ACC expansion ...

[Red_Alert]

baseball>basketball

You are on some strong drugs if you think baseball brings anywhere near the same amount of cash.

I took that as his personal preference on what he'd rather watch.

I prefer baseball over basketball myself.

My thoughts on basketball are "You can turn on the last 5 minutes and see the whole game".

 

[Wild Turkey]

Again, you are just making shit up. It's the opposite of basic math ... it's hard math and you are just saying, hell yeah let's do away with NCAA and grab a billion dollars. I don't really have the time to do a deep dive, but

The NCAA may be going away in football, but whatever is left after that is a billion dollar entity that, "according to the NCAA, there are 350 Division 1 schools, 310 Division 2 schools, and 438 Division 3 schools. To give you a better idea of size and how these divisions compare, about 176,000 student athletes compete at the Division 1 level. A little more than 118,000 student-athletes compete in Division 2 and Division 3 has just under 188,000 student athletes on its various rosters."

You have an entity in charge of 1100 universities, and about 500,000 college athletes. But, no, the NCAA will just go away because about 60 schools is going to take over and grab the $1 billion dollars that funds all these universities and their athletes?

Do you realize how crazy you sound? Like the other 1040 universities are going to say, cool, we are out of the sports business but have it? Dude, this ain't happening.

Everything you wrote is irrelevant if we go to just two super conferences. I get what you are saying and I agree with you but if the B1G and SEC become the two major players it will only be a matter of time before they take as much of the pie is they can because they can.

1. The attitude will change very dramatically at the fan and booster level of that there is no need to subsidize any other schools and this eventually put pressure on the presidents and boards of trustees.
2. The money will be too big and the conference members will want more because they will spend what they get like its a drug they can't do without.

I'm not crazy I'm just being a realist. I never thought in a million years we would have an environment where players can be paid any amount they can get some idiot to pay them with no restrictions and switch teams at the drop of a hat if everything doesn't go their way. But you know what? It happened and if the SEC and B1G expand again and control the college football landscape they will eat everything else as well. Book it.

 

[CorpRebel]

Afterwards, it's hard to believe that anyone else would do a GOR for that many years again like this, it's brutal and is going to ultimately hurt programs that need to act in their own self interest, but cannot afford to do so.

Yeah.. That was what I was "driving" at. It is too onerous to really want to do again, at least for that kind of time frame... UNLESS, of course, you're one of the "bottom" teams in a conference.

But you have to admit, it's working as designed.

Oh yeah...

 

[Wild Turkey]

Stop ... WTH ... Ga Tech on par with Michigan State? $30 - $40 million. Break that down for us. Athletics only.

Atlanta is the 8th largest market, and with LA being 2nd, that may be worth $10 million per year. Their viewership is under 500K per game, and that is with games against Clemson, UGA, and others where the eyeballs belong to the other team. Even when we pay Ga Tech we get a noon slot on the SECC or the ACCN. They generate zero, none, nada, for the CFP money. You'd be stretching it to say they are worth $20 million ... they aren't even earning their share in the ACC, let alone a $100 million share of the B1G.

Let me put this in perspective because these college network deals are grossly undervalued right now when ESPN is paying 1 billion a year for Monday Night football alone and that is only one game a week. In a college football conference, you are getting somewhere between 8 and what will be 16 games a week, and most of them in the B1G and SEC will pull a million eyeballs at least. GT vs Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska will pull numbers much better than GT vs WF/NC State/Syracuse/Boston College.

There is collective value in numbers and unrealized value in what the networks can pay. GT isn't a slam dunk but they aren't out of the discussion either especially when you factor in the AAU research grants.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Let me put this in perspective because these college network deals are grossly undervalued right now when ESPN is paying 1 billion a year for Monday Night football alone and that is only one game a week. In a college football conference, you are getting somewhere between 8 and what will be 16 games a week, and most of them in the B1G and SEC will pull a million eyeballs at least. GT vs Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska will pull numbers much better than GT vs WF/NC State/Syracuse/Boston College.

There is collective value in numbers and unrealized value in what the networks can pay. GT isn't a slam dunk but they aren't out of the discussion either especially when you factor in the AAU research grants.

1. Listen to you ... college networks are grossly undervalued. How the heck do you know that but people who do this for a living don't. Seriously, are you in the industry? Do you negotiate TV contracts for a living? I assure you that they are valued quite well or people would be fired left and right.

