bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 16, 2023 10:50:04 GMT -5
I’d definitely put North Carolina in tier 1. They’re a flagship school in a lucrative and growing media market. I do understand football drives these discussions, but North Carolina has enough other things going for it. And it’s not like football is terrible. It’s just not elite. It also helps that there’s no other SEC school in the state, which is an issue that has to be overcome for Clemson and the two Florida schools. I’m not saying that makes those three schools a non starter, but it is something that has to be overcome. I’ll also say the economics for basketball change drastically when a different entity chooses to host its own basketball tournament, which is going to happen eventually. I understand the argument for North Carolina, but I don't think they move the needle in football. If the SEC were to take four teams from the ACC, I think North Carolina might make the cut, but they would be the fourth team to get the invite. I'm not convinced that FSU, Miami or Clemson would be left out because of other SEC schools in their state. Maybe if the Big Ten wasn't a threat to take them, but I don't think the SEC would want to risk that. But I guess we'll see. Now, you could be right that basketball will be more valuable in the future than it is now. It seems that Brett Yormark also believes this, though that can be attributed to his basketball background and the Big 12's presence as a top basketball conference. But he could be right, as he seems pretty visionary. I believe it is market, not necessarily football success. These are very much interrelated - good football teams will generate more interest and fans in their state. I don't know this - but I am thinking North Carolina is a big deal in the state of North Carolina. And this isn't some small state - and this is a 'football' state. I think they have real $ value in a TV deal.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 16, 2023 11:11:22 GMT -5
I understand the argument for North Carolina, but I don't think they move the needle in football. If the SEC were to take four teams from the ACC, I think North Carolina might make the cut, but they would be the fourth team to get the invite. I'm not convinced that FSU, Miami or Clemson would be left out because of other SEC schools in their state. Maybe if the Big Ten wasn't a threat to take them, but I don't think the SEC would want to risk that. But I guess we'll see. Now, you could be right that basketball will be more valuable in the future than it is now. It seems that Brett Yormark also believes this, though that can be attributed to his basketball background and the Big 12's presence as a top basketball conference. But he could be right, as he seems pretty visionary. I believe it is market, not necessarily football success. These are very much interrelated - good football teams will generate more interest and fans in their state. I don't know this - but I am thinking North Carolina is a big deal in the state of North Carolina. And this isn't some small state - and this is a 'football' state. I think they have real $ value in a TV deal. I believe it's actually football brand strength, not just success unless you're winning national titles or making consistent runs to the CFP. That level of football success dramatically increases football brand strength. This is why Clemson is likely to get an invite now but wouldn't 10 years ago. Also, I don't really think of North Carolina as a football state. Every major university in that state (North Carolina, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest) are basketball schools.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 16, 2023 11:21:08 GMT -5
I believe it is market, not necessarily football success. These are very much interrelated - good football teams will generate more interest and fans in their state. I don't know this - but I am thinking North Carolina is a big deal in the state of North Carolina. And this isn't some small state - and this is a 'football' state. I think they have real $ value in a TV deal. I believe it's actually football brand strength, not just success unless you're winning national titles or making consistent runs to the CFP. That level of football success dramatically increases football brand strength. This is why Clemson is likely to get an invite now but wouldn't 10 years ago. Also, I don't really think of North Carolina as a football state. Every major university in that state (North Carolina, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest) are basketball schools. Every state in the South is big on Football. If we look at HS football - North Carolina is probably top 5 after Texas, Florida, and Georgia, certainly top 10. $ value is based on how many fans are watching NC games on TV, not how many games NC wins.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 16, 2023 12:25:34 GMT -5
I believe it's actually football brand strength, not just success unless you're winning national titles or making consistent runs to the CFP. That level of football success dramatically increases football brand strength. This is why Clemson is likely to get an invite now but wouldn't 10 years ago. Also, I don't really think of North Carolina as a football state. Every major university in that state (North Carolina, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest) are basketball schools. Every state in the South is big on Football. If we look at HS football - North Carolina is probably top 5 after Texas, Florida, and Georgia, certainly top 10. $ value is based on how many fans are watching NC games on TV, not how many games NC wins. But you need a national brand to really move the needle in football. North Carolina alone won't provide enough viewers. The true brands (e.g. Alabama, Notre Dame) get casual fans from all across the country to tune in, and that's why they're valuable. No one really cares about UNC football outside of hardcore fans. Now, if men's basketball becomes a lot more valuable than it is now, that would obviously make North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, UConn, etc. more valuable.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 16, 2023 14:17:55 GMT -5
Every state in the South is big on Football. If we look at HS football - North Carolina is probably top 5 after Texas, Florida, and Georgia, certainly top 10. $ value is based on how many fans are watching NC games on TV, not how many games NC wins. But you need a national brand to really move the needle in football. North Carolina alone won't provide enough viewers. The true brands (e.g. Alabama, Notre Dame) get casual fans from all across the country to tune in, and that's why they're valuable. No one really cares about UNC football outside of hardcore fans. Now, if men's basketball becomes a lot more valuable than it is now, that would obviously make North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, UConn, etc. more valuable. Is there really much of a 'national' brand outside of Notre Dame? Seems like everything else is regional to the college location plus graduates living around the states. I guess watching teams in the top 10 play games that counts - but that is mostly a zero sum game for each conference.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 16, 2023 14:44:21 GMT -5
But you need a national brand to really move the needle in football. North Carolina alone won't provide enough viewers. The true brands (e.g. Alabama, Notre Dame) get casual fans from all across the country to tune in, and that's why they're valuable. No one really cares about UNC football outside of hardcore fans. Now, if men's basketball becomes a lot more valuable than it is now, that would obviously make North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, UConn, etc. more valuable. Is there really much of a 'national' brand outside of Notre Dame? Yes there is. This is why the SEC wanted Oklahoma and Texas and the Big Ten wanted USC. Even if the argument about market/state size could explain Texas and USC, it doesn't explain Oklahoma, which has a population of around 4 million. It is the strength of Oklahoma's football brand that matters.
