|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [2418]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6496
Joined: 11/17/12
|
Conference Expansion 101 - Why do you add schools?
5
5
Aug 13, 2023, 10:12 AM
|
|
I have seen a lot of suggestions about adding a lot of schools to the ACC.
"Why dont we add Uconn? Navy? ECU? USF?"
Here is the thing.. it is all about revenue.
Back in the 2000s and 2010s.. the name of the game was markets.. cities.. exposure.
Not anymore.
ESPN pays the ACC a sum of money for TV rights based on a value.
Right now, using clean numbers (not exact) it is around $560 million dollars.
You take that number, divide it among the 14 ACC schools, they each get around 40 million dollars.
So lets say you added UConn and Navy.
ESPN, judging by the amount of ratings/viewers those two schools generate.. would likely bump up the total sum to the conference to about $570 million dollars.
So now we take the 570 million and divide it among 16 schools... what do you get?
Each school getting around $35 million.
So each school was getting 40 million.
added two schools of lower value,
Now each school gets 35 million.
Can you see why this does not work?
Cal and Stanford... two long time power 5 members.. barely was going to add enough to break even.. then the ACC was going to give them travel assistance.
You have to get schools whose value adds enough to the total pot that when you divide it among the new number of schools in the conference, the payout to each school goes up!
Texas and OU to the SEC? The payout per school went up!
USC & UCLA to the B1G? The payout per school went up!
Because each of those schools added more to the total overall revenue to cover their inclusion in the payout.
That is why we do not add the UConn/Navy/ECUs of the world and why the ACC is in such a bad spot. No one with enough value wants to come.
The one play the ACC is hoping for is ND but the chances of that ever happening is small and getting smaller by the minute.
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [7200]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6895
Joined: 1/25/17
|
Re: Conference Expansion 101 - Why do you add schools?
1
1
Aug 13, 2023, 10:36 AM
|
|
Really good explanation!
Everytime I read about Notre Dame not having interest in joining a conference my immediate thought is: "how will they stay relevant"?
Especially if you listen to the fear most fans seem to have! Which is: if you aren't in the current SEC or Big 10 you won't be able to compete. Then how does this not affect Notre Dame?
Some years ago it was thought that Notre Dame was falling behind because of the tough academic requirements to get in. Then Brian Kelly brought them back to competing again.
I know they have a big brand and large following - but is it fading quickly? Even amont their supporters is it as important as it was 25 - 35 years ago( or more )?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6861]
TigerPulse: 95%
Posts: 6503
Joined: 10/7/07
|
Notre Dame hasnt really been relevant in a long time
1
Aug 13, 2023, 10:43 AM
|
|
No titles since the 80s. Only 2 playoff appearances (without having to play in or win a league title mind you) and were smashed in those games. Their legacy is in a distant past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [398]
TigerPulse: 65%
Posts: 348
Joined: 7/3/22
|
Re: Notre Dame hasnt really been relevant in a long time
Aug 13, 2023, 10:53 AM
|
|
The ACC wants to add schools because it makes it more difficult for anyone to leave. You'll be in the ACC another decade if they expand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7200]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6895
Joined: 1/25/17
|
Re: Notre Dame hasnt really been relevant in a long time
Aug 13, 2023, 11:03 AM
|
|
The ACC wants to add schools because it makes it more difficult for anyone to leave. You'll be in the ACC another decade if they expand.
Which is why Clemson, FSU, Nancy Stank and U of Non-Compliance are voting no to expansion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7200]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6895
Joined: 1/25/17
|
Re: Notre Dame hasnt really been relevant in a long time
Aug 13, 2023, 11:02 AM
[ in reply to Notre Dame hasnt really been relevant in a long time ] |
|
No titles since the 80s. Only 2 playoff appearances (without having to play in or win a league t
itle mind you) and were smashed in those games. Their legacy is in a distant past.
Exactly!
But, I don't see them panicking as if they won't get an opportunity in the near future.
It's as if people think money and money alone is how you will have an opportunity to compete for a National Championship.
Those big state schools have always been bigger than Clemson. They have always had more resources and gotten more of a payout. And, let's not pretend players "just start getting paid by outside sources either"! That's always been around.
If Clemson or FSU or Notre Dame had not ever won it and have not been contenders in relatively recent years - you could squeeze them out. Like you could a UCONN(in football) or East Carolina.
Would the National TV viewing public accept Clemson not having an opportunity? Or FSU? Or Notre Dame? Just because they aren't in one of the two conferences? I don't think so, at all. It would be more trouble than it's worth to try and dismiss them from an opportunity. If that's the primary concern from people.
