What really is the point of expansion madness?

[Rogue Cock]

I remember looking into that 10 year plan. Do all schools list that as a target? I was always wondering Ilif it was the excuse that will be used for a potential invite, or if it's typical, shoot for the moon type of talk.

Good question. Honest answer is I don’t know. I know Palms was serious about it but its evidently an expensive endeavor and IIRC one of the hurdles is that SC universities simply don’t receive enough state/outside support to accomplish it. I don’t believe that has changed. They could run into the same hurdles as we did.

 

[KingWard]

The B1G TV deal is already at $70M per team with the new additions. That’s more than any other conference payout.

Can’t disagree with your long term projection at all.

The B1G deal starts a year earlier. The SEC's starts in 2024. As time goes on , revenue tightens a lot.

 

[Rogue Cock]

The B1G deal starts a year earlier. The SEC's starts in 2024. As time goes on , revenue tightens a lot.

Yeah….they are pretty much neck and neck.

 

[KingWard]

I get that it's about money. But that's about all I get. I am openly pleading ignorance on the topic and asking for those who are more knowledgeable to enlighten me. Again, I understand that money is the driving factor, but beyond that, what's the point of the expansion war between the conferences? The conferences are simply collections of schools, so it's not like they can "go out of business". Schools may move around from one conference to another and new conferences may even be created, but it's all the same schools.

If the Big 10 adds FSU, Clemson, Washington and Oregon, what's the SEC worried about? It's not going anywhere as a conference. So the Big 10 has more revenue right now...how many titles does it have recently? So Big 10 schools end up getting $65 million each as opposed to $55 million each. It's not like they're going to put Alabama out of business.

Is it simply bragging rights about which conference has greater revenue? Beyond that, I don't see implications. The schools are the schools and they aren't going anywhere. Again, nobody is putting anyone else out of business. You hear talk of the Big 12 or Pac 12 fighting for survival, but I don't really understand what that means because, once again, the conferences are just the schools. They jockey all around for tv markets and revenue but it's seems the money is just shifting around.

Smarter people than you, I, or anyone among us are churning on this maelstrom and will be. The question is, what league will emerge with the best leverage? The B1G adding teams down here heightens their leverage a lot. If that happens, Sankey will immediately move from trendsetter to scrambler, and he'll suddenly be operating from behind the curve. He's not used to that.

 

[will110]

The B1G deal starts a year earlier. The SEC's starts in 2024. As time goes on , revenue tightens a lot.

I saw something this week that showed SEC schools will get over $100 million from the media deal by 2028 or so.

 

[KingWard]

BOT meeting in Tallahassee starts at 3:00. Agenda is rather routine, but there's a feeling that conference affiliation will be discussed.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Smarter people than you, I, or anyone among us are churning on this maelstrom and will be. The question is, what league will emerge with the best leverage? The B1G adding teams down here heightens their leverage a lot. If that happens, Sankey will immediately move from trendsetter to scrambler, and he'll suddenly be operating from behind the curve. He's not used to that.

Leverage for what, though?

 

[KingWard]

Leverage for what, though?

Recruiting the South more so than now and future TV revenue advantages on subsequent deals based on a broader audience.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Recruiting the South more so than now and future TV revenue advantages on subsequent deals based on a broader audience.

I’m not sure I get the recruiting aspect. So, say for example, the Big 10 adds GT and FSU. Is a kid from Georgia or Florida suddenly going to go to PSU or Michigan solely because there’s a Big 10 team in his back yard?

 

[KingWard]

I’m not sure I get the recruiting aspect. So, say for example, the Big 10 adds GT and FSU. Is a kid from Georgia or Florida suddenly going to go to PSU or Michigan solely because there’s a Big 10 team in his back yard?

Conceivably. Big 10 teams will be more active down here and will be well received; you can bet your house on it.

 

[KingWard]

OK. They've waited until the end of the meeting to bring on the president of the university and he is talking about the disparity between FSU's TV revenue and teams in the SEC and Big 10. He describes the crisis as "existential" due to the rising cost of competing. So far, it's nothing we haven't heard before about wanting to stay in the ACC, etc., but he might be going somewhere with this. He says that he and others are "exploring options". The meeting continues...

