Started By
Message
Simple math to explain expansion appetite
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:14 pm
Any new schools should have to bring in more than the current average payout to make it financially worth our while to add them.
Last year, the average payout was 31.2 million.
The current incremental subscription fee (inside the SEC footprint compared to outside) is $1.05 per month.
Over the course of 1 year, that means $12.60 per subscription.
Therefore, each school (not each state, OU and OSU) needs to deliver 31,200,000 ÷ 12.60 = 2,476,000 subscribers.
Assuming 1 subscription for every 3 people (rough estimate from multiple sources), that means any new school has to bring 7.5 million in incremental population.
If you assume this is a state-by-state thing (which admittedly breaks down as you move northeast), the only realistic states to deliver this would be North Carolina (9.95 million) and Virginia (8.33 million). The only other neighboring state that exceeds this number is Illinois, and I don't see the Illini leaving the B1G.
It really doesn't matter whether a school brings history, competitiveness, or any other soft value. It's all about the numbers.
Last year, the average payout was 31.2 million.
The current incremental subscription fee (inside the SEC footprint compared to outside) is $1.05 per month.
Over the course of 1 year, that means $12.60 per subscription.
Therefore, each school (not each state, OU and OSU) needs to deliver 31,200,000 ÷ 12.60 = 2,476,000 subscribers.
Assuming 1 subscription for every 3 people (rough estimate from multiple sources), that means any new school has to bring 7.5 million in incremental population.
If you assume this is a state-by-state thing (which admittedly breaks down as you move northeast), the only realistic states to deliver this would be North Carolina (9.95 million) and Virginia (8.33 million). The only other neighboring state that exceeds this number is Illinois, and I don't see the Illini leaving the B1G.
It really doesn't matter whether a school brings history, competitiveness, or any other soft value. It's all about the numbers.
This post was edited on 5/12/16 at 10:16 pm
10
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:25 pm to Ag Zwin
The only thing not considered here is another form a revenue outside of the SECN. Maybe the playoffs expands to 8 gets auto bids of 2 for conferences with 16 teams. Just an random unlikely example off the top of my head.
Otherwise you are 100% correct. ROI is what needs to be looked at for adding any school.
Otherwise you are 100% correct. ROI is what needs to be looked at for adding any school.
This post was edited on 5/12/16 at 10:26 pm
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:28 pm to Ag Zwin
There I was, surrounded by boobs. They'd ambushed me from every side. My two hands were outnumbered, but by gawd I tried to squeeze every tit that had the balls to approach me. They knew I was the titty-slayer. I touched them... one after another. Waves of merciless tits swarmed my hands, and there, just when I thought I couldn't squeeze one more boob, the great golden rack appeared. I grabbed them and held on for dear life. When I woke up, they had chained me tk the floor. I was immediately straddled and they motor-boated me... to death.
I died at the hands of the greatest boobs the world has ever seen, and I am not ashamed.
I died at the hands of the greatest boobs the world has ever seen, and I am not ashamed.
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:29 pm to Ag Zwin
That's why I have a small fear that Old Dominion could get involved with expansion talk.
Would enjoy seeing them get their shite pushed in though.
Would enjoy seeing them get their shite pushed in though.
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:33 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
The only thing not considered here is another form a revenue outside of the SECN.
Could have added the disclaimer that this is only valid for the current structure/program.
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:34 pm to Ag Zwin
In theory that may be true. There are a handful of schools that no conference is going to turn down. Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, USC, etc.
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:36 pm to Ag Zwin
expansion is far more complex than simple SECN $
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:39 pm to Ag Zwin
I'd pay more to see Texas play than UVa.
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:47 pm to East Coast Band
quote:
I'd pay more to see Texas play than UVa.
But Alabama gets paid more to play UVA than Texas
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:53 pm to tmc94
quote:
expansion is far more complex than simple SECN $
Admittedly, this is very simplistic. The basic tenet is the same though. Any new member has to add more than they take out.
Example: A stronger basketball conference could add quite a bit of incremental revenue from March Madness. Each win is worth about $1.6 million, so a team that consistently gets to the Sweet 16 adds about $5 million to the pot.
Still, the SEC network is the single biggest contributor, and I don't think it's even close.
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:53 pm to TheCheshireHog
quote:
In theory that may be true. There are a handful of schools that no conference is going to turn down. Texas, Ohio State, Alabama, USC, etc.
Pac already turned tu down
Posted on 5/12/16 at 10:57 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
Pac already turned tu down
And I would be willing to bet, even without the Aggies voting against them, we would tell TX to kick rocks.
Posted on 5/12/16 at 11:00 pm to Tiger Live2
Every single major conference would with the tv network.
Posted on 5/12/16 at 11:04 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
Every single major conference would with the tv network.
Texas = Monkey
Banana = LHN
Jar = Big XII (or, chance to join another conference)
This post was edited on 5/12/16 at 11:06 pm
Posted on 5/12/16 at 11:15 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
The basic tenet is the same though. Any new member has to add more than they take out.
of course. Conferences are partnerships and you don't take on a new partner unless they add something. But your focus is far too narrow
quote:
Still, the SEC network is the single biggest contributor
This is just blatantly uninformed. The SECN wasn't even 15% of the tv revenue to SEC schools last year and tv revenue is probably not even 50% of football ticket sales which is not even 5% of university revenue.
You're reading too much fan fiction that tends to massively overrate tv dollars
Posted on 5/12/16 at 11:27 pm to Farmer1906
quote:
Pac already turned tu down
Because Texas had certain requests. As a straight up add, no conference is turning them down.
Posted on 5/12/16 at 11:30 pm to tmc94
quote:
This is just blatantly uninformed. The SECN wasn't even 15% of the tv revenue to SEC schools last year and tv revenue is probably not even 50% of football ticket sales which is not even 5% of university revenue.
Using the above would lead to 6.1 billion in SEC ticket sales and 122 billion in university revenue. I think your percentages are quite off
Posted on 5/12/16 at 11:30 pm to tmc94
quote:
You're reading too much fan fiction that tends to massively overrate tv dollars
OK. Maybe I am wrong. Where are you getting a different story, because there are lots of links to this "fan fiction"?:
The reason for the difference in payouts between the SEC and Big Ten is television. The SEC recently signed a contract extension with ESPN which started in 2014.
The “it,” of course, is money, something that the league has essentially been printing over the last several years on the football side. An additional printing press was added last year with the launch of the SEC Network.
The significant jump in revenue this year is thanks in large part to the SEC Network
Posted on 5/12/16 at 11:31 pm to Ag Zwin
His percentages are off. By a lot
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News