Texas A&M to SEC? Roaring expansion tidal wave imminent?
by KyleSLamb on Aug 11, 2011 10:56 PM EDT
Email
PrintIf a report from the Texas A&M rivals affiliate is to be believed, Division I athletics is on the brink of a massive tidal wave steaming ahead for conference coasts.
Thursday evening, Aggieyell.com reported that Texas A&M is on its way to the SEC, pending approval by Board of Regents at an August 22 meeting (update: meeting moved to next Monday, the 15th) and final SEC approval by league presidents. If the report comes to fruition, it will inevitably trigger the second wave of conference expansion -- this time stopping only when we derive at four 16-team megaconferences.
When the Big 12 was rescued last summer with a television rights deal from Fox, that Sports Business Journal now estimates at $90 million annually for the next 13 years, it was widely believed talks of expansion had simmered. The hot potato, however, started getting passed around when ESPN upset the applecart with a $300 million, 20-year deal for Texas to distribute the Longhorn Television Network.
With the network since creating several issues, including whether or not it could broadcast games of Texas recruits and whether ESPN could show some Big 12 games on the network in lieu of ABC, ESPN or ESPN2, the contempt (or perhaps buyer's remorse) has become more evident by Texas A&M for its in-state peers. It has been no secret the Aggies favored the SEC all along.
If, perhaps when, Texas A&M bolts for greener pastures East of the bayou, expansion will again rev up in full-force.
Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott has reportedly already hinted tonight they are actively considering their conference's future, perhaps paving the way for an aggressive offer to Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Texas to expand their conference to 16 teams.
Rumors are rampant that the SEC will, at least in the short term, add A&M as a 13th team beginning next season, then choose from Florida State, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Missouri or even Louisville as a 14th team beginning in 2013. The Big Ten, meanwhile, continues to target Texas and Notre Dame to the West and Rutgers and Maryland remain prominent names to the East given their AAU membership and presence in large media markets.
Clearly, it's an unstable time in conference affiliation. The ACC could potentially lose 2-3 teams and wind up taking the existing Big East football conference, sans Rutgers (and TCU) to get to 16. While Missouri should find a home to its North or South, Iowa State, Baylor and Kansas State might have to settle for second-rate status in a newly minted "Midwest" version of the Big East along with TCU and some select Conference-USA members.
Stay tuned for more analysis next week, as we delve deep into the finances/dynamics of expansion, and detail a radical consideration for alignment that could cater to many of the nuances of the NCAA.
43 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
All of this because UT got their own network and bought a 2nd game to show?
TA&M is nuts. With the imbalanced revenue sharing, they are getting SECish money in a much easier field with less competition for recruiting.
They can leave but the LHN will still be there. They may even find themselves in the same conference as UT if ESPN can work a deal with ESPN (LHN) and the SEC (I give that a good chance of happening if the 3 parties have genuine interest).
I am not so certain everything else falls apart. OU and UT might just work a new deal with the networks and enjoy a larger share of the unbalanced revenue sharing plan. Okie Lite isn’t worth talking about as a separate entity from OU, TT is keeping the PAC on speed dial as a “CYA” fall back.
I don’t see 16 valid candidates to arrive at 4 super conferences.
The only way you can find 6 quality candidates in the Big12 is by stapling Okie Lite to OU and inflating Missouri,
If a Big East programs could add to anyone’s bottom line, they would have already been invited.
Finding 3 candidates among Florida State, Clemson, VT, Missouri, or Louisville adding more than their share to the SEC is a stretch.
It would be hard for the Big Ten to find 4 available programs that would add to their bottom line. They already passed on Rutgers. It doesn’t matter that MD is in a big market if that market doesn’t care about NCAAF – reference the NYC market. After decades of searching, they have only found PSU, Nebraska, UT, TA&M, and ND (and 2 of those are penciled in for other conferences). As a side, AAU may not be as important as it once was.
The PAC was already down to Utah, but does have the best chance of reaching 16. I don’t see them going lower and coming out ahead.
Even with the departures, the little dogs of the Big 12 would still have the BCS carrot to attract the best of the mid majors and keep their AQ status – it will still exist with BCS AQ status.
Expansion requires financing. ESPN may be motivated to keep teams out of the PAC and Big Ten and even pull them from the Big 12, but they have no incentive to finance Silve moving a team from the ACC to the SEC, paying more for the same product in the process.
There are a lot of gaps in the line of dominoes before you reach 4 Super conferences.
If the SBJ numbers are correct, A&M only receives $9 million a year from their current television contract. There’s probably additional television revenue I’m not seeing, but it’s definitely not equal to the $20 million or so each SEC team makes every year.