2. GT vs Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska will pull numbers much better than GT vs WF/NC State/Syracuse/Boston College, you say. No shit. But GT v. Purdue/Iowa/Rutgers/Illinois/other crappy B1G teams won't. Guess what, USC/OU/TX v. crappy teams pull eyeballs because of USC/OU/TX. You have to bring something to the conference. You don't credit for great viewership numbers when the numbers are actually the other teams you play.

Let's finalize this.

In 2021, Georgia Tech was 56th out of 89 teams who had measurable viewership with 615K per game. Sounds interesting, right? More than we might have thought, right? Let's dig in:

Week	Opponent	Rating/Mil
1	UNI
2	KennSU
3	Clemson	2.1
4	UNC
5	Pitt
6	Duke
7	Bye
8	Uva
9	VaTech
10	Miami
11	BC
12	ND	1.455
13	UGA	1.947
Total		5.502
Avg		0.4585

LOL. Ga Tech played in 3 of 12 games where viewership was measurable. Clemson, Notre Dame, and UGA. The total viewership was 5.5 million. All attributable to the opponent.

If Ga Tech had an average viewership of 458K in 3 games that could be measured, but an overall average of 615K, that means the other 9 games averaged about 160K viewers. That's laughable but understandable. My bet is most of those were Miami and UNC.

Most of those games were streamed, not televised. Maybe I am not reading this right. But these numbers make it obvious that Ga Tech, on its own drives no value with their TV rights. The B1G cares what happens when you mix 2 teams that draw eyeballs on their own, or teams that drive the numbers when they play crappy teams.

GaTech is so far out of the discussion it's hilarious that you think they are even being considered. They aren't bringing in a team that has 75% of its games streamed or not measurable.

Sources:

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

 

[Wild Turkey]

1. Listen to you ... college networks are grossly undervalued. How the heck do you know that but people who do this for a living don't. Seriously, are you in the industry? Do you negotiate TV contracts for a living? I assure you that they are valued quite well or people would be fired left and right.

2. GT vs Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska will pull numbers much better than GT vs WF/NC State/Syracuse/Boston College, you say. No shit. But GT v. Purdue/Iowa/Rutgers/Illinois/other crappy B1G teams won't. Guess what, USC/OU/TX v. crappy teams pull eyeballs because of USC/OU/TX. You have to bring something to the conference. You don't credit for great viewership numbers when the numbers are actually the other teams you play.

Let's finalize this.

In 2021, Georgia Tech was 56th out of 89 teams who had measurable viewership with 615K per game. Sounds interesting, right? More than we might have thought, right? Let's dig in:

Week	Opponent	Rating/Mil
1	UNI
2	KennSU
3	Clemson	2.1
4	UNC
5	Pitt
6	Duke
7	Bye
8	Uva
9	VaTech
10	Miami
11	BC
12	ND	1.455
13	UGA	1.947
Total		5.502
Avg		0.4585

LOL. Ga Tech played in 3 of 12 games where viewership was measurable. Clemson, Notre Dame, and UGA. The total viewership was 5.5 million. All attributable to the opponent.

If Ga Tech had an average viewership of 458K in 3 games that could be measured, but an overall average of 615K, that means the other 9 games averaged about 160K viewers. That's laughable but understandable. My bet is most of those were Miami and UNC.

Most of those games were streamed, not televised. Maybe I am not reading this right. But these numbers make it obvious that Ga Tech, on its own drives no value with their TV rights. The B1G cares what happens when you mix 2 teams that draw eyeballs on their own, or teams that drive the numbers when they play crappy teams.

GaTech is so far out of the discussion it's hilarious that you think they are even being considered. They aren't bringing in a team that has 75% of its games streamed or not measurable.

Sources:

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

If one NFL weekly game is worth one billion dollars then an entire college conference that includes all sports should be worth more.

You can feel otherwise but I strongly disagree with you.

 

[rfjeff9]

1. Listen to you ... college networks are grossly undervalued. How the heck do you know that but people who do this for a living don't. Seriously, are you in the industry? Do you negotiate TV contracts for a living? I assure you that they are valued quite well or people would be fired left and right.