 

[KingWard]

President says that FSU will have to consider leaving the ACC unless radical changes are made to the conference's revenue distribution. President and AD have opened meeting for questions from the trustees. Trustees are posturing now. First guy wants action soon more than further studies. Guy speaking now is hawkish about doing something. Points out that next SEC and Big 10 TV deals come up BEFORE the NEXT ACC bargaining cycle.

 

[KingWard]

Guy speaking is talking about SEC schools being $400 million ahead of SEC by the time the ACC gets to negotiate again. He says, it's not "if we leave" but it's a matter of "how and when". Woman speaking now apparently sees the necessity of moving for the sake of all sports, not just football. This group is restless. It's obvious. They feel the school and program slipping. "How do we do this (exit) legally and properly"?

 

[KingWard]

Cuban trustee (Alvarez) says it's about business - big business - and business must prevail in the decision. Next woman regrets the position they are in but FSU has to do whatever it takes to compete. Next guy says that no solution is likely under the current ACC TV rights deal. He says that the school can't wait 13 years to fix where they are. "Death by a thousand cuts" to wait 13 years. He says that applies to the whole ACC - we're about to be a third-rate conference. Next guy, it's not that anybody here has done a bad job, but we can't overcome $30 million a year disadvantage. We've got to get out of this TV Deal. Next guy: we've got a major math problem. Next guy: our fiduciary responsibilities dictate finding a remedy. Non-revenue sports will suffer soonest and most if they can't close the revenue gap. "Fiduciary" being said a lot. Sounds like the chairman is getting ready to bring the discussion towards a close. Sounds like this will be discussed again at a future meeting. No concrete action today, apparently. Chairman says "we've got to fight for ourselves", Revenue gap is "insurmountable. He says they might be coming back to this "sooner rather than later". President says their boosters raised $77.7 million dollars (for all purposes) in the most recent year but they still can't sustain what is being lost athletically to schools with better TV deals. Bottom line: nothing concrete coming out of this meeting concerning athletics. Upcoming meetings in September but they seem to be tied in with football weekends.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Cuban trustee (Alvarez) says it's about business - big business - and business must prevail in the decision. Next woman regrets the position they are in but FSU has to do whatever it takes to compete. Next guy says that no solution is likely under the current ACC TV rights deal. He says that the school can't wait 13 years to fix where they are. "Death by a thousand cuts" to wait 13 years. He says that applies to the whole ACC - we're about to be a third-rate conference. Next guy, it's not that anybody here has done a bad job, but we can't overcome $30 million a year disadvantage. We've got to get out of this TV Deal. Next guy: we've got a major math problem. Next guy: our fiduciary responsibilities dictate finding a remedy. Non-revenue sports will suffer soonest and most if they can't close the revenue gap. "Fiduciary" being said a lot. Sounds like the chairman is getting ready to bring the discussion towards a close. Sounds like this will be discussed again at a future meeting. No concrete action today, apparently. Chairman says "we've got to fight for ourselves", Revenue gap is "insurmountable. He says they might be coming back to this "sooner rather than later". President says their boosters raised $77.7 million dollars (for all purposes) in the most recent year but they still can't sustain what is being lost athletically to schools with better TV deals. Bottom line: nothing concrete coming out of this meeting concerning athletics. Upcoming meetings in September but they seem to be tied in with football weekends.

So it sounds like more of the same. They’re desperate to leave but they know they can’t because the grant of rights.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Conceivably. Big 10 teams will be more active down here and will be well received; you can bet your house on it.

I’m not sure I really see it, but maybe. The Big Ten programs that have the weight to recruit in the Southeast already do. Those recruits in the southeast who are are good enough to go anywhere already get recruited by teams from all over the nation. I don’t know what difference it would make to a kid that Georgia Tech was in the Big Ten. It’s not like he’ll suddenly start looking at Minnesota.

teams are still largely going to recruit from their natural footprint, and the teams that are good enough will look for those top recruits from outside their footprint. Basically how it is now.

If a kid from Georgia doesn’t have any interest in going to Michigan, why would it matter to him that Georgia Tech is in the Big Ten?