The SEC might be able to renegotiate its existing contracts with the addition of the Texas market, too, and that would push the yearly haul higher for each team. At the least, it sets up the future contract negotiations with something no other non-Big 12 BCS conference has— access to the entire state of Texas. And if Texas goes independent in response, the Big 12 will die, leaving the SEC as the only BCS conference with access to the entire state (only Texas and A&M have statewide pull.) Financially, I think it’s basically a no-brainer for A&M to jump.
Not quite
Reportedly the Big 12 collects $90 Million/year from Fox and $60 Million from ESPN.
The ESPN portion can look for a boost when it comes up in 2015-2016.
TA&M looks to get a little above the conference average thru unbalanced revenue sharing.
This comes out to a couple million more from the SEC now, the same or perhaps less after the ESPN portion is renewed (yes – Silve sold too much for too long for too little).
…so TA&M pays an exit penalty, does almost nothing about the LHN, faces increased competition for recruiting, and in return gets little to possibly less money – hardly a no brainer.
The SEC’s ESPN contract would help garner more TV exposure for TA&M.
If TA%M really wants to counter the LHN, they would be better served in the PAC or B10 with their conference networks on in Texas.
I even expect the PAC or BTN would have an easier time getting their networks in more households than the LHN.
Texas could make more in the PAC or B10 than TA&M makes in the SEC.
Texas could end up in the SEC and still have the LHN and more money.
Texas could stay in the B12 and probably make more money.
Texas could make more money and get more exposure going independent.
This is being driven by a TA&M fan base that feels slighted and would prefer the SEC over the PAC and B10, but the move won’t change their fortunes.
I expect the SEC to be able to renegotiate with ESPN so the new teams get the same share as the existing SEC teams, maybe a bit more, but not a ton more money once it is split among all the members.
It is a leap to call the Big 12 dead – even with an exodus, the leavins still have the BCS AQ carrot to attract the best of the mid majors. They should be able to keep AQ status.
This comes out to a couple million more from the SEC now, the same or perhaps less after the ESPN portion is renewed.
That can’t be accurate. From the numbers you’ve stated, given an equal revenue split, Texas A&M pulls about $15 million per year in television contacts, and we know that an equal revenue split does not exist in the Big 12. Texas receives more money from that ABC-ESPN contract than any other school. So we can be reasonably sure that A&M would make more money immediately in the SEC than the truncated Big 12.
The ABC-ESPN Big 12 deal ends in 2016. Adjusting for inflation and the demand for college sports right now guarantees the money will increase, but after Nebraska and Colorado left and Fox purchased at least 40 football games each year, the Big 12 has less to offer ESPN in the future. There’s no way ESPN will pay SEC money for the Big 12’s remaining games, even the first-tier ones.
It is a leap to call the Big 12 dead – even with an exodus, the leavins still have the BCS AQ carrot to attract the best of the mid majors. They should be able to keep AQ status.
A 10-team minimum is required for conferences to maintain automatic qualifier status for BCS games. If A&M leaves, the Big 12 will either die or acquire another program from a non-BCS conference, like BYU. That doesn’t appear to be a viable long-term strategy, though, just a makeshift tourniquet for a bleeding entity.
Not quite
The average Big 12 team would pull an average of $15 Million over the life of the current contracts. The contract amounts are easy to Google.
TA&M can expect a larger portion of the unbalanced revenue sharing than the average.
The Big 12 can expect a sizable boost when the ESPN portion is renewed.
The SEC averages $20 Million a year over the life of their broadcast contracts.
If you start at $5 Million, that gets cut twice.
Silve sold too much for too long for too little.
after Nebraska and Colorado left and Fox purchased at least 40 football games each year, the Big 12 has less to offer ESPN in the future.
They have 20 games to offer the highest bidder – same as now.
More importantly, this is the 1st selection, not the leavins of the other network selections.
There’s no way ESPN will pay SEC money for the Big 12’s remaining games, even the first-tier ones.
It isn’t ESPN alone, it is both broadcast contracts
plus
the unbalanced revenue sharing
plus
Silve having sold too much for too long for too little.
A 10-team minimum is required for conferences to maintain automatic qualifier status for BCS games.
Reference please – the East has been below 10 for a long time.
If someone leaves, there are more than enough mid majors looking to join a conference with BCS AQ status.
That doesn’t appear to be a viable long-term strategy, though, just a makeshift tourniquet for a bleeding entity.
It doesn’t take a lot in the long term to keep BCS AQ status
Be a little better than MWC (bottom of the Big 12 > bottom of the MWC)
and close though not necessarily as good as the East.
BCS AQ doesn’t require life support to maintain.