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on May 16, 2023 14:51:10 GMT -5
Every state in the South is big on Football. If we look at HS football - North Carolina is probably top 5 after Texas, Florida, and Georgia, certainly top 10. $ value is based on how many fans are watching NC games on TV, not how many games NC wins. But you need a national brand to really move the needle in football. North Carolina alone won't provide enough viewers. The true brands (e.g. Alabama, Notre Dame) get casual fans from all across the country to tune in, and that's why they're valuable. No one really cares about UNC football outside of hardcore fans. Now, if men's basketball becomes a lot more valuable than it is now, that would obviously make North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, UConn, etc. more valuable. At this point what's left for national football brands? As you say, they're few and far between. Florida State is slowly being devalued - but still valuable IMO. Clemson is valuable, but I'd argue provisional. If they go downward, I'd imagine broad viewership falls off quickly. Obviously that's true for most winning programs, but I think it's particularly true with Clemson among current football powers. Oregon may be a fairly strong brand - people definitely know it due to the Nike connection, and the permutations of their green and yellow uniforms. Plus "Ducks" is unique. North Carolina's general brand - the iconic Carolina blue, academic reputation, basketball blue blood status - is stronger than it's football brand. Not that the need be totally separate from each other.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 16, 2023 14:55:27 GMT -5
Is there really much of a 'national' brand outside of Notre Dame? Yes there is. This is why the SEC wanted Oklahoma and Texas and the Big Ten wanted USC. Even if the argument about market/state size could explain Texas and USC, it doesn't explain Oklahoma, which has a population of around 4 million. It is the strength of Oklahoma's football brand that matters. Oklahoma and Nebraska have smallish state populations that has extremely high % of their population that are huge fans of their football team and will watch all of their games. Go just about anywhere in Nebraska on a Saturday - and they are probably watching the Cornhuskers play football. UCLA/USC get a tiny fraction of the % of people interested compared to Nebraska and Oklahoma - but are sitting in such an enormous pool of people that it starts to even out. I don't think this has much to do with the millions of non graduates from those schools spread out across the country that are specifically following and watching those teams play.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 16, 2023 14:59:09 GMT -5
Yes there is. This is why the SEC wanted Oklahoma and Texas and the Big Ten wanted USC. Even if the argument about market/state size could explain Texas and USC, it doesn't explain Oklahoma, which has a population of around 4 million. It is the strength of Oklahoma's football brand that matters. Oklahoma and Nebraska have smallish state populations that has extremely high % of their population that are huge fans of their football team and will watch all of their games. Go just about anywhere in Nebraska on a Saturday - and they are probably watching the Cornhuskers play football. UCLA/USC get a tiny fraction of the % of people interested compared to Nebraska and Oklahoma - but are sitting in such an enormous pool of people that it starts to even out. I don't think this has much to do with the millions of non graduates from those schools spread out across the country that are specifically following and watching those teams play. I think you're underestimating how important casual fans from across the country are to the TV networks. I'm not sure what I could say at this point that would cause you to change your opinion, which is fine. I don't find the arguments to the contrary persuasive, so I'll respectfully just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on May 22, 2023 9:18:52 GMT -5
We knew it wasn't over. He may as well have just come out and said Washington and Oregon.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,440
|
Post by bluepenquin on May 31, 2023 8:04:52 GMT -5
www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/colorado-holds-substantive-talks-with-big-12-as-buffaloes-consider-leaving-pac-12/Dodd reporting that Colorado and B12 holding 'substantive' talks. Other reporting has said that Colorado is reasonably close to moving to the B12. Some things new (to me) in the article. The B12 TV contract will allow any expansion of any P5 school w/o changing the tier 1 revenue per school ($31.7M). That would help explain why the B12 would be so interested in adding PAC schools - in that it wouldn't decrease the money to the existing schools and the new schools wouldn't have to take less money. Colorado (and any of the other corner schools) would join in 2025. This surprised me in that the P12 contract expires in July 2024, so I wouldn't think there wouldn't be anything keeping them sticking around another year? I had been thinking given the B12/PAC situation - a conference move would take place in July 2024 and not 2025? Not new news - continued speculation that if Colorado was to move - Arizona and Arizona State and possibly Utah would follow. I guess I thought those schools would be working together on a possible move (like TX/OU and USC/UCLA) - but then I guess Colorado is/should be thinking about themselves here and they may be willing unilaterally set in motion change. Does the B12 want Colorado w/o another PAC school? They certainly aren't going to consider any other school (anyone outside the P5 would decrease the $'s/school and no one can move from the ACC - and no one is going to move from the B1G/SEC). Are they willing to go with an odd number of schools (which would actually be great for volleyball since Oklahoma State doesn't play the sport)?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on May 31, 2023 8:38:22 GMT -5
