Division 1 College Conference Realignment

[2001mark]

As an FSU fan, the less than superb post Miami/VATech/etc era hasn't actually been all that bad, & I don't simply mean because of a national championship.

In effect, FSU has remained a bit of an island unto itself, or dare one says an Independent.  They're the big fish in that smaller pond, & they've not been penalized much for it.   Sure, ppl can claim that a single loss could kill a season... & yet their ridiculous annual rankings prove that it works both ways - having a bit of a more manageable schedule, with all due respect, keeps them in the title picture on an annual basis.  So too for Miami if they could figure it out.  

If FSU went to the SEC or Big 12 or absurdly the Big 10, they'd become trapped in a land of parity.  Sure they could lose 2-3 games a year & look strong... but they'd be doing that with at least another half dozen+ to compete in what remains a land of human & computer rankings.
If today's Tennessee or Texas A&M or Penn State ever fell into the ACC, I'd argue they might find easier paths to the title picture. 

 

But then again, the ACC trails in tv & money & all that jazz... which as these slew of posts & links have shown trumps all & thus my entire rant invalid.

[Burmy]

Only ACC moves I think should be made right now is getting Cincinnati and/or UConn on board...

[Geoff]

On 3/30/2016 at 10:52 PM, 2001mark said:

As an FSU fan, the less than superb post Miami/VATech/etc era hasn't actually been all that bad, & I don't simply mean because of a national championship.

In effect, FSU has remained a bit of an island unto itself, or dare one says an Independent.  They're the big fish in that smaller pond, & they've not been penalized much for it.   Sure, ppl can claim that a single loss could kill a season... & yet their ridiculous annual rankings prove that it works both ways - having a bit of a more manageable schedule, with all due respect, keeps them in the title picture on an annual basis.  So too for Miami if they could figure it out.  

If FSU went to the SEC or Big 12 or absurdly the Big 10, they'd become trapped in a land of parity.  Sure they could lose 2-3 games a year & look strong... but they'd be doing that with at least another half dozen+ to compete in what remains a land of human & computer rankings.
If today's Tennessee or Texas A&M or Penn State ever fell into the ACC, I'd argue they might find easier paths to the title picture. 

 

But then again, the ACC trails in tv & money & all that jazz... which as these slew of posts & links have shown trumps all & thus my entire rant invalid.

 

FSU ain't going anywhere. The ACC members all signed a deal where they'd forfeit media rights money if they left. Considering the process is usually at least two years, they're not leaving unless some other conference says, "here! Here's $60M!"

[CLEstones]

On 3/30/2016 at 11:16 PM, HedleyLamarr said:

On 3/29/2016 at 6:59 PM, BlackBolt3 said:

Can I get a link to this source you have found? I assume it's a Twitter account, but I'll gladly be wrong.

 

None of this truly correlates, here's why:

1. None of these schools have $50 million to waste on leaving the ACC

2. Neither Florida State nor North Carolina have anything to prove being in the Big Ten. Both schools just won national championships in their respective sports that people know them for, and I'm not entirely sure they would want to uproot and destroy rivalries with fellow conference members.

3. If the end game is to get Georgia Tech, why? They don't fit amongst the rest of the land grant, flagship universities. The only conceivable reason is the Atlanta market, which might not even matter, due to the increasing popularity of "cable cutting" providers (a la Netflix).

4. If Notre Dame wanted to join a conference by now, I'm sure they would've. Obviously, they wish to stay independent, and probably will stay that way until forced. Also, they would have to pay up to the ACC as well for the remainder of their teams.

 

All this would've been plausible 5 years ago when the ACC was seen as vulnerable and on shaky ground, but at this point, I'm pretty sure everyone is locked in. But hey, I thought Maryland had some sense to stay.

That $50 million exit fee, while steep, isn't a deterrent for a school that's looking to leave.  Athletic departments can do some fundraisers....

 

Here is what you are missing.  The Big Ten Network is estimating upwards of $40-$45 million pay out, PER SCHOOL, with the new television contract.  Now granted, each school doesn't get fully vested until they have been in the Big Ten for 6 years, but still, after 6 years, FSU would get a complete return on investment, and years 1-5 would have been complete profit.  Think about it... even if Year 1 was $10 million, Year 2 was $15 million, Year 3 was $20 million, Year 4 was $30 million, and Year 5 was $40 million.  That's incredible.  And that's not including ANY additional revenue from thew markets; Florida, Atlanta, North Carolina...

 

Just for comparisons, an article dated from June 2015, on NBC Sports:

Quote

Purdue reportedly received a payout from the Big Ten in the amount of $32 million. Not bad a for a college football team that won three games last year, and just four games over the past two years. It is also about $12 million more than Florida State received from the ACC for the past year.