As long as they maintain BCS AQ, they can exist.
As long as they exist, they can maintain BCS AQ.
The Big 12 can expect a sizable boost when the ESPN portion is renewed.
Maybe, but that’s not really the point. As is, the SEC already makes $55 million more per year than the Big 12 in television contracts. Even with two more schools, or three when A&M joins, the revenue sharing difference between the two conferences becomes negligible at its lowest point, but it could change in favor of the SEC if there are renegotiation stipulations within the contracts.
Anyway, right now isn’t really the point, either. When A&M joins the SEC, they further the future television earning gap between the SEC and every other BCS conference— a gap that can only be closed if Texas were to join the Big 10. A&M is worth more in the SEC than they are in the Big 12, and they receive the added benefit of being the only Texas school in their new conference.
No matter how you view it, the Big 12 is a diminishing asset. Rather than wait for another team, like Missouri, to defect and destroy the conference, A&M will control their future and join the premier conference in college football today. There’s a certain stability that comes with this decision, and that’s as attractive as the future earnings.
It doesn’t take a lot in the long term to keep BCS AQ status
It takes a lot for the Big 12 to be more valuable than its conference competitors, which is really what’s up for grabs. The Big 12 television deal looked okay last year, but it’s already been surpassed by the Pac 12 deal unveiled a few weeks ago. The Pac 12 now makes $100 million more than the Big 12 each year in television revenue; replacing A&M with Houston or BYU only furthers the discrepancy.
The Big 12 cannot compete for television dollars with the three major BCS conferences (Big 10, SEC, Pac 12) any longer, making a move to either of those three conferences an obvious choice for every school in the Big 12, save Texas. When A&M leaves, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will want out, as well. The Big 12 just does not have long to live.
No, that was exactly my point
Maybe, but that’s not really the point.
Estimating inflating payments, a move to TA&M will gain a few more million now minus the B12 exit fee.
A couple years after TA&M arrives in the SEC, the amount will be virtually zero and possibly less.
In the long haul, it will be a virtual financial wash for TA&M
Anyway, right now isn’t really the point, either. When A&M joins the SEC, they further the future television earning gap between the SEC and every other BCS conference
Not quite. Look for ESPN to give the SEC enough more money such that they don’t decrease or increase each team’s shared revenue amount.
The SEC is already behind the Big Ten in shared revenue. Look for the SEC to fall to 3rd in shared revenue behind the PAC when they get their conference network rolling.
They will stay ahead of the B12 as a whole, but unless there are a lot of other departures, the Big Dogs of the B12 look to make about the same, perhaps more than the SEC teams.
It takes a lot for the Big 12 to be more valuable than its conference competitors, which is really what’s up for grabs.
No, it’s not what this is about.
I only noted the B12 keeping AQ status in terms of the conference continuing, not their ability to keep pace with the other majors.
The Big 12 cannot compete for television dollars with the three major BCS conferences (Big 10, SEC, Pac 12) any longer
Unless there are more exoduses, they can easily compete.
They are already on par with the ACC, and can narrow the gap with the SEC to virtually the same with the next contract renewal.
Silve sold too much for too long for too little.
making a move to either of those three conferences an obvious choice for every school in the Big 12, save Texas. When A&M leaves, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State will want out, as well.
No – unless there is substantially more money to be had, it is not an obvious choice, nor necessarily a wise choice.
It is much ado about nothing.
TA&M left for personal reasons, not financial. This move does little to diminish their concerns.
Nebraska’s beef was the location of the CCG, not the revenue sharing.
The big dogs certainly don’t mind the unbalanced revenue sharing, the little dogs don’t have any other major expressing interest.
The Big 12 just does not have long to live.
This is not “Brave New World” where repeating something 10,000 times makes it an accepted fact.
As long as the Big 12 maintain BCS AQ, they can exist.
As long as the Big 12 exist, they can maintain BCS AQ.
I think you are confusing "survive" with "thrive"
The remaining Big 12 schools could ‘survive’ as a conference. No question about that.
But Oklahoma, Texas, etc. they’re not looking to survive. They’re looking to do what’s economically best for their institutions. Being a second-tier league behind the SEC, Big 10 and Pac-12 is not what these schools want. They are going to make decisions that maximize their revenue and ability to compete.
If you consider future media deals, the revenue from the D-1 basketball fund (which is based on total tournament units) and sports sponsorship fund (which is based on total scholarship athletes and total sports sponsored in a conference), the revenue earned from a 14 or 16-team Pac-12, SEC, ACC or Big East would begin to really put distance out in front of the Big 12.