By people's stance on this is seems: schools with the largest alumni base and payout should be winning it yearly. Big 10 schools make more than SEC schools; how come they aren't winning it dang near every year then - if that philosophy is solid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10828]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13441
Joined: 10/13/14
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13579]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8958
Joined: 8/30/18
|
Re: Notre Dame hasnt really been relevant in a long time
Aug 13, 2023, 12:38 PM
[ in reply to Notre Dame hasnt really been relevant in a long time ] |
|
It has more to do with viewership than recent results when it comes to ND. They have a large following and a national fan base that still enjoys watching their games. As long as the eyeballs keep increasing, they remain a very lucrative brand and can continue to command big dollars for the rights to broadcast their games.
With the NBC contract coming up for renewal in 2025, they will have a lot of options to consider.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7200]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6895
Joined: 1/25/17
|
The Schools Do Not Currently Pay Players!
1
Aug 13, 2023, 10:52 AM
[ in reply to Re: Conference Expansion 101 - Why do you add schools? ] |
|
OP you seem to have a clear understanding of this thing.
Something I can't understand is how are people getting "payout per school mixed with recruiting prowess"?
Unless the rules have changed; the school can't take that higher payout and pay players! They can buy nicer players living space. Or have nice meeting rooms.
Insert someone saying: "Don't be naive"!
The thing is: if caught doing it there are still stiff penalties. As long as it is: a school is gambling by taking that money and directly compensating a player.
NIL deals - have been going on "under the table for years"! And, it's not gotten 5-star and 4-star players only going to schools with a high payout.
I am probably missing something! And, okay with being informed of what I am missing here. I am not perfect and don't know it all.
I just don't get some of the anxiety and fear going on. The big schools with large alumni and resources have "been bigger and have long since had a bigger resource pool"! That is nothing new at all. How come Texas at Austin isn't the National Champions "Every year " with that logic? Or Texas A&M? Or Michigan?
Special places and circumstances like Clemson will always have a seat at the table. Not having Clemson or FSU contend would be like a boxer: assumming FSU and or Clemson were very good and undefeated. It would like a boxer being called undisputed champion; but never defeated former undefeated champions! Because you can't pretend like Clemson or FSU never beat SEC or Big 10 schools on the field to win National Championships! But, oh your in that other conference so you don't get a chance, is unacceptable to anyone who truly wants to see the best go against the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4818]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4862
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: The Schools Do Not Currently Pay Players!
Aug 13, 2023, 12:13 PM
|
|
The issue isn't about the schools that have had deep pockets, it's that literally every school in the SEC and Big10 will have much deeper pockets than ever before which suddenly potentially puts us behind a bunch more schools in the arms race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7200]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6895
Joined: 1/25/17
|
Re: The Schools Do Not Currently Pay Players!
Aug 13, 2023, 12:34 PM
|
|
The issue isn't about the schools that have had deep pockets, it's that literally every school in the SEC and Big10 will have much deeper pockets than ever before which suddenly potentially puts us behind a bunch more schools in the arms race.
I guess, that's my thing though. Whether you have "deeper pockets by 30 M or 50 M more" at a certain point does it matter?
If it's all about the money; why do schools like Duke even field a team? Or Wake? Because, they will never be able to compete based on the payout philosophy!
Miami U has been a small school for a long time; but have 5 National Titles in football. They beat out big state/large alumni/deeper pocket schools to get those 5 too.
Clemson same deal!
Not saying you are wrong. I just don't think; unless there is a qualifier clause of you having to receive a certain payout as a school to qualify to compete for a National Championship, it matters as much as it's made out to be.
Those schools have and will always have more resources and alumni bases, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13044]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22364
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Yep the issue is that even Vandy, Northwestern, Rutgers, etc
Aug 13, 2023, 12:37 PM
[ in reply to Re: The Schools Do Not Currently Pay Players! ] |
|
Will have more money than Clemson and FSU. Now those three schools might not be able to translate that money into winning because they have other major barriers, but what happens to Clemson when South Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, Miss St, Ole Miss, etc have twice as much money to spend than Clemson? These are historically middle of the road or worse P5 programs, but all of that extra money will allow them to build better facilities than Clemson, hire coaches away from Clemson, and maybe even pay players more than Clemson if that becomes a reality in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13044]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22364
Joined: 4/24/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6972]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9222
Joined: 7/11/03
|
Thanks for the BASIC math lesson.***
Aug 13, 2023, 12:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [8101]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10523
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: Conference Expansion 101 - Why do you add schools?
Aug 13, 2023, 12:49 PM
|
|
You overlooked the ability to add schools at a half share of revenue which changes the math. Expansion 102
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13579]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8958
Joined: 8/30/18
|
Re: Conference Expansion 101 - Why do you add schools?
Aug 13, 2023, 12:51 PM
|
|
Or no revenue share at all which is what I think SMU was offering for the first 5-7 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5093]
TigerPulse: 42%
Posts: 17074
Joined: 7/19/05
|
Re: Conference Expansion 101 - Why do you add schools?
Aug 13, 2023, 12:53 PM
|
|
The better question is why do we as consumers want to pay more for the same product?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