2. GT vs Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska will pull numbers much better than GT vs WF/NC State/Syracuse/Boston College, you say. No shit. But GT v. Purdue/Iowa/Rutgers/Illinois/other crappy B1G teams won't. Guess what, USC/OU/TX v. crappy teams pull eyeballs because of USC/OU/TX. You have to bring something to the conference. You don't credit for great viewership numbers when the numbers are actually the other teams you play.

Let's finalize this.

In 2021, Georgia Tech was 56th out of 89 teams who had measurable viewership with 615K per game. Sounds interesting, right? More than we might have thought, right? Let's dig in:

Week	Opponent	Rating/Mil
1	UNI
2	KennSU
3	Clemson	2.1
4	UNC
5	Pitt
6	Duke
7	Bye
8	Uva
9	VaTech
10	Miami
11	BC
12	ND	1.455
13	UGA	1.947
Total		5.502
Avg		0.4585

LOL. Ga Tech played in 3 of 12 games where viewership was measurable. Clemson, Notre Dame, and UGA. The total viewership was 5.5 million. All attributable to the opponent.

If Ga Tech had an average viewership of 458K in 3 games that could be measured, but an overall average of 615K, that means the other 9 games averaged about 160K viewers. That's laughable but understandable. My bet is most of those were Miami and UNC.

Most of those games were streamed, not televised. Maybe I am not reading this right. But these numbers make it obvious that Ga Tech, on its own drives no value with their TV rights. The B1G cares what happens when you mix 2 teams that draw eyeballs on their own, or teams that drive the numbers when they play crappy teams.

GaTech is so far out of the discussion it's hilarious that you think they are even being considered. They aren't bringing in a team that has 75% of its games streamed or not measurable.

Sources:

College Football TV Ratings

College football TV ratings for the 2024 regular season, bowls, College Football Playoff and National Championship.

www.sportsmediawatch.com

You are still talking about the wrong things, though from an SEC perspective. You aren't thinking like B1G. It doesn't matter about the viewers per se, that will still pan out well enough in the end. It's not like Tech can't get back where they were several years ago. Pointing to last year as an indicator is rather unrepresentative. Heck, even I didn't want to watch them.

This was always about location and the B1G playing in Georgia against an academic AAU school on location in Atlanta for B1G exposure in the football first part of the country . That's all it was ever about 10 years ago and that hasn't changed at all.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

You are still talking about the wrong things, though from an SEC perspective. You aren't thinking like B1G. It doesn't matter about the viewers per se, that will still pan out well enough in the end. It's not like Tech can't get back where they were several years ago. Pointing to last year as an indicator is rather unrepresentative. Heck, even I didn't want to watch them.

This was always about location and the B1G playing in Georgia against an academic AAU school on location in Atlanta for B1G exposure in the football first part of the country . That's all it was ever about 10 years ago and that hasn't changed at all.

The B1G is also motivated by money. The SEC and the B1G are just alike there. The B1G is just more picky with regard to academics and AAU. But that is a secondary consideration, not a primary consideration. They aren't making moves to make moves. They move to make money. Ga Tech and even the cable market in Atlanta don't make money at a level that would be required. I wrote an article that Rivals ran a week or so ago. I am going to post it here. But to your point, you are totally, 100% wrong about 10 years ago and today. 10 years ago when the conference networks comprised a large percentage of the overall revenue it made sense to move into areas to get basic cable. That was clearly the move. But you are using old thinking in a new world. That no longer makes sense for a bunch of reasons, but the main one is that the basic cable market has gone from 90 million households to 40 million by 2027. It will comprise about 20% of revenue by 2026-27.

The main thing that matters is viewers, period. The average number of viewers, and teams that can generate games that have 4 million-plus viewers. That is what drives revenue. That and getting to the CFP. That is where the money is and will be. Geographical areas don't and won't matter nearly as much as 10 years ago. I've typed it 3 or 4 times already. If the LA market, 2nd largest in the US, with 2 teams that dominate that market only provides $17.5 million in annual revenue to the B1G, and that is a declining number, how much do you really think the Ga Tech delivers with Atlanta?

Finally, and with all due respect, you are not coming back. Your school has totally transformed itself. It's all about academics. You've not drawn well for years. You get little support. You are not going to be an NIL player. You have UGA who will get the pick of any Georgia players so long as Smart is there. You have academics that limit who you can let in (that's an admirable thing to me, a Vandy undergrad). 10 years of being in the ACC, $50 million per year behind other schools in the area doom you. While they are marginal candidates, UVa and UNC are much better candidates that are also AAU. And the B1G can choose to build west with Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford if they want to. All are AAU, all high-end academic schools, and all with better TV money and/or way better brands.