Baylor, Iowa State and Kansas State might just be looking to survive this. They’d be content staying at a 9 or 10-team Big 12. However, the other schools are absolutely not looking for that and that’s not what’s going to happen.
by KyleSLamb on Aug 13, 2011 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I never claimed the B12 would thrive without the big dogs
I only claimed it would survive.
They’re looking to do what’s economically best for their institutions. Being a second-tier league behind the SEC
The SEC won’t give them a revenue boost after the next broadcast contract renewal.
The Big Ten isn’t an option for OU and Okie Lite.
Without a deal that allows the LHN to continue, finances keep UT in the Big 12.
“Economically best” says to stay put.
If you consider future media deals, the revenue from the D-1 basketball fund (which is based on total tournament units)
I believe conferences give this to the program, not put it into the shared revenue kitty. If this is the case, it doesn’t being in a better conference.
sports sponsorship fund (which is based on total scholarship athletes and total sports sponsored in a conference),
Please detail – how much money does this come out to, and how is it divided? If it just flows in proportion to the program and not an equally shared kitty, it doesn’t help,
the revenue earned from a 14 or 16-team Pac-12, SEC, ACC or Big East would begin to really put distance out in front of the Big 12.
It isn’t the revenue earned by the conference, it is the revenue per program. Increasing revenue 33% doesn’t help if you add 33% more mouths at the table.
However, the other schools are absolutely not looking for that and that’s not what’s going to happen.
This is yet to be seen – but if UT-OU-Okie Lite leave it isn’t based on revenue without TA&M, and it isn’t based on unbalanced revenue sharing..
Just predicting it with a confident tone doesn’t make it a fact, particularly with almost everything else pointing to the opposite.
Right, the Big 12 could exist like the Big East currently exists, surviving on the margins of the system, but that’s not a long-term strategy. If the Pac 12 would accept Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, they would both jump, whether A&M follows through with this SEC plan or not. The question isn’t whether the Big 12 will exist five years from now— it probably will in some nominal form— but whether the available money in the scotch-taped Big 12 will be more than the potential earnings elsewhere for certain Big 12 members like A&M.
This is a leap
The PAC already offered OU and Okie Lite. OU and Okie Lite already said no. TA&M and references to long term strategy which have no basis in fact doesn’t alter the basis for their decision – the dynamics are still the same – it hinges on what UT does.
If you have some long term projections list them, don’t just throw this out as a fat hobbled together with some plausible sounding statements and expect it to be held equal to fact.
The Big 12 with OU, UT, and some notable competitors would do just fine for these programs with unbalanced revenue sharing.
Where have you seen any credible report that the Pac 12 offered both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State last season? The rumor-du-jour during last season’s expansion frenzy centered around Texas joining the Pac 12, ushering in 16-team super-conferences where the Pac 12 would have to accept other Big 12 teams. To public knowledge, there was no offer from the Pac 12 to both Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, which matters because the two teams are tied at the hip in certain ways.
It doesn’t take much projection to see the financial advantage for Oklahoma and State in the Pac 12, and it takes even less to appreciate the stability factor— there will be a strong Pac 12 five years from now, the television money guarantees it; the Big 12 can’t guarantee the same.
You are asking to go back a year...
…buried behind all of the new entries in a Google search for what you would consider a credible public source…
not to be confused with Tyler’s credible undisclosed sources?
The PAC didn’t offer membership to 6 Big 12 teams. It was a just a dream.
…and for that source, how about Powers noting 6 programs in serious discussions with PAC, as relayed to Perlman.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100830/BIGRED/708309872
You make the assumption that the Big 12 will not stabilize. TA&M is not the key to stabilizing the Big 12 – it sits with Texas, to a lesser extent OU, and to a much lesser extent Missouri. All 3 have more reason to stay in the Big 12 now.
Of course you can get more money jumping conferences, but it takes more than a little money to make the move worthwhile.
What undisclosed sources have I referenced? It’s not undisclosed that the SEC, Big Ten, ACC, and Pac 12 all make more money from television contacts than the Big 12 today, right now. It only took ten months for the Pac 12 to dwarf the Big 12’s television deal— what do you think will happen when the Big Ten renegotiates its first-tier rights deal in four years?
If A&M leaves on Monday, that will be the third team in one calendar year to jettison the Big 12 for another conference. What healthy conference loses members, let alone at such a rapid rate? I don’t see how any logical person could not view the Big 12’s demise as inevitable. Reports are already circulating that Missouri wants to follow A&M to the SEC, a year after begging the Big Ten to accept them. Nothing about the Big 12 suggests stability.
I never claimed they were healthy
What healthy conference loses members, let alone at such a rapid rate?
I claimed it was a leap to assume they wouldn’t stabilize.