 

[KingWard]

I’m not sure I really see it, but maybe. The Big Ten programs that have the weight to recruit in the Southeast already do. Those recruits in the southeast who are are good enough to go anywhere already get recruited by teams from all over the nation. I don’t know what difference it would make to a kid that Georgia Tech was in the Big Ten. It’s not like he’ll suddenly start looking at Minnesota.

teams are still largely going to recruit from their natural footprint, and the teams that are good enough will look for those top recruits from outside their footprint. Basically how it is now.

If a kid from Georgia doesn’t have any interest in going to Michigan, why would it matter to him that Georgia Tech is in the Big Ten?

It will increase when they are actually playing league games down here, especially if they get to be important games. It's inevitable. Illinois already recruits more down here just because Bielema coached in the SEC for awhile.

 

[KingWard]

So it sounds like more of the same. They’re desperate to leave but they know they can’t because the grant of rights.

They're going to find a way to get something done. You can bet your house on it. They just haven't progressed in the process to the extent that wild-@$$ed report implied.

 

[Psycock]

Hope the SEC stays put - 16 teams should be more than enough. Let the ACC implode, fine with me. Don`t rescue any of them.

 

[Rogue Cock]

Hope the SEC stays put - 16 teams should be more than enough. Let the ACC implode, fine with me. Don`t rescue any of them.

So you are willing to let the B1G and the Big 12 on the SECs front porch and even in our living room? Because that is what will happen if the ACC starts falling apart and the SEC fails to act.

 

[DaboSits2PeePee]

I suppose it's that way for the whole shebang, like playoff expansion.

It's not about giving other teams a shot, not even 0.5% about that. It's about money.

I'm still not sure I grasp the extra revenue aspect, though, for not-for-profit entities.

They want to make more so they can spend more. That’s it. Well, that and give more back to the university.

 

[18IsTheMan]

They're going to find a way to get something done. You can bet your house on it. They just haven't progressed in the process to the extent that wild-@$$ed report implied.

As bad as they want to leave, I'd have to imagine they would have by now if there was any option. Don't want to start another GOR discussion since that's been beaten to death. They have to notify the league by 8/15 if they intend to leave by next year, but it doesn't look like they have any other BOT meetings before then, so they are locked in through 2025 at least.

 

[18IsTheMan]

So you are willing to let the B1G and the Big 12 on the SECs front porch and even in our living room? Because that is what will happen if the ACC starts falling apart and the SEC fails to act.

I don't know what people are afraid of? Unless the BIg 10 or Big 12 start poaching teams from the SEC, what's gonna happen?

It wouldn't matter if the Big 10 absorbed every ACC team. It still would not diminish the SEC. We'd still have more quality teams even if they took every team from the ACC.

 

[DaboSits2PeePee]

As bad as they want to leave, I'd have to imagine they would have by now if there was any option. Don't want to start another GOR discussion since that's been beaten to death. They have to notify the league by 8/15 if they intend to leave by next year, but it doesn't look like they have any other BOT meetings before then, so they are locked in through 2025 at least.

They’re not going anywhere in the near future and they know it. They need ESPN to believe they’ll do something extremely risky and reckless like try to up and leave the ACC. They want more money. So if they can close the gap from $30m to $10 or less I think they’re good with that. The alternative is going to a much more competitive conference where they’re red headed step children.

So they’re just pushing ESPN/ACC to try to get more $$.

 

[18IsTheMan]

They’re not going anywhere in the near future and they know it. They need ESPN to believe they’ll do something extremely risky and reckless like try to up and leave the ACC. They want more money. So if they can close the gap from $30m to $10 or less I think they’re good with that. The alternative is going to a much more competitive conference where they’re red headed step children.

So they’re just pushing ESPN/ACC to try to get more $$.

It's not a good time to be asking ESPN/Disney for a raise haha

 

[KingWard]

As bad as they want to leave, I'd have to imagine they would have by now if there was any option. Don't want to start another GOR discussion since that's been beaten to death. They have to notify the league by 8/15 if they intend to leave by next year, but it doesn't look like they have any other BOT meetings before then, so they are locked in through 2025 at least.

The Chairman mentioned at the end of yesterday's session several meetings coming up in the Fall. They seemed to be scheduled to coincide with football weekends, such as on a Friday. They could get together.