Sauce: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/18/big-ten-revenue-shares-jump-to-32-million-per-school/

 

 

 

[MJWalker45]

The Big Ten does not need to expand. Reaching all the way to Florida isn't necessary as long as they can recruit top athletes to places like West Lafayette and Bloomington. If Notre Dame decided that the Big Ten was better for them across the board, that may force NBC to cancel the Notre Dame contract, or most likely buy into Big Ten football. With three big networks paying into the league, Notre Dame would be able to get their exit fees paid off much quicker than Florida State, UNC or Georgia Tech. If that happens I would think Cincinnati, UConn or another Big XII team might be induced to come in as team number 16.

[dfwabel]

1 hour ago, CLEstones said:

 

Here is what you are missing.  The Big Ten Network is estimating upwards of $40-$45 million pay out, PER SCHOOL, with the new television contract.  Now granted, each school doesn't get fully vested until they have been in the Big Ten for 6 years, but still, after 6 years, FSU would get a complete return on investment, and years 1-5 would have been complete profit.  Think about it... even if Year 1 was $10 million, Year 2 was $15 million, Year 3 was $20 million, Year 4 was $30 million, and Year 5 was $40 million.  That's incredible.  And that's not including ANY additional revenue from thew markets; Florida, Atlanta, North Carolina...

 

Just for comparisons, an article dated from June 2015, on NBC Sports:

Sauce: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/18/big-ten-revenue-shares-jump-to-32-million-per-school/

 

 

 

The Big Ten Conference expexts to distribute that money mentioned NOT the Big Ten Network. 

In fact, while BTN is profitable, the Purdue number you posted only has $1 million from BTN profit sharing. Plus, the Conference suspended profit sharing for two years as Rutgers and Maryland joines since building studios there is costly. The same plan would be followed in the event of any expansion. 

 

Note: While all B1G are no longer AAU members, all are "Carnegie I" institutions. Academic standing still matters. Any potential candidate would also need to be "Carnegie I".

[CLEstones]

More from @bluevodreal:

 

Quote

Hearing expansion moved along very fast while it was quiet. Sounds like 6 teams could be coming taking BIG10 to 20. Need to verify.

 

Quote

BTN deal versus money for rights to FOX and ESPN and other networks is the head scratcher I'm getting conflicting reports of what deals.

 

Quote

Ok I got clarity this is not about BTN ( deal is place until 2026) and growing rev huge every year with more eyeballs, B10 TV deal up.

 

Quote

So by adding 6 teams it wins both ways adding more rev to BTN deal and stronger rightS for $ ESPN/ABC Fox and more

 

Quote

Second source confirmed almost word for word of Expansion.

 

[Seadragon76]

To be honest, CLEstones, your source smells of total BS.

 

Why in the world would the Big Ten need to expand at this point? What schools out there would be worthy to join the league? What schools would be good enough for them to justify this?

[dfwabel]

7 minutes ago, Seadragon76 said:

To be honest, CLEstones, your source smells of total BS.

 

Why in the world would the Big Ten need to expand at this point? What schools out there would be worthy to join the league? What schools would be good enough for them to justify this?

There are a few items which "CLEstones" and the Twitter user really overlook.

 

1- Grant of Rights agreements for those currently contracted.

 

2- The next B1G TV contract may not increase as much as previously thought. The Twitter poster seemed to not mirror what SBJ's John Ourand wrote about the dealings about two weeks ago: http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/03/21/Media/Big-Ten-rights.aspx?

 

3- The BTN: There are costs in adding studios/equipment for added schools which suspends the sharing of revenues. The conference did it for two years after adding Rutgers/Maryland thus it would be suspended again for any new additions. 

http://www.jconline.com/story/mike-carmin/2015/07/16/btn-profits-increase-big-ten-revenue/30226149/

 

4- The B1G is unique in that football gate receipts for conference gamrs are part of separate revenue sharing agreement where the top revenue schools give to the lower ones.  35% of the net gate (~$1MM max.) goes into a pool, then gets split up evenly at season's end.

 

5- Big XII: Their football coaches meetings are the first week of May and their general Spring Meeting begins on May 31. Any decision(s) on a conference football title game or expansion/succession would be talked about then from OU president, Dr. David Boren.

[CLEstones]

8 hours ago, Seadragon76 said:

To be honest, CLEstones, your source smells of total BS.

 

Why in the world would the Big Ten need to expand at this point? What schools out there would be worthy to join the league? What schools would be good enough for them to justify this?

 

Hey, I said take this all with a grain of salt.  This @bluevodreal was on the subreddit for College Football.  It looks like some of his claims/predictions have actually turned out to be correct.  Some of my fellow redditors confirmed a portion of his stuff was true.

 

That being said, when it comes to expansion... this is the first time there has been any talk of 20 teams and its the first talk of multiple, MAJOR programs moving, including Georgia Tech, Florida State, and Oklahoma.