TA&M was not a key to the conference viability.
Colorado certainly wasn’t.
Nebraska obviously wasn’t.
Missouri rumors are a stretch (the list of teams who want into any major is much longer than the list the major would find acceptable), but it doesn’t hinge on them.
Lets not forget the other 5 looking for a new home.
…but the Big 12 doesn’t hinge on these programs, it hinges on UTexas.
Both Oklahoma and Texas have a preference for the Big 12. Depending upon the other option, it ranges from political to financial to geographic to fan preference to athletic department preference to academics.
These are the only 2 programs that really count.
Their desire suggests future stability.
The survival after losing Colorado and Nebraska suggests stability.
5 (perhaps 6) programs having no better option suggests stability.
Okie Lite (and possibly TT) without interest on their own suggests stability.
The programs and league stating TA&M leaving isn’t a factor suggests stability.
4 of the 6 programs courted by the PAC last year stating they would stay if Texas stayed suggests stability.
Powers suggesting Texas would probably stay if Colorado and Missouri left suggests stability.
Texas having a stronger financial interest in staying with the LHN suggests stability.
OUs desire to start their own program network provides additional reason to stay, suggesting stability.
Scott refusing to let Texas out of the PAC conference network removes them as an option and suggests stability.
Surviving adversity isn’t a negative, it is a reflection of the strength of the conference nobody likes to acknowledge..
I've been predicting for several months it won't survive
My basis for this belief is that Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri will find homes in the three major conferences west of the Atlantic Coast.
The Big East will lose 7 teams to the ACC (after losing Clemson, Florida State and Maryland) and Rutgers to the Big Ten.
The new “Big East” football conference will be a western division in basketball and consist of Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State, TCU, Houston and my prediction of Memphis & UAB or Rice & SMU. Then you’ll see a new Eastern division (basketball-only) of St. John’s, Seton Hall, Providence, Villanova, Georgetown, Marquette, DePaul and St. Joe’s, Fordham or a similar eastern basketball school.
Vut what was that prediction based on?
Apparently a lot of misinformation.
1. $9 Million per team instead of $15 Million
2. The inevitable continuation of a large disparity in broadcast revenue between the B12 and the SEC.
3. A 10 team minimum for BCS AQ
4. Misconceptions about what revenue is shared and what flows directly to the program (such as NCAABB tourney).
5. The SEC having the highest shared revenue (they are already 2nd and look to be moving to 3rd)
6. The Big Ten targeting Rutgers (the Big Ten already passed)
7. The Big Ten targeting Maryland? Maryland was not only adamant in their denial of conversations, they were adamant why they weren’t interested.
8. A failure to consider BCS AQ status which has already moved you opinion from “The B12 is dead” to “The B12 can’t thrive”
9. The belief TA&M changes the dynamics when it was stated all along in front and behind the scenes it hinged on the actions of UT.
10. It takes a lot to blow up 4 Big East teams to be viable candidates (including talking about the financial merits of women’s basketball) – now you are up to 7 viable candidates?
…I am certain you understand I openly question the accuracy of any prediction based on the above misconceptions. The question is, why don’t you?
I'm not sure where you're getting some of these points
1. What numbers are you referring to? I think you’re conflating the debate you’ve been having with Tyler with what I’m saying. Two different conversations…
2. Not sure what you’re getting at here. See No. 1
3. That was Tyler’s comment, and he’s corrected himself. AQ status has never been a contention of mine as to why the Big 12 would survive or not.
4. There’s absolutely no misconception. You are 100% mistaken if you believe NCAA Tournament revenue goes to the schools. I know this for a fact. You are free to look it up for yourself. Go to the NCAA website or search by Google (or your search engine of choice) for NCAA Distribution Plan. It is absolutely unequivocally true that NCAA Tournament revenue (the men’s basketball fund) is distributed to conferences. I promise you. I know this for_a_fact.
5. Not sure your point here….
6. When did the Big Ten pass? They’ve still got four spots open for potential expansion. Until they say otherwise, or until those spots have been filled, they haven’t passed on virtually any AAU member that would add revenue.
7. Not sure where you read this, but it’s wholly not true. They’ve never made anything more than a “non-denial, denial” about their intentions. And even when they did, it was last year when Debbie Yow was still their A.D. She’s since moved on…
8. The BCS AQ status, as mentioned in No. 3, had nothing to do with my point. My ‘opinion’ of the Big 12 being dead had more to do with “the Big 12 as we know it,” meaning there’s no way the current schools (with any sort of negotiating power) will remain in the conference. Whether the Big 12 survives as a much different entity was not my contention. But even if it does, it doesn’t change your initial premise being mistaken that wide-spread expansion isn’t coming. Texas, Oklahoma and the other power schools will be leaving. Feel free to mark that in ink.