Here are your attendance numbers (2013 - 2017):

2017​	2016​	2015​	2014​	2013​	Average​
46885​	47503​	50707​	48519​	49077​	48538.20​

In 2021 you averaged 37,819. You are going in the wrong direction.

I know this sounds like a UGA fan hating on Tech, but I've told you before I don't hate Tech. I respect it, have friends that went there, and kids of friends who have gone there. It's a fantastic school. It's just not a football power and IMO won't ever be again. You guys thinking you are being considered for the B1G is just delusional.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

If one NFL weekly game is worth one billion dollars then an entire college conference that includes all sports should be worth more.

You can feel otherwise but I strongly disagree with you.

It's not an issue of you and me agreeing. You are a random sports fan on a sports board saying that people who for a living maximize TV value don't know as much about this as you do. You have nothing to support your position other than "it should" be worth more. If it was worth more, they would be getting paid more. What you are saying is simply ludicrously obvious. Occum's Razor - if the sport was worth more the conferences would be getting more. They aren't. The market works fine with things like this.

 

[rfjeff9]

The B1G is also motivated by money. The SEC and the B1G are just alike there. The B1G is just more picky with regard to academics and AAU. But that is a secondary consideration, not a primary consideration. They aren't making moves to make moves. They move to make money. Ga Tech and even the cable market in Atlanta don't make money at a level that would be required. I wrote an article that Rivals ran a week or so ago. I am going to post it here. But to your point, you are totally, 100% wrong about 10 years ago and today. 10 years ago when the conference networks comprised a large percentage of the overall revenue it made sense to move into areas to get basic cable. That was clearly the move. But you are using old thinking in a new world. That no longer makes sense for a bunch of reasons, but the main one is that the basic cable market has gone from 90 million households to 40 million by 2027. It will comprise about 20% of revenue by 2026-27.

The main thing that matters is viewers, period. The average number of viewers, and teams that can generate games that have 4 million-plus viewers. That is what drives revenue. That and getting to the CFP. That is where the money is and will be. Geographical areas don't and won't matter nearly as much as 10 years ago. I've typed it 3 or 4 times already. If the LA market, 2nd largest in the US, with 2 teams that dominate that market only provides $17.5 million in annual revenue to the B1G, and that is a declining number, how much do you really think the Ga Tech delivers with Atlanta?

Finally, and with all due respect, you are not coming back. Your school has totally transformed itself. It's all about academics. You've not drawn well for years. You get little support. You are not going to be an NIL player. You have UGA who will get the pick of any Georgia players so long as Smart is there. You have academics that limit who you can let in (that's an admirable thing to me, a Vandy undergrad). 10 years of being in the ACC, $50 million per year behind other schools in the area doom you. While they are marginal candidates, UVa and UNC are much better candidates that are also AAU. And the B1G can choose to build west with Oregon, Washington, Cal, and Stanford if they want to. All are AAU, all high-end academic schools, and all with better TV money and/or way better brands.

Here are your attendance numbers (2013 - 2017):

2017​	2016​	2015​	2014​	2013​	Average​
46885​	47503​	50707​	48519​	49077​	48538.20​

In 2021 you averaged 37,819. You are going in the wrong direction.

I know this sounds like a UGA fan hating on Tech, but I've told you before I don't hate Tech. I respect it, have friends that went there, and kids of friends who have gone there. It's a fantastic school. It's just not a football power and IMO won't ever be again. You guys thinking you are being considered for the B1G is just delusional.

You have your head completely buried in the sand here. GT isn't being considered right now because nobody is being considered right now. When consideration begins again, GT will be in the discussion. Just like a handful of others. Will they be invited, probably not. But they have a shot. To say they don't is an "absolute" that you cannot substantiate.

Try to get past the idea that it's all about money. It isn't. B1G schools have recognized a very real need to get recruits from the deep south. They aren't able to compete with the Alabamas and Georgia's today and outside of Ohio State it isn't remotely close. They know they have to do better on the recruiting trail here and this is one of the ways to do it. Not the only way, but playing games in Atlanta is a bigger deal than you give credit.