[CLEstones]

8 hours ago, dfwabel said:

There are a few items which "CLEstones" and the Twitter user really overlook.

 

1- Grant of Rights agreements for those currently contracted.

 

2- The next B1G TV contract may not increase as much as previously thought. The Twitter poster seemed to not mirror what SBJ's John Ourand wrote about the dealings about two weeks ago: http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/03/21/Media/Big-Ten-rights.aspx?

 

3- The BTN: There are costs in adding studios/equipment for added schools which suspends the sharing of revenues. The conference did it for two years after adding Rutgers/Maryland thus it would be suspended again for any new additions. 

http://www.jconline.com/story/mike-carmin/2015/07/16/btn-profits-increase-big-ten-revenue/30226149/

 

4- The B1G is unique in that football gate receipts for conference gamrs are part of separate revenue sharing agreement where the top revenue schools give to the lower ones.  35% of the net gate (~$1MM max.) goes into a pool, then gets split up evenly at season's end.

 

5- Big XII: Their football coaches meetings are the first week of May and their general Spring Meeting begins on May 31. Any decision(s) on a conference football title game or expansion/succession would be talked about then from OU president, Dr. David Boren.

 

Not sure why you put my name in quotes?

 

1 - Grant of Rights, though steep, would be peanuts compared to what the B1G and BTN would be paying out, year after year.  Yes, it would be a large financial hit initially, but after 3-5 years, those schools would be turning profits.

 

2 - Even if its not AS BIG as expect, even if its the same, its still pretty BIG.

 

3 - Again, studio costs are peanuts.  I don't think that is even in the discussion when adding teams.

 

4 - This is a good point and larger schools like Oklahoma and Florida State would and should be reluctant, but again, if they are going to be getting $30-40 million per year from the BTN... It just outweighs the negative.

[dfwabel]

5 hours ago, CLEstones said:

 

Not sure why you put my name in quotes?

 

1 - Grant of Rights, though steep, would be peanuts compared to what the B1G and BTN would be paying out, year after year.  Yes, it would be a large financial hit initially, but after 3-5 years, those schools would be turning profits.

 

2 - Even if its not AS BIG as expect, even if its the same, its still pretty BIG.

 

3 - Again, studio costs are peanuts.  I don't think that is even in the discussion when adding teams.

 

4 - This is a good point and larger schools like Oklahoma and Florida State would and should be reluctant, but again, if they are going to be getting $30-40 million per year from the BTN... It just outweighs the negative.

The costs associated with the BTN (Big Ten Network) are not "peanuts".  They were large enough for the conference presidents/chancellors to suspend network profit sharing/distribution for two years.  Plus, even with adding more schools, the individual slice of the pie gets smaller.  FOX gets 51% of the profits currently, so even with adding schools in population rich states, 20 "investors" will split the remaining 49%. 

 

 

[CLEstones]

2 hours ago, dfwabel said:

The costs associated with the BTN (Big Ten Network) are not "peanuts".  They were large enough for the conference presidents/chancellors to suspend network profit sharing/distribution for two years.  Plus, even with adding more schools, the individual slice of the pie gets smaller.  FOX gets 51% of the profits currently, so even with adding schools in population rich states, 20 "investors" will split the remaining 49%. 

 

 

 

That's fine.  I am assuming if this is true, like when they added Nebraska and again when they added Maryland and Rutgers, that the B1G did some sort profit and revenue sharing split analysis.  It would seem that adding the markets from Rutgers and Maryland seemed to work well.

[Chicageaux]

I really can't comment much on realignment, mostly because there's nothing really to talk about, and also because I don't know what goes on in the inner-workings of the Big Ten, ACC, or Big 12. But, no conference will be expanding to 20 teams in the near future.

[pianoknight]

On 4/7/2016 at 1:41 PM, CLEstones said:

 

That's fine.  I am assuming if this is true, like when they added Nebraska and again when they added Maryland and Rutgers, that the B1G did some sort profit and revenue sharing split analysis.  It would seem that adding the markets from Rutgers and Maryland seemed to work well.

 

Yup.  Here's what you need to know about Big Ten expansion: if the league has member schools in the footprint of media markets, they reap a bigger share of profit from those subscribers.  In other words, the Big Ten gets more money from someone who subscribes and lives in Pennsylvania (Penn State) than someone who subscribes, but lives in Texas (no Big Ten schools in the market).

 

To make money, you either need a team with a strong national following or access to large media markets.  In the first case, a team like Nebraska brings a large national following, so you get subscribers at a higher rate (in the state of Nebraska) and then a perhaps larger number of subscribers who live out-of-market.  I'm a good example here as a Husker fan living in Oregon.  The Big Ten makes less money off me than a Husker fan living in Nebraska, but again, a school with a large national draw makes up for this.  It's a reason that schools like Oklahoma have been occasionally mentioned in future expansion talk.