9. Last year, someone I know in athletics sent me an email on the very day the Big 12 deal was announced that, “this conference won’t last. Don’t be surprised if it’s dead within a year.” I scoffed at that notion, but it turns out it was wholeheartedly correct. The deal was simply a short-term patch and was not going to save anything. Too much irreparable harm.
10. This is clearly born from lack of acceptance that NCAA Tournament revenue flows through the conferences and not the schools. I could see your position if those were the circumstances, but they’re not. I never said women’s basketball was profitable. Generally, it’s not. Connecticut is one of the very few exceptions, however. I only specifically mentioned them because they’re the one program that can actually help boost a small amount of revenue.
Sorry Kyle - I hadn't noticed you jumped in.
4. I was confusing with the distribution of per game appearance fees. As noted elsewhere – add 4 teams that increase the conferences appearance by 4 earning $300K each, and it comes out to another $75K per conference member. BB just isn’t a factor in FBS conference expansion.
6. When did the Big Ten pass?
Last year, when there was no fixed number of teams.
Rutgers just doesn’t bring a lot to the table, Their own student body voted to do away with NCAAF.
They’ve still got four spots open for potential expansion.
This goes against the comments by Big Ten administrators, who deny having any set number.
7. Not sure where you read this, but it’s wholly not true.
Comments of the Maryland Athletic Director.
Having a new AD doesn’t equate to a change in the disposition pf the program.
9. Last year, someone I know in athletics sent me an email on the very day the Big 12 deal was announced that, "this conference won’t last. Don’t be surprised if it’s dead within a year."
TA&M is not, and never was, the deal breaker. s much as they hate it, it is all about UTexas.
If you understand the history of Debbie Yow
and how she was apart of Maryland, you’d understand her comments were never, ever an endorsement of the university. She was a pariah there. She did not speak for the university and people were rejoicing that N.C. State actually took her on. I have a good friend involved in Maryland politics/finance… very successful D.C. guy. He’s a Virginia alum, but has a lot of ties to Maryland folks. He said the trustees and faculty at Maryland would jump at the chance to join the Big Ten. The athletic department is hesitant because of the rivalries, but financially, academically, etc., it’s a plus.
The Big Ten administrators aren’t saying in public what’s being said in private. The number sixteen has been a goal since last summer, provided at least 1-2 of those teams involve Notre Dame and possibly Texas. They’re still very interested in adding an eastern presence.
Last point on No. 4: it wouldn’t be $75k each. Because it’s a rolling cycle, it’s $3.6 million or a quarter of a million per each of the 16 teams. So if you had two teams averaging that, it’s actually half a million more per season.
Case in point, do you know what the average for each Big East basketball school was from the NCAA Tournament this past season? $1.4 million. So in reality, the ACC could possibly bump its total revenue by as much as half a million per school (or more) by adding those teams.
Maybe...
…but MD having a change of heart doesn’t equate to Big Ten interest.
Last point on No. 4: it wouldn’t be $75k each. Because it’s a rolling cycle,
The calculation was based on #300K listed elsewhere x 4 / 16
Even at the optimum, it is less than $1 Million – a fraction of the broadcast revenue of 1 NCAAF game.
Inconsequential.
Case in point, do you know what the average for each Big East basketball school was from the NCAA Tournament this past season? $1.4 million.
The Big East has the most lucrative NCAABB contract… but $1.5 Million is only about 10% of the FBS contract.
In this ideal situation where all the new teams make the tourney and none of the existing teams lose an invite (somebody has to lose) you gain $500K in 1 column of the balance sheet, but lose big in the NCAAF column.
You can only push 3% of the shared revenue so far before you run up against the real contributors.
addendum to No. 4
I should clarify, so there’s no misunderstanding… it goes to the conferences to be distributed to the member schools as their own distribution is set up.
In fact, I will save you the research:
From the 2010-11 NCAA Revenue Distribution Plan we find:
“The basketball fund provides for moneys to be distributed
to Division I conferences based on their performance in the
Division I Men’s Basketball Championship over a six-year
rolling period (for the period 2005-2010 for the 2010-11
distribution). Independent institutions receive a full unit
share based on its tournament participation over the same
rolling six-year period. The basketball fund payments are
sent to conferences and independent institutions in midApril each year”
It's not a leap
It’s a certain inevitability. This is both a rational exercise in sensibility as well as intimate knowledge in the thinking of at least one Big 12 school. The conference is done for and despite what they might say publicly, everyone knows it. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, Missouri… they’re all shopping around.
