re: Bernie Machen: One thing holding back SEC expansion

quote:

---

it's okay if you think so. I'm not going to throw things around like "you're wrong". I think that's silly. If you can't articulate your point beyond that, you just aren't worth discussing anything with.

---

I had already explained why in fairly extensive detail. You are taking a "know it all" stance -- and forcing me to go in depth on details that it should have been obvious from the post I'm pretty well-versed in.

quote:

---

The Big 12's deal is already overvalued because the networks were on the clock to keep them together. Realize they get the worst ratings of the 5 major conferences (yes, worse than the ACC).

---

You're wrong again. Big12 viewership > PAC12 viewership. This shows that the Big12 STILL has alot of earning potential. It also says that the ACC got shafted on their tv deal -- added two teams to renegotiate -- and got shafted again. That's not OUR fault. Riddle me this -- who in the ACC are people ACTUALLY watching in football season? That's right -- Florida St, Virginia Tech, Clemson, (potentially) Miami.

quote:

---

There will not be a bump for adds but it is already pre-negotiated to keep equal payouts per team if the "right teams" are added (btw, states don't particularly matter here as there is no conference network).

---

Why did we add you 2 years ahead of our conference network then? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that Florida State and Clemson add nothing of value in tier 1 and tier 2 rights -- to a conference starving for inventory in those tiers? Don't act like an expert on something -- and then drop these gems. Make no mistake -- the ACC's renegotiated package with Syracuse and Pitt is worth $17mil/yr -- the Big12's current package is worth $20mil/yr. IF you don't think that adding FSU and Clemson to that brand bring close to $8-10 mil worth of value to tier 1 and 2, I really don't know what to tell you. Because when it's all said and done, YOU/Mizzou are going to add at least that much value to the SEC before the network is even in play.

quote:

---

And it's not close to 40% for Clemson. Clemson had total revenue of $61m last year. $13m of that was tv. They have $48m other revenue. To get to 40%, their tv only revenue would have to rise to $32m annually, a farcical number that even the SEC will barely reach (and the SEC dominates ratings). Your numbers are incredibly far off.

---

$48mil nontv revenue + $30mil tv revenue = $78 mil. $30mil is 38.5% of $78mil.

A number that the SEC will barely reach? We'll be at $50 mil by the time we're used to seeing a playoff. We are likely to get $35 mil+ in tier1 and tier2 in the renegotiation once it's done -- which will probably be announced concurrently with the network(tier3). That's what we're likely to bring home THIS year. Do I need to spell this one out for you?

quote:

---

I'm also not sure how you figure they'll have fewer crappy games in the Big 12. You need to remember, my school was in the Big 12. The Big 12 does not have a travel culture at all. There will be the newness factor but long term they won't travel and no games will be of interest outside of OU and UTx. It's just like the ACC but even more spread out.

---

This has got jack shite to do with a "travel culture". It's about tv inventory. Yes, FSU vs Oklahoma, FSU vs Texas, Clemson vs OK State, Clemson vs West Va is FAR better inventory than those two teams vs Virginia Tech, which is the only other legit football program in the ACC right now that people actually watch.

The Big12 is not "just like" the ACC -- because the earning potential is much, much higher. If the ACC loses this Maryland suit(and maybe even if they don't) -- and IF they don't do some SERIOUS renegotiations on the tv contract(which I believe the window is closed on without more school shuffling), that league is dead -- and it's only a matter of time. Do you really think FSU/Clemson STAY after North Carolina, Duke, Virginia, Virginia Tech have all been cherrypicked away? No. FSU and Clemson are DESPERATE because of the money differential with the SEC -- and they see the Big12 as an opportunity to close the gap somewhat. An extra $13 mil is an extra $13 mil. Period.

quote:

---

Anyway, conference alignment is a far deeper issue than just tv money or even athletics. You are conveniently ignoring all the other factors. Brand awareness. Travel. Academics.

---

Where were these important factors when the Big12 added West Virginia? When the ACC added Louisville? I'm not ignoring jack shite -- you are projecting that I "ignored" stuff because I didn't initially write a diatribe explaining it when it was obvious to any average reader that I knew what I was talking about. You called it to task -- now reap the reward.

quote:

---

he people making these decisions are regents that are looking out for the interest of school as a whole, not just athletics. And using their AD to market themselves in Kansas and Iowa is not useful to FSU. A school looking to move up academic rankings choosing to join a coalition of poor academic schools is not beneficial to FSU. It's a well known fact that the farther an alum lives from a school the less he gives. The FSU alumni base is all along the atlantic coast and in the south. Playing road games further away from that base makes them feel more isolated...and potentially give less money. That's not good for FSU.

---

And you are again PRESUMING that the ACC is a viable longterm solution. Right now, it isn't. The money differential is already significant -- and it's about to get much, MUCH larger. Until they figure out how to get competitive tv money, there is NO longterm feasibility to the league. You are pretending that these teams are going to have a viable longterm option to stay -- they aren't.

quote:

---

FSU may at some point feel backed into a corner and jump. But the decision would be incredibly bad for their university and it's why all that talk died suddenly. They have some smart people checking in on this and don't have website fanboys making the call.

---

"Died suddenly"? That talk isn't even close to dead. It's patiently waiting on the Maryland decision to drop -- along with the 8 other "attractive" members of that league.

"You're wrong" was much easier -- and got the same point across.

quote:

---

Will not join the SEC

---

Quick -- better go and inform them of your decision

From one of the most respected members of that board:

quote:

---

quote:

---

BestoftheBig said... I'm sure it isn't what many fans desire, but I think once it was done, UNC would realize they fit in pretty well.