 

The second option - a large media market - is what the Big Ten gained through Rutgers and Maryland.  While there are objectively fewer Rutgers or Maryland fans who subscribe to the Big Ten Network than say, Ohio State or Michigan, those two schools bring the collective Washington-Baltimore-Philly-Jersey-NYC media markets.  Millions of millions of people.

 

And remember, that the conference makes a larger percentage from subscribers INSIDE their footprint?  So teams like Maryland and Rutgers don't necessarily have to bring large numbers by themselves, because how many other Husker-Buckeye-Wolverine-Nittany Lion-Badger-Gopher-etc fans do you think live in that Mid-Atlantic corridor?  Maryland and Rutgers give the Big Ten a way to make exponentially more money off the rest of their fan base who lives in arguably the most dense region in the nation, outside maybe the LA-San Diego madness.

 

To avoid cutting the same pie into smaller pieces, the only real contenders for future Big Ten expansion must either be {a} schools with large national followings and boatloads of potential subscribers, or {b} a school that brings access to a media market untapped currently by the Big Ten.  It's why schools like Virginia Tech are unlikely candidates (although had been previously mentioned) because they don't provide any real additional access that Maryland does not.  

 

The combo of Oklahoma and Kansas provides an interesting mix, notably because of Kansas' access to Kansas City and St. Louis, which are large metro areas the Big Ten is not serving.  They already have NYC and Chicago - and SoCal is just too far out of the region - so I'd look for any future expansion to aim for the remaining Midwest metro hubs.  Texas provides a double whammy since the Longhorns have both a big national draw AND huge, untapped media markets, but like Notre Dame, their thirst for independence remains too strong, in all likelihood.

[CLEstones]

More from @bluevodreal :

 

Quote

Latest Expansion. Same schools as before looking like IF a deal is done FSU may be first. Duke not sure on, only heard them recently.ND?HF?

 

Quote

Even though I have been told Duke my 2 sources I just do not buy it. It does not make sense $$$. ND makes sense but are they all in?

 

Quote

Lawyers are saying put a fork in the ACC GOR.

 

 

[pcgd]

On April 11, 2016 at 5:08 PM, pianoknight said:

The combo of Oklahoma and Kansas provides an interesting mix, notably because of Kansas' access to Kansas City and St. Louis, which are large metro areas the Big Ten is not serving.

 

How does Kansas give them more access to St. Louis than Illinois does? St. Louis is like 60/40 Missouri/Illinois now. Missouri hates Kansas. Maybe I'm missing something?

 

Speaking of, although it worked out better for Missouri football going to the SEC, Missouri should be in the Big Ten over Rutgers. I know the timelines are different so it's not an either or situation, but Missouri feels like a Big Ten team way more than Rutgers and it would have been a nice way to tie Nebraska into the footprint a bit more. Kinda feel the same way about Maryland but not as much...

 

Although a part of me is really interested in all of this expansion stuff and I love to imagine scenarios where the Big Ten and SEC have 20 teams, I hate what its done to college sports. Nothing makes sense, (I know its a bad joke, but the Big 12 has 10 teams, the Big Ten has 14 teams) teams only play 3/4 of the teams in football and some teams twice and others once in basketball...non-revenue sports having to travel from Nebraska to New Jersey for a regular season game...Big Ten basketball tournament is going to be in NYC and DC....its just not like it used to be...

[CLEstones]

On 4/14/2016 at 9:22 AM, pcgd said:

 

Speaking of, although it worked out better for Missouri football going to the SEC, Missouri should be in the Big Ten over Rutgers. I know the timelines are different so it's not an either or situation, but Missouri feels like a Big Ten team way more than Rutgers and it would have been a nice way to tie Nebraska into the footprint a bit more. Kinda feel the same way about Maryland but not as much...

 

 

This always bugged me.  Missouri was a great rival for Nebraska and the B1G has always been about tradition.  I think they had Missouri in the long term plans, but when they decided they weren't going to be left at the table and jumped the the SEC, I think it put a kink in the B1G's immediate plans.

 

They fit much better geographically and culturally with the B1G as opposed to the SEC.  However, I think Rutgers and Maryland were always, ALWAYS in the B1G's long term plans... regardless if they picked up Missouri or not.

[CLEstones]

@bluevodreal

 

Quote

I know first hand FSU is leading talks and lawyers have cleared that GOR for ACC is unforceable. Could be first Domino.

 

[Geoff]

Minot State and Simon Fraser both considering moves to D1 in hockey

 

SFU is the NCAA's only Canadian school and they currently have a club level team competing in the BCIHL.

 

Minot State currently has a fairly successful ACHA club team.