Forget about what’s happened in the last year: this conference is doomed because it never repaired the severed relationships that have been torn the past 10 years. It’s like asking two spouses to reconcile without actually taking steps to change the behavior that precipitated the issues to begin with.
The Big 12 has been built on unevenness, mistrust and a concern that Texas was throwing their weight around. The past 13-14 months, the conference has done nothing to indicate those perceptions would be corrected. If anything, they’ve been proven to be totally accurate.
Nothing that has happened the past year has to do with why Texas A&M is leaving for the SEC. On the contrary, the Board of Regents, athletic director and several prominent boosters have wanted the SEC for several years. They’re leaving for the SEC not because of what has happened recently, but because nothing recently has differed from what has been the status quo in the Big 12 since 1996.
Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State… these schools are battered wives that will do whatever they can to keep the conference alive. The alternative options aren’t better. But for the other schools who probably have a nice place to land on their feet, a 9-team Big 12 won’t cut it. Future revenues will suffer too greatly to compete (television revenues from ESPN will go down in the future relative to other conferences and the portions brought in from the D-1 men’s basketball fund will suffer because of the total units and scholarships/sponsorships being so much less).
Mark my words: A&M leaving will be the end of the Big 12.
The Big 12 with its current membership...
…might be done, but not the Big 12.
There is no signs of real interest in 1/2 the conference, and Okie Lite only has interest because they have superglued themselves to OU.
The remainder still have the BCS AQ carrot to attract the best mid majors.
They can easily maintain AQ status.
Any mid major would gladly accept even or uneven revenue share as it would be more than they currently get.
The Big 12 may be uneven…
…but that doesn’t prevent it from staying together because of self interest, even if 1 member leaves in a demonstration which provides them no real gains.
Texas A&M was never the deal breaker for the Big 12
As noted “This is being driven by a TA&M fan base that feels slighted and would prefer the SEC over the PAC and B10, but the move won’t change their fortunes.”
…at most a TA&M departure can be viewed as a domino in a line, but there are a lot of gaps in the line of dominoes.
The biggest obstacle to expansion is the bar is continually moved higher.
With each new addition, the shared revenue increases, decreasing the number of candidates who can boost it further.
An addition has to at least be above the average of the current conference, and with each addition, that average moves up.
Conference expansion isn’t inevitable any more than stopping at 16 teams is inevitable.
What is inevitable is that you quickly run out of valid candidates. We already see the 3 expansion players looking at the same handful of candidates. It takes a stretch to find 12 candidates for these 3, another 4 candidates for a 4th Super conference.
Depending on how Texas and Notre Dame play their cards, this will determine how many BCS schools get shut out of the Super Conference Shuffle.
Obviously the Big 3 conferences SEC, B1G and Pac12 will exist in one fashion or another. It is where the rest of the pieces move that will be fascinating to watch.
If Notre Dame and Texas stay independent, only 2 schools may lose an affiliation with a Super Conference (If I had to guess, those 2 will be Iowa St and Baylor). If Texas and Notre Dame bite the bullet and join the party, Kansas St and maybe TCU would also be added to that pile.
Once the SEC and B1G finish their poaching, I believe the rest of the Big East and ACC schools would merge to form the 4th large conference. However, if the Pac16 does not happen, all heck would break lose again where we could end up withe the SEC and B1G only at 14 teams and then there would be 5 BCS conferences in some fashion.
Get your popcorn out, it will be a great show.
I was buying what you were selling...
…until you got to this point:
I believe the rest of the Big East and ACC schools would merge to form the 4th large conference.
If there was a candidate in the East that would add to any of the other 5 major’s bottom line, they would have gotten an invite already.
A&M moved the board meeting from the 22nd to the 15th; they have confirmed that a vote on leaving the Big 12 for the SEC will take place.
This is gonna be fun.
The only thing better than implosions and explosions is self inflicted wounds.
I am now rooting for Texas to the SEC as well… the screams from the TA&M fans would be priceless.
FWIW
Greg Swaim has said on his Twitter account that at least four ACC invites went out today to Big East schools…
If true, I love the knee jerk reactions.
The East doesn’t have 4 programs capable of generating above average revenue.
I don't agree with that
Syracuse and Louisville would be assets because of their regular NCAA Tournament appearances, which would earn nearly $600,000 a year to the conference on average (each). Connecticut has been showing signs of being successful in the two revenue sports (after all, they’re the defending National Champions in men’s basketball and were in the BCS this past year) and are one of the few money-makers for women’s basketball.
I actually think the ACC would be well off to add some of these teams.
I believe the NCAA tournament revenue flows to the program, not the conference.