---

Please see my previous post about patronization. Please don't act like we don't have an intelligent, cultured and well traveled alumni and fan base.

All of the travel comparisons are irrelevant. From a UNC perspective (which is the only perspective that matters in this discussion), moving from the geographic center of the conference to a geographic outlier is unappealing. I traveled to three away football games last year and didn't drive more than six hours total to do it. Therefore, it doesn't matter if it is the SEC or the B1G. SO IF, let me repeat, SO IF a move has to be made, I would rather stay in the south in the SEC east. UNC is a much better fit with UGA, UF and Vandy than it is with any school in the B1G. Its not even close. Add in our neighbors Tennessee and SCar, for which a there is already a lot of passion between the fan bases (which is what makes college sports fun), and it is a no brainer.

The question isn't if the B1G is a good fit. The question is whether the B1G is a better fit than the SEC and its not.

The reason the B1G would suck is because we have nothing in common. There is no history. When was the last time UNC played a team from the B1G in football? I don't care about adding Maryland or GT for regional rivals in a 20 team conference (entirely too big btw). Not a selling point for me. (I am happy to trade Maryland for Louisville. You will find out why in time.) The geography is too much to overcome. I don't interact with many B1G alums on a weekly basis. Everyday I am shooting the bull about the ACC and SEC with alums from schools in both those conferences.

Time will tell. Revenue is the big question mark. I am very, very skeptical of the BTN revenue projections. It is contingent on capturing a lot of basic cable markets. The east cost is not Nebraska. You won't be able to generate basic cable demand by withhold a few Maryland and Rutgers games. The ACC has a look-in with the addition of ND and Louisville. We will see what happens after the dust settles.

I will tell you this. If UNC ends up in the B1G because the ACC is no longer viable, I will have to re-evaluate my giving levels. It will signal to me that the administrators completely ignored the alumni and fan base. That is not something I can support. If the sentiment of Tar Heel nation was more evenly split, I would feel differently, but it is not. If it happens, my giving will be limited to the B-school and it will be minimal.

---

quote:

---

Everything rests on what the B1G wants to do...if they expand again, it will probably be Virginia and North Carolina...

---

Most likely.

We don't need anymore GD teams in our conference. IDGAf what the other conferences do or don't do. We are just fine with 14 schools..........

They're moving the SEC office to Baton Rouge next year. Right on the Mississippi River. No more LSU fan complaints now............

quote:

---

And Texas......

---

That's pyrite.

The only way they UNC ever leaves the ACC is if that conference dissolves completely. UNC IS the ACC.

quote:

---

engie

---

1. the numbers you quote on nielson ratings are from 2011. A&M and Mizzou were still in the Big 12. This season's newly reconstituted Big 12 numbers were abysmal.

2. The ACC's contract is $19.5m with the ND renegotiation. Only $0.5m less than the Big 12.

3. Comparing our move to the SEC with anything to the Big 12 belies the fact that the SEC contract is grossly undervalued and the Big 12 contract is overvalued at the moment. Of course the SEC contract is going up. Ratings demand it.

4. The Big 12 contract is already pre-negotiated for expansion. They do not get a look-in like the SEC. We already know what the figures will be ($22m with 12 teams and CCG). It's not going up $12m. And anyway for FSU/Clemson to bump it up $10 that means each school is worth ~$80m in value (12 x $10 = $120 + 2 x $20 base for each). Actually more since the contract is currently above market. Also ESPN owns the Big 12 T1 contract. They also own the ACC. They aren't going to just up and pay to destroy a good contract they have in place.

5. "Travel culture" is very important to schools that aren't selling tickets. It's why the SEC schools make more money than ACC or Big 12 schools (bc tv has only been $4-5m different)

6. Our T1/T2 will probably be close to $30m. So I'll say we pretty much agree on that part with you a bit higher (think your SECtv numbers are pie in the sky - at least out of the gate - but it's irrelevant to this discussion). The Big 12 didn't draw 50% of the viewers the SEC did this year. They do not have a T3 contract. So that's the entirety of their contract. Yet you think they are going to get $32m for T1/T2?

Anyhow, you seem to be getting very angry about this so I'll let it go. You can believe what you like man.

quote:

---

Thank you. Alumni won't go for it, fans won't go for it. They love the eastern sea board. Love playing the schools out east. Why the frick would UNC want to play schools like Ole Miss, LSU, Arkansas, Missouri, aTm, etc.

They don't give a frick about football, history of football, etc. They care about their basketball program and playing those EASTERN teams in basketball. And believe me they don't need the money

I'll bookmark my own post and post this shite if they do decide to come to the SEC

---

Again, read their board. I linked their long "conference realignment" thread on this very page.

Of course they WANT the ACC to survive. When that becomes infeasible(which ALL of their fans are fully prepared for as a possibility), 95% of their support infrastructure favors a move to the SEC over the B1G. That's what "tells the tale" -- they fancy themselves more similar to Vandy, Florida, and Georgia than Maryland, Penn St, and Rutgers. Culturally, they are the embodiment of the ACC -- but they fit a heck of a lot better in the SEC east than they do in the B1G.

I believe the number stays equivalent for 14 (standing at $22m). I think 16 may trigger a look-in. The list of teams for expansion has to be approved by Fox and ESPN. They can't just add any random team*

* This is sort of true. They can add anyone they want. But the tv execs denied a bump for Louis/Cincy (saying they'd keep it at 20m). The 22m number is only for the "right" schools