www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/colorado-holds-substantive-talks-with-big-12-as-buffaloes-consider-leaving-pac-12/Dodd reporting that Colorado and B12 holding 'substantive' talks. Other reporting has said that Colorado is reasonably close to moving to the B12. Some things new (to me) in the article. The B12 TV contract will allow any expansion of any P5 school w/o changing the tier 1 revenue per school ($31.7M). That would help explain why the B12 would be so interested in adding PAC schools - in that it wouldn't decrease the money to the existing schools and the new schools wouldn't have to take less money. Colorado (and any of the other corner schools) would join in 2025. This surprised me in that the P12 contract expires in July 2024, so I wouldn't think there wouldn't be anything keeping them sticking around another year? I had been thinking given the B12/PAC situation - a conference move would take place in July 2024 and not 2025? Not new news - continued speculation that if Colorado was to move - Arizona and Arizona State and possibly Utah would follow. I guess I thought those schools would be working together on a possible move (like TX/OU and USC/UCLA) - but then I guess Colorado is/should be thinking about themselves here and they may be willing unilaterally set in motion change. Does the B12 want Colorado w/o another PAC school? They certainly aren't going to consider any other school (anyone outside the P5 would decrease the $'s/school and no one can move from the ACC - and no one is going to move from the B1G/SEC). Are they willing to go with an odd number of schools (which would actually be great for volleyball since Oklahoma State doesn't play the sport)? The pro rata clause only applies to ESPN's share of the new TV deal. Fox would still need to sign off to get the same money. I suspect that Fox would be fine with, say, Colorado. But they might balk at paying for say, Oregon State (or Wake Forest if the ACC were to break up soon).
|
|
|
Post by aardvark on May 31, 2023 9:05:39 GMT -5
The pro rata clause only applies to ESPN's share of the new TV deal. Fox would still need to sign off to get the same money. I suspect that Fox would be fine with, say, Colorado. But they might balk at paying for say, Oregon State (or Wake Forest if the ACC were to break up soon). Wake just won the NCAA title in women's golf. While you were napping, they became a true sports juggernaut.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on May 31, 2023 9:36:44 GMT -5
www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/colorado-holds-substantive-talks-with-big-12-as-buffaloes-consider-leaving-pac-12/Dodd reporting that Colorado and B12 holding 'substantive' talks. Other reporting has said that Colorado is reasonably close to moving to the B12. Some things new (to me) in the article. The B12 TV contract will allow any expansion of any P5 school w/o changing the tier 1 revenue per school ($31.7M). That would help explain why the B12 would be so interested in adding PAC schools - in that it wouldn't decrease the money to the existing schools and the new schools wouldn't have to take less money. Colorado (and any of the other corner schools) would join in 2025. This surprised me in that the P12 contract expires in July 2024, so I wouldn't think there wouldn't be anything keeping them sticking around another year? I had been thinking given the B12/PAC situation - a conference move would take place in July 2024 and not 2025? Not new news - continued speculation that if Colorado was to move - Arizona and Arizona State and possibly Utah would follow. I guess I thought those schools would be working together on a possible move (like TX/OU and USC/UCLA) - but then I guess Colorado is/should be thinking about themselves here and they may be willing unilaterally set in motion change. Does the B12 want Colorado w/o another PAC school? They certainly aren't going to consider any other school (anyone outside the P5 would decrease the $'s/school and no one can move from the ACC - and no one is going to move from the B1G/SEC). Are they willing to go with an odd number of schools (which would actually be great for volleyball since Oklahoma State doesn't play the sport)? I believe a minimum amount of notice officially advising that school is leaving the conference is required; think it is 18 or 24 months. I recall when USC/UCLA announced they were leaving it was on a date right at the minimum notice required.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 31, 2023 10:00:21 GMT -5
Part of me likes thinking about the possibilities, and part of me just wants them to get to the end where the top half of the Big 10, SEC take Notre Dame and a handful of others and make one super conference. What Alabama and Ohio State and friends are doing is hardly college sports anymore anyway.
|
|