Connecticut overall < the average ACC team in NCAAF.
Roundball conference revenue is a fraction of football everywhere but the Big East.
NCAAF shared revenue + NCAAWB shared revenue = NCAAF shared revenue
This is definitely not true
On several levels.
BCS revenue pays out $175 million to Division I schools (including FCS) through conferences, where the conferences distribute the money as they see fit. The Division I revenue plan, consisting in part of the D-1 men’s basketball fund and sports sponsorship fund, pays out (currently) over $450 million annually to Division I schools. Like with the BCS, these revenues are paid out to the conferences to distribute according to their distribution plan(s).
Every single appearance by a team in the NCAA Tournament provides an additional $300,000 for its conference as of next year. Each additional victory in the tournament would add yet another $300,000. However, each of these units actually counts six (6) times in a rolling cycle. So everytime Connectict gets to the tournament and wins even one game, that’s two units, nearly $600,000 which will count for each of the next six years. On average, that’s $3.6 million a year paid out to the conference. Now consider a second BCS bid is only worth $4.5 million.
That means a solid basketball program is worth more to the conference than a middle-tier football team.
Now, to answer your above question regarding sports sponsorship:
The formula is based on total sports sponsored beyond 12 varsity sports (which adds if memory serves me correctly about $50,000 for each sport) and using a graduated system, each scholarship athlete receives ‘x’ number of dollars applied toward the conference.
Thanks for the info...
,,,but this is inconsequential amounts.
$450 Million wouldn’t be a lot if it all went to FBS programs.
Split among all NCAA members it is diminished a lot more.
…never mind that much is sent directly to the program, or based on the number of institutions and conference affiliation.
Add 4 teams and increase the number of appearances by 4, and you get an extra $75K per program. We are talking about broadcast contracts that pay nearly $4 Million for a single NCAAF game, and you are talking about $74K?
BB fans hate to hear it, but round ball just isn’t a factor in FBS conference expansion.
Respectfully,
If you’ve ever spoken with most folks in athletics at any D-1 institution outside of places like Ohio State, Texas, Florida, etc., you’ll find they don’t sneeze at “$75k per program.”
Considering some of those programs operate at a deficit without indirect institutional or government support, you could argue that’s the difference between being profitable and not.
For the record, I’m not saying basketball is the primary factor. But it most certainly is, contrary to the assertion it’s “inconsequential,” a factor. No one would ever suggest football isn’t the most influential source of revenue. For television contracts, it absolutely is. Postseason revenue, it’s not. The total sum, it is. But the point is that some schools like Connecticut, Pittsburgh and Louisville are competitive enough in football that combined with the revenue they bring in for basketball, they are still profitable to a conference like the ACC. Enough to match the Big Ten or SEC stride for stride? Of course not. But that’s not even the argument.
Perhaps not sneeze, but...
…no team is going to change conferences for another $75K
…no conference is going to expand for another $75K
,,,or even 25 times this amount.
It is… inconsequential.
Before the extension (I don’t know its value), consider the broadcast revenue for 1 NCAAF game was worth more than an entire BB season.
Pump it up all you want, it just isn’t a factor.
Well, it's a lot more than $75k though
The real number, based on $300k per year is actually $1.8 million per year because you have to include six total seasons in each calculation.
So it’s actually an additional $112k per ACC team per school that joins. The aggregate winds up being well over half a million or more.
And I promise you… that’s a big deal in athletics.
...and it still holds...
…no team is going to change conferences for another $112K
…no conference is going to expand for another $112K
…or even the higher idyllic amount where everything goes up with the new teams and nobody is bumped out with the added losses…
…no team is going to change conferences for another $500K
…no conference is going to expand for another $500K
Sorry, but even given idyllic circumstances for the added BB revenue here, BB just isn’t a factor.
Again, you're not thinking like an athletic director
When so many schools are operating at direct deficits (prior to indirect contributions, that is), they absolutely would make a huge deal at another half a million or more.
If you want to say basketball isn’t the primary factor, we’re in agreement. If you want to say basketball isn’t a factor… I could line up many qualified people to directly take serious issue with that line of thinking.
Half a million additional revenues isn’t chump change even for BCS schools. It’s a big freakin’ deal.
...it stroll holds for the ADs...
…no AD is going to want to move to a different conference for another $500K
…no conference is going to expand for another $500K
$500K is not a big deal in conference expansion.
If you want to say basketball isn’t a factor… I could line up many qualified people to directly take serious issue with that line of thinking.
…and I would ask the same thing – what is its impact on revenue? This is giving you the ideal revenue results so far, and they aren’t squat.
If the amount is a small fraction compared to NCAAF revenue,