Posting market share stats, crowd draw numbers, TVs, or stadium attendance doesn't mean anything because contrary to what you may think, the B1G and the SEC have completely different objectives amd strategies for future expansion if there is any past ND. Yes they look at money, but unlike SEC they are also taking into consideration a few other items because the objective is different and not isolated to money.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

You have your head completely buried in the sand here. GT isn't being considered right now because nobody is being considered right now. When consideration begins again, GT will be in the discussion. Just like a handful of others. Will they be invited, probably not. But they have a shot. To say they don't is an "absolute" that you cannot substantiate.

Try to get past the idea that it's all about money. It isn't. B1G schools have recognized a very real need to get recruits from the deep south. They aren't able to compete with the Alabamas and Georgia's today and outside of Ohio State it isn't remotely close. They know they have to do better on the recruiting trail here and this is one of the ways to do it. Not the only way, but playing games in Atlanta is a bigger deal than you give credit.

Posting market share stats, crowd draw numbers, TVs, or stadium attendance doesn't mean anything because contrary to what you may think, the B1G and the SEC have completely different objectives amd strategies for future expansion if there is any past ND. Yes they look at money, but unlike SEC they are also taking into consideration a few other items because the objective is different and not isolated to money.

I did substantiate what I wrote, and it is all about money. As to which of us has his head in the sand, you say it's not about money when it clearly is, and you say the market stats, crowd draw numbers, TVs, and attendance don't mean anything when that is what exactly matters the most. You focus on what happened 10 years ago when that has shifted dramatically - that's not just me, that's well known and has been discussed by many. One of us may well have his head in the sand. I am pretty confident it isn't me.

 

[Volbound1700]

The key to watch is Clemson. SEC has it kind of nice because they can watch Clemson over a 10-year period and see if they maintain their current value.

College Football changes a lot in a 10-year period. Teams that we talk about as great fall off and new teams emerge. Keep in mind that from the decade 2000-2010, Alabama was pretty mediocre until that 2009 title. Alabama dominated 2010-2020. Clemson was nothing from 2000-2010 and they dominated 2014-2019 time period.

With the exception of Ohio State and Oklahoma, no team has been consistently good from 2000-2022. College Football will eventually shift with teams like USC, Texas, Michigan, Nebraska, Tennessee, Miami, or some other fallen powers coming back while some current powers like Alabama or Clemson may fall off again. This is the way the sport works. It doesn't change every 5-6 years, it takes 10-15 years for programs to decline or rise.

 

[rfjeff9]

I did substantiate what I wrote, and it is all about money. As to which of us has his head in the sand, you say it's not about money when it clearly is, and you say the market stats, crowd draw numbers, TVs, and attendance don't mean anything when that is what exactly matters the most. You focus on what happened 10 years ago when that has shifted dramatically - that's not just me, that's well known and has been discussed by many. One of us may well have his head in the sand. I am pretty confident it isn't me.

Sure it is. B1G is not SEC.

And from your own article you mention GT a few times as a B1G candidate.

But I thought they were not a consideration. Dont you believe what you wrote?




But wait I thiught it was all about money. But in your article you say....


On summary in your own article you at least give GT a chance. But here you seem to backtrack.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Sure it is. B1G is not SEC.

And from your own article you mention GT a few times as a B1G candidate.

But I thought they were not a consideration. Dont you believe what you wrote?

View attachment 77933


But wait I thiught it was all about money. But in your article you say....
View attachment 77934

On summary in your own article you at least give GT a chance. But here you seem to backtrack.

But I don't. I list them with all the schools that might be on a list that either conference would consider. I have Wake and Kasas and NCSU on there, too, and none of them have a chance. I then eliminate them along with a lot of other teams. You had them as being a top 3 team. They aren't. I have listed the teams that have a shot, IMO, for a 20 or 22 team expansion.

 

[rfjeff9]

But I don't. I list them with all the schools that might be on a list that either conference would consider. I have Wake and Kasas and NCSU on there, too, and none of them have a chance. I then eliminate them along with a lot of other teams. You had them as being a top 3 team. They aren't. I have listed the teams that have a shot, IMO, for a 20 or 22 team expansion.

Ok. Guess we'll see in 10 years then. I'll agree to disagree.

 

[duckboy33]

Pete Thamel of ESPN speculated that a western wing of the ACC could be added if the PAC numbers come in lower than OR and WA want. I have to assume that means Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal/Utah join the ACC. Still feels weird to think about but it makes some sense financially for both sides