Started By
Message
re: Explain to me why anyone would want Va. Tech over UVA
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:38 pm to cardboardboxer
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:38 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Eventually they will have to buy-into the B1G Network (like Nebraska or Rutgers did)
Right there is where the numbers seem at issue. You say +100 million by 2026 and you may be right, but lets offset this with some non disclosed numbers. The Nebraska "buy in" was 50 million, so your 100 million drops by half right off the bat and that assumes the Terps just have to pay the same 50 million Nebraska did. Suppose their entry fee was 60 million or 70 million (remember they got on board several years later after the TV numbers went up)
If that is not the case, then lets say 50 million is the number and that leaves 50 million left. Now comes the harder part. Travel goes up because instead of driving, you are now flying. On top of that fans from the western B1G are not going to travel the same way the nearby ACC schools would. If your TV revenue gets eaten up by lower gate receipts and concessions there is an offset that may not be reflected by your graphic.
If the long term numbers are not as rosy as projected, did the Terps really come out in a better place?
If Loh never gets put in charge of Maryland, would they ever move to the B1G? That is the question you should really be asking.
1
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:40 pm to Old Hellen Yeller
quote:
The ACC is not hurting for money, especially the old guard. ESPN gave them a sweetheart deal.
Kinda.
ESPN got the ACC to $20 million per team because the PAC set that as the "standard going forward." Any league that couldn't make $20 million per team (like the Big East) couldn't survive at a high level.
Problem is that the ACC sold everything they had to get to that level, and even took it in the rear from Notre Dame. So they are tapped out.
Meanwhile the B1G is about to sell the last Power 5 college football inventory to hit the market for almost a decade- their Tier 1 deal. This will put them at around $40 million per team total.
The SEC Network is a bigger success than anyone dreamed, and hopefully at maximum distribution it will push SEC teams into that $40 million range as well.
The ACC has no way to get there. The only consolation is that the PAC (who is having trouble getting their network distributed) is stuck at around $20 million too, and most of the Big 12 will be stuck around that level if they expand to 12 teams.
So three of the Power 5 teams will be making WAY less than the other two. This will create grief longterm.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:42 pm to broeho
quote:
we don't want either of you
No kidding.
...Hell, we don't want some of the ones we already have.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:47 pm to Crowknowsbest
quote:
I'm not seeing the progression here. Why would moving to the B1G relegate their sports to Ivy status?
Because the move to the B1G is driven by academic arguments, not sports ones. UVA is not going to start poaching kids for B1G states but the B1G is sure as hell going to start poaching VA kids. On top of that you have (by default) assured you other state school will have a new home in the SEC. Viewed another way, UVA just won the CWS by sharpening their team on ACC opponents. If that goes away, UVA will be sharpening their skills on B1G schools while VPI starts sharpening their skills in the SEC. Not exactly rocket science.
SEC killed Tech when they left
SEC is killing Clemson with South Carolina
SEC will eventually weaken Texas with Texas A&M
SEC is a conference who has proven that leaving is a killer
(Georgia Tech, Tulane, and Sewanee)
SEC is a conference who has proven they turn lemons to lemonade
(Arkansas and South Carolina)
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:55 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
If the long term numbers are not as rosy as projected, did the Terps really come out in a better place?
No, but $100 million is really conservative. If the gap really ends up being $20 million per year between an average B1G and ACC team then we might be looking at something like a $150+ million plus gap within the ACC contract period. If will be hard for the numbers to not work out.
Also I REALLY doubt that "TV revenue gets eaten up by lower gate receipts and concessions" because that was part of the reason the B1G got Maryland (and Rutgers) and put them in the B1G East with programs like Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St, etc. The theory is that many graduates from these programs move to D.C. and NYC after college, and so when their team shows up as a visitor at a Maryland or Rutgers game those alumni will show up to support the opponent (aka their school). This ensures a more rabid base of visitors than when Maryland had Wake Forest or Boston College come to town.
quote:
If Loh never gets put in charge of Maryland, would they ever move to the B1G?
Probably not, but a lot of this realignment stuff is fate working itself out.
If Rick Perry isn't governor of Texas, do we get a political pass to go to the SEC?
If A&M doesn't try for the SEC in 2010, is the PAC 12 the PAC 16 today?
If John Marinatto doesn't turn down ESPN's Big East contract offer is that conference still alive?
LINK
If Mizzou doesn't almost get left in the cold in 2010, does it leave with A&M in 2011?
If the state of Texas had different leadership in the 90's is A&M never a Big 12 program? Is USC still an independent?
How the dice rolls is a big part of this.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 3:55 pm to WeeWee
quote:
3. UVA is an east coast not a southern school culture wise. They would be a horrible fit.
UVA has more southern culture than Virginia Tech does. The only thing that Virginia Tech has over UVA is football and they aren't even good at that anymore.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:00 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Probably not, but a lot of this realignment stuff is fate working itself out.
Loh to MD was not fate from what I have been told.
quote:
How the dice rolls is a big part of this.
I do not believe this at all. TAMU to the SEC was going on in the 80's and 90's. Big schools are like aircraft carriers, they do not turn on a dime. Like most things, the deals are worked out and then completed years later.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:03 pm to Cheese Grits
First off
Moving on, UVA is in a superior recruiting position than all but a few B1G schools in every single sport but football. They recruit poorly in football anyway. Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State already recruit Virginia heavily in football. That wouldn't change. VA kids aren't going to bypass UVA for other B1G schools very much at all. They're mostly worse schools, worse programs, and are really far away.
UVA's got great location, great academics, and tons of resources. To say that their athletics would fall to Ivy League status in the B1G is pure hyperbole.
VT couldn't kill UVA. UVA has too much money. They've beaten UVA in football like 12 years in a row without the SEC's help. UVA's still rolling.
GT isn't dead. Clemson isn't dead. Texas isn't dead. Louisville isn't dead. The SEC is a great conference, but it's not what you're making it out to be.
ETA: Tulane and Sewanee aren't reasonable comparisons for UVA. Not sure why you brought them up.
quote:
SEC is killing Clemson with South Carolina
Moving on, UVA is in a superior recruiting position than all but a few B1G schools in every single sport but football. They recruit poorly in football anyway. Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State already recruit Virginia heavily in football. That wouldn't change. VA kids aren't going to bypass UVA for other B1G schools very much at all. They're mostly worse schools, worse programs, and are really far away.
UVA's got great location, great academics, and tons of resources. To say that their athletics would fall to Ivy League status in the B1G is pure hyperbole.
VT couldn't kill UVA. UVA has too much money. They've beaten UVA in football like 12 years in a row without the SEC's help. UVA's still rolling.
GT isn't dead. Clemson isn't dead. Texas isn't dead. Louisville isn't dead. The SEC is a great conference, but it's not what you're making it out to be.
ETA: Tulane and Sewanee aren't reasonable comparisons for UVA. Not sure why you brought them up.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:04 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
UVA has more southern culture than Virginia Tech does.
: kige :
I know lots of folks in the south with UVA ties and UVA degrees. It is a two prong school. 1 prong is a good academic school, the other prong is the legacy kids with lots of dough and family connections.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:06 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:
Va. Tech is no longer a power in football,
Better than never being a power in football, like UVA.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:18 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Loh to MD was not fate from what I have been told.
Yeah, but the timing of it (RIGHT when realignment was going on) was fate. He gets there a few years later and his University is locked in the ACC GOR. Timing is everything.
quote:
I do not believe this at all. TAMU to the SEC was going on in the 80's and 90's.
Sure but it took the political dominoes falling to get us here. Without a LHN for political cover we are still in the Big 12 today for sure.
Or look at a USC- if we join the SEC in the 90's as the 12th team are they in the SEC today? I bet not. So in just that one situation Texas politics changes the conference a completely unrelated school is in.
A lot of realignment is like this. Utah got an invite because they needed a partner for Colorado. If Texahoma goes to the PAC in 2016 Utah is in the cold today. Why is TCU in the Big 12 and not UH or SMU? I could keep naming examples, but a lot of this is fate and timing.
The only pure realignment example I know of when fate seemed to backfire was when BYU made all those demands on the Big 12 so they went across the country to get WVU instead. BYU thought they were on the wings of destiny and went for bust. And busted.
Otherwise often these deals have a lot of things that just come together.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:19 pm to Henry Jones Jr
quote:Been making this argument for a while. Glad someone else is too!
THOMAS frickING JEFFERSON
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:25 pm to Henry Jones Jr
UVA is one of the best in the country, and I don't mean just in academics.
I think they have loads of potential in football too. The one thing holding them back IMO is a pretty major hang up, their fanbase is just never going to push the program or demand excellence. Their fans are great people, I hung out with several when AU played them in the peach bowl. They just DGAF. I think partly they're used to losing. They're average fan is more educated and wealthy than most schools, so I feel like they just have more shite to occupy and entertain them. Seemed like most of them were there more like it was another social event to be seen at than for the football game. I must have seen one UVA get mad at the game the whole time.
I think they have loads of potential in football too. The one thing holding them back IMO is a pretty major hang up, their fanbase is just never going to push the program or demand excellence. Their fans are great people, I hung out with several when AU played them in the peach bowl. They just DGAF. I think partly they're used to losing. They're average fan is more educated and wealthy than most schools, so I feel like they just have more shite to occupy and entertain them. Seemed like most of them were there more like it was another social event to be seen at than for the football game. I must have seen one UVA get mad at the game the whole time.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:35 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Or look at a USC- if we join the SEC in the 90's as the 12th team are they in the SEC today?
Depends on if Clemson says yes instead of no.
quote:
A lot of realignment is like this. Utah got an invite because they needed a partner for Colorado. If Texahoma goes to the PAC in 2016 Utah is in the cold today. Why is TCU in the Big 12 and not UH or SMU? I could keep naming examples, but a lot of this is fate and timing.
Not really. Most realignment is about the B1G trying to get Notre Dame. The rest is just the fallout. When it really comes to what drives realignment it is about getting the Kings and Queens on the chessboard. What happens to the rest is just part of the game but the folks at the top really don't care as long as they win.
B1G and SEC could care less where Colorado and Utah wound up. PAC could care less what happened after they got Utx and OU and were willing to go to 16 to make it happen. When it didn't they already had invited Colorado so they had to make do. Nobody at the top cared where Syracuse and TCU wound up and they sure were never discussed for going to the B1G, PAC, or SEC.
quote:
Otherwise often these deals have a lot of things that just come together.
At the bottom it is more like rats scurrying for the scraps.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:36 pm to Henry Jones Jr
They need to quit adding good teams, the SEC is plenty difficult enough as it is.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:41 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Depends on if Clemson says yes instead of no.
Who is 14 if USC is brought in as 13? Mizzou?
Or are you saying Mizzou is such a catch on it's own that USC gets to be the 14th to get Mizzou?
quote:
Not really. Most realignment is about the B1G trying to get Notre Dame. The rest is just the fallout.
That is part of the pie. I would add in the resolution of Texas's ego as well. Those two combined. The B1G and Notre Dame had little to do with the Big 12 flying apart.
quote:
At the bottom it is more like rats scurrying for the scraps.
Sure, but what is the bottom? In ten years maybe everything not the SEC or B1G.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:43 pm to DingDongEddieStrong
quote:
But enough about Texas A&M...
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:45 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
UK owns them 11-6-2, course UK is 1-0-0 vs the Hoos
VTech is a historical patsy. They were a nobody in college football until the mid 90's.
Posted on 6/25/15 at 4:48 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
The ACC is kinda screwed when it comes to making money off of Tier 3. The problem is Raycom. Raycom traditionally broadcasted the Tier 3 games, and when the ACC sold these to ESPN part of the deal was that ESPN would allow Raycom to sublease some of this content so that the tradition could stay alive. It is suspected the ACC pushed for this because John Swofford's son is connected to Raycom.
Anyway because of that if the ACC Network was ever to exist ESPN would have to buy out that Raycom contract just like the SEC bought out UF's rights from the Sunshine Network to start the SECN. This adds an extra expense to the start of the ACC Network, and cuts into any windfall that ESPN might get from the network.
With all of that said, ESPN has been known to overpay for content in order to have stability. That is what the Longhorn Network is. So I could see them paying extra to the ACC if a ACC Network is successful (even though contractually they own all the content anyway and don't need to pay a dime more) just to keep the ACC together. But it won't be SEC Network money. Maybe, just maybe in ten years they will crack $30 million per team per year (just when the SEC teams crack $40 mil).
I understand that the Raycom deal is a thorn in the side of a potential ACCN but I do not think that ESPN will risk the breakup 1 of the 2 conferences they essentially fully own (ACC/SEC). Raycom actually pays ESPN for the games they have so this is something the Mouse House can work around. There is just too much to lose for ESPN if they try and ignore the money disparity between the ACC and the other conferences for the length of the deal. It's not worth making it that much easier for schools like UNC, Duke, FSU, and Virginia to cast a longing gaze towards the B1G and Big 12.
I would bet than an ACCN launches within 5 years.
This post was edited on 6/25/15 at 4:51 pm
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News