 

[KingWard]

I don't know what people are afraid of? Unless the BIg 10 or Big 12 start poaching teams from the SEC, what's gonna happen?

It wouldn't matter if the Big 10 absorbed every ACC team. It still would not diminish the SEC. We'd still have more quality teams even if they took every team from the ACC.

That's when you get into the revenue side. Greater footprint means more eyeballs and enhanced bargaining power when the time comes to negotiate TV rights again.

 

[Beehaver]

Can we swap Mizzou for anyone ?

 

[18IsTheMan]

That's when you get into the revenue side. Greater footprint means more eyeballs and enhanced bargaining power when the time comes to negotiate TV rights again.

But what does it really matter if the Big 10 blows the doors off the SEC in revenue? SEC is still guaranteed HUGE money from ESPN. For FY 2022, SEC schools received a $50 million payout, and that number is only going up. Say the Big 10 expands and increases their per school payout to $75 million per school. What does that matter? The SEC is still going to get their money. It's not like increased revenue for Big 10 takes money away from the SEC.

It seems it's just bragging rights and greed for who has the bigger payout. I don't see any functional impact. Sure, it'd be nice to have that extra $25 million, but it's not like SEC schools can't scrape by with a $50 million payout.

 

[Lurker123]

They’re not going anywhere in the near future and they know it.

Too much smoke for me to buy that. I'd speculate more expansion within 2 years.

 

[Big JC]

It will increase when they are actually playing league games down here, especially if they get to be important games. It's inevitable. Illinois already recruits more down here just because Bielema coached in the SEC for awhile.

I have to disagree. Illinois isn't taking any kids from any SEC programs and the B1G schools already recruit the South very heavily. A kid from SC who sees Minnesota play FSU on tv isn't going to want to go 1200 miles from home to play at Minnesota if he can play at USC or Georgia or UT.

This is all about a money grab by the colleges and I think it is going to blow up in their faces. The tv money pot isn't bottomless and tv execs aren't total idiots. TV isn't going to pour endless money into a conference that is loading up on teams that don't draw big viewer numbers.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I have to disagree. Illinois isn't taking any kids from any SEC programs and the B1G schools already recruit the South very heavily. A kid from SC who sees Minnesota play FSU on tv isn't going to want to go 1200 miles from home to play at Minnesota if he can play at USC or Georgia or UT.

This is all about a money grab by the colleges and I think it is going to blow up in their faces. The tv money pot isn't bottomless and tv execs aren't total idiots. TV isn't going to pour endless money into a conference that is loading up on teams that don't draw big viewer numbers.

Yes. Media footprint does absolutely nothing to change the fact that the best teams are still in the SEC.

 

[Big JC]

That's when you get into the revenue side. Greater footprint means more eyeballs and enhanced bargaining power when the time comes to negotiate TV rights again.

Footprint doesn't equate to viewers. LA, San Fran, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, New York City, Philadelphia, DC and Miami represent a ton of eyeballs but not much in the way of a college football audience.

 

[Lakemurraycock]

If the B1G adds some ACC schools it does not necessarily mean that per school payout would increase much if at all. And if it does not increase then they have no incentive to do it. Yes the TV contract would be bigger but so would the number of schools getting a slice of it. Especially if there is money to be paid for the schools leaving the GOR.

 

[KingWard]

Footprint doesn't equate to viewers. LA, San Fran, Seattle, Phoenix, Denver, New York City, Philadelphia, DC and Miami represent a ton of eyeballs but not much in the way of a college football audience.

We're not exactly talking about Wyoming and the Dakotas here. Every Southern state is growing. Four of the Top 10 are Southern-tier states. Even our lowly state has moved into the top half in population. There is gold to be mined if a league has the presence. https://www.statsamerica.org/sip/rank_list.aspx?rank_label=pop1

 

[KingWard]

I have to disagree. Illinois isn't taking any kids from any SEC programs and the B1G schools already recruit the South very heavily. A kid from SC who sees Minnesota play FSU on tv isn't going to want to go 1200 miles from home to play at Minnesota if he can play at USC or Georgia or UT.

