate my confusion over "footprints." By the footprint logic, there's no sense in securing UNC and Duke, because footprints overlap. Aren't Clemson and USC wholly unique subsets of fans? The Venn Diagram would have some small overlap, but I can't imagine that it's statistically significant.

Don't you basically double the eyeballs by locking down UNC/Duke or Clemson/USC? Doesn't it basically guarantee you that every sports fan in NC or SC is watching your conference play ball?

I get that getting BC opens up the New England market. That's significant. But doesn't doubling down in a state like SC guarantee that you get basically double the eyeballs?

How many people in NC would say "well, I was gonna watch Duke, but I already watched UNC on Thursday."

I'm sure there's a economic rationale that I'm missing. Please someone explain.

I don't think BC matters in the least, nor does the New England market...Boston's the only major market, and as others have mentioned few in Boston care about college sports, least of all BC. The tri-state NYC market is the only one that matters (covering a bunch of CT).

I'm as confused as everyone about what the SEC and B1G may want as entry requirements.

[uh_no]

I don't think BC matters in the least, nor does the New England market...Boston's the only major market, and as others have mentioned few in Boston care about college sports, least of all BC. The tri-state NYC market is the only one that matters (covering a bunch of CT).

I'm as confused as everyone about what the SEC and B1G may want as entry requirements.

tv markets matter far less in a streaming world relative to general program interest.

If nobody is interested in a team, it doesn't matter if they're in boston or timbuktu. Alternatively, if a team has a massive following, it won't matter if the school is in new york or antarctica. Anyone can stream anything from anywhere. (well, mostly)

[Bluedog]

I will reiterate my confusion over "footprints." By the footprint logic, there's no sense in securing UNC and Duke, because footprints overlap. Aren't Clemson and USC wholly unique subsets of fans? The Venn Diagram would have some small overlap, but I can't imagine that it's statistically significant.

Don't you basically double the eyeballs by locking down UNC/Duke or Clemson/USC? Doesn't it basically guarantee you that every sports fan in NC or SC is watching your conference play ball?

I get that getting BC opens up the New England market. That's significant. But doesn't doubling down in a state like SC guarantee that you get basically double the eyeballs?

How many people in NC would say "well, I was gonna watch Duke, but I already watched UNC on Thursday."

I'm sure there's a economic rationale that I'm missing. Please someone explain.

I don't think BC matters in the least, nor does the New England market...Boston's the only major market, and as others have mentioned few in Boston care about college sports, least of all BC. The tri-state NYC market is the only one that matters (covering a bunch of CT).

I'm as confused as everyone about what the SEC and B1G may want as entry requirements.

I'll try to explain the geographic footprint argument. It doesn't have to do with ratings. It has to do with cable packages. I live in Chicago. As part of my standard cable package, I get the B1G network. The B1G network gets $1.50 or whatever for EVERY subscriber. Getting Rutgers to join the B1G might not increase ratings, but if it causes the cable operators in NJ to put the B1G as part of their standard package, they're raking in a lot of money. They make less money if they put it in the "sports tier" or a la carte.

So the argument about geographic footprint is more about markets as it relates to cable packages and the conference's TV channel than ratings. Of course, ratings still help as they can then negotiate more money from advertisers and make it more likely that cable companies will pay more for the channel and make it part of the standard package. Or charge more for the channel. But expanding geography does theoretically help regardless of ratings particularly if the expanding geography makes it a standard channel.

Maybe eventually with streaming/a la carte packages, this rationale will go away. But for now, it still is a big money maker/differentiator. I would never pay for the B1G network if I had a choice, but I want the standard cable package so I do pay for it indirectly with the rate I pay...that possibly applies to millions of people in Chicago alone. And because I get it, I will occasionally flip a game on.

[JasonEvans]

I would never pay for the B1G network if I had a choice, but I want the standard cable package so I do pay for it indirectly with the rate I pay...that possibly applies to millions of people in Chicago alone. And because I get it, I will occasionally flip a game on.

Oh, I plan to flip something at the Big Ten network quite frequently this upcoming season.

[duke2x]

Maybe eventually with streaming/a la carte packages, this rationale will go away. But for now, it still is a big money maker/differentiator. I would never pay for the B1G network if I had a choice, but I want the standard cable package so I do pay for it indirectly with the rate I pay...that possibly applies to millions of people in Chicago alone. And because I get it, I will occasionally flip a game on.

Cable is already 95% dead for people under 40, and I'll even venture the age there is really 50. I've used streaming instead of cable from November to March for almost a decade. It's not perfect with cheap Wifi and a small Roku TV, but it's also $70/month cheaper. You can watch any sporting event illegally and free online, which I don't endorse, if you want.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I'll try to explain the geographic footprint argument. It doesn't have to do with ratings. It has to do with cable packages. I live in Chicago. As part of my standard cable package, I get the B1G network. The B1G network gets $1.50 or whatever for EVERY subscriber. Getting Rutgers to join the B1G might not increase ratings, but if it causes the cable operators in NJ to put the B1G as part of their standard package, they're raking in a lot of money. They make less money if they put it in the "sports tier" or a la carte.

So the argument about geographic footprint is more about markets as it relates to cable packages and the conference's TV channel than ratings. Of course, ratings still help as they can then negotiate more money from advertisers and make it more likely that cable companies will pay more for the channel and make it part of the standard package. Or charge more for the channel. But expanding geography does theoretically help regardless of ratings particularly if the expanding geography makes it a standard channel.

Maybe eventually with streaming/a la carte packages, this rationale will go away. But for now, it still is a big money maker/differentiator. I would never pay for the B1G network if I had a choice, but I want the standard cable package so I do pay for it indirectly with the rate I pay...that possibly applies to millions of people in Chicago alone. And because I get it, I will occasionally flip a game on.

Oh my God thank you so much. That makes SO MUCH more sense than anything else I've read.

Talking heads blithely refer to "footprints" as though it's a completely obvious explanation.

So yes - getting UNC for another conference adds the state to an otherwise NC-less SEC or B1G Network. Adding Duke after UNC is redundant.

Even if adding Duke doubles (ha) your viewership eyeballs, it doesn't increase the number of cable packages that have to include your network.

(Please excuse my rudimentary phrasing, just trying to reword to see if I understand)

[Bluedog]

Cable is already 95% dead for people under 40, and I'll even venture the age there is really 50. I've used streaming instead of cable from November to March for almost a decade. It's not perfect with cheap Wifi and a small Roku TV, but it's also $70/month cheaper. You can watch any sporting event illegally and free online, which I don't endorse, if you want.

I am under 40 and know plenty of people that still use cable packages. Yes, there's a movement to do away with it, but for me, bundling internet with traditional cable using promotions is as cost effective as paying for a live tv streaming service and my wife needs her Bravo... My internet service with the current tier of speed would be much more expensive if I didn't also get cable. I don't think it's 95% dead for people under 40. Landlines? Those are 95%+ dead.

[Bluedog]

Oh my God thank you so much. That makes SO MUCH more sense than anything else I've read.

Talking heads blithely refer to "footprints" as though it's a completely obvious explanation.

So yes - getting UNC for another conference adds the state to an otherwise NC-less SEC or B1G Network. Adding Duke after UNC is redundant.

Even if adding Duke doubles (ha) your viewership eyeballs, it doesn't increase the number of cable packages that have to include your network.

(Please excuse my rudimentary phrasing, just trying to reword to see if I understand)

No problem, glad I could help. Your understanding is spot on! The only thing I'd say is that while UNC + Duke is "redundant" it is conceivable in certain circumstances that it's still helpful because it adds pressure to cable operators that they NEED to include it as a standard package with two heavy hitters in the state. I mean, if you have an Ohio St, you probably don't need anything else in Ohio. But I'm not sure all cable operators in MA says "We now MUST provide the ACC Network in all of Massachusetts because BC is part of the conference!" Although UNC is more analogous to Ohio St than BC for the state of NC...

[Rich]

Oops! As an outsider, I don't know what "spork" means but presume my vaccinations will protect me from whatever comes my way.

Well, anonymous poster, we now know one thing for certain: You are not Kyrie Irving. Nor are you Novak Djerkovic (spelling?).

But other than those two guys you could be just about anybody!

I've narrowed it down. Welcome Rob Lowe!

MV5BY2E4Njk4N2UtZWFhOS00NzczLWFmNDgtMzdhMjFlNTZjMmVhL2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@.jpg

[LasVegas]

I am under 40 and know plenty of people that still use cable packages. Yes, there's a movement to do away with it, but for me, bundling internet with traditional cable using promotions is as cost effective as paying for a live tv streaming service and my wife needs her Bravo... My internet service with the current tier of speed would be much more expensive if I didn't also get cable. I don't think it's 95% dead for people under 40. Landlines? Those are 95%+ dead.

FWIW, I am under 40 and know no one that has cable packages. Not one person. Well I take that back…..my 95 year old grandmother does.

[Bluedog]

FWIW, I am under 40 and know no one that has cable packages. Not one person. Well I take that back…..my 95 year old grandmother does.

Haha, well, I guess we run in different circles. It doesn't really come up in conversation too often, "what's your cable/streaming package?" so I'm sure there's somebody you interact with/are friendly with that has cable but you just don't know. It certainly can come up if you go to somebody's house but even then, not always. I have a Roku TV and will go to Netflix so somebody wouldn't theoretically know. I am a "geriatric millenial" though, so am on the cusp of 40 in that not too distance future...

This is all "anecdata" though - not sure what data on this actually exists out there and what it shows.

I did a quick google and this site says 39% currently subscribe to cable in that age group as of Feb 2022:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...tion-rate-usa/


39% is still a lot of households...I'm surprised the above doesn't show any difference between the 18-34 and 35-44 age groups though.

And ouch with the 95-year old grandma comment...

I consider myself pretty techie and not neglectful from a budget perspective and have run the numbers, and it's almost a wash for what we want and makes things simpler in other ways with how my cable provider offers promotional packages with internet/cable. (I typically "switch" every 2-3 years to get a new subscriber discount.)