This is all about a money grab by the colleges and I think it is going to blow up in their faces. The tv money pot isn't bottomless and tv execs aren't total idiots. TV isn't going to pour endless money into a conference that is loading up on teams that don't draw big viewer numbers.

I'm not concerned about it blowing up in their faces. I wouldn't care. But expansion is happening for reasons that are both intentional and deeply analyzed.

As for recruiting, you're not going to tell me that having Penn State, Michigan, or Ohio State playing games regularly in the Deep South wouldn't have an enhancing effect on the Big 10 brand in the Region. It will boost them all to one extent or another, depending on their level of commitment. Only then, they will have a better chance of success than even now.

You're also not going to tell me that he Southern tier isn't where the greatest growth is.

 

[Uscg1984]

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things, but I just see it as a race for the most money. Rather than focusing on what we would want them to focus on - the actual product on the field, competitive balance, etc. - they're just focused on maximizing revenue.

Yes, that's the general goal of a business. Make as much money as you can. Usually, that involves taking market share from your competitors. While putting your competitors out of business isn't a goal in and of itself, that is often the result of a successful business. We've known college football was big business for a while, but now all pretenses have been dropped. This is big business and the universities, by way of their conferences, are acting as cut-throat as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan ever did.

But back to the OP's question, to what end? How does leaving the Oregon States, Arizonas, Utahs, and potentially the Pittsburghs and Boston Colleges of college football out of the "super conference" model really help in the long run, to say nothing of the G5 schools.? College football is the product it is because fans of all of those teams have a dog in the fight. However long their odds may be of winning a national championship, their teams still exist in the same universe as the "big boys." If you start demolishing historic conferences and leave enough programs on the outside looking in, you run the risk of losing a large segment of the greater fanbase of college football. It won't be good. Sure, the guys on the inside will make more money, at least for a while, but what are they doing to the sport we love?

 

[KingWard]

Yes, that's the general goal of a business. Make as much money as you can. Usually, that involves taking market share from your competitors. While putting your competitors out of business isn't a goal in and of itself, that is often the result of a successful business. We've known college football was big business for a while, but now all pretenses have been dropped. This is big business and the universities, by way of their conferences, are acting as cut-throat as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan ever did.

But back to the OP's question, to what end? How does leaving the Oregon States, Arizonas, Utahs, and potentially the Pittsburghs and Boston Colleges of college football out of the "super conference" model really help in the long run, to say nothing of the G5 schools.? College football is the product it is because fans of all of those teams have a dog in the fight. However long their odds may be of winning a national championship, their teams still exist in the same universe as the "big boys." If you start demolishing historic conferences and leave enough programs on the outside looking in, you run the risk of losing a large segment of the greater fanbase of college football. It won't be good. Sure, the guys on the inside will make more money, at least for a while, but what are they doing to the sport we love?

What's happening is both lamentable and inexorable.

 

[will110]

Yes, that's the general goal of a business. Make as much money as you can. Usually, that involves taking market share from your competitors. While putting your competitors out of business isn't a goal in and of itself, that is often the result of a successful business. We've known college football was big business for a while, but now all pretenses have been dropped. This is big business and the universities, by way of their conferences, are acting as cut-throat as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan ever did.

But back to the OP's question, to what end? How does leaving the Oregon States, Arizonas, Utahs, and potentially the Pittsburghs and Boston Colleges of college football out of the "super conference" model really help in the long run, to say nothing of the G5 schools.? College football is the product it is because fans of all of those teams have a dog in the fight. However long their odds may be of winning a national championship, their teams still exist in the same universe as the "big boys." If you start demolishing historic conferences and leave enough programs on the outside looking in, you run the risk of losing a large segment of the greater fanbase of college football. It won't be good. Sure, the guys on the inside will make more money, at least for a while, but what are they doing to the sport we love?

As Farrugut said, "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!" It worked for him, but it remains to be seen if it'll work for college football.

All I can say is I'm really glad Carolina joined the SEC in '91, or otherwise we'd likely be one of those schools on the outside looking in. College football in 2030 is going to look very different from college football in 2010, that's for sure.

 

[KingWard]

Good 247 read arguing that the SEC could get away with standing pat for a minute. Arguable but well expressed. https://247sports.com/article/colle...nt-sec-north-carolina-virginia-213616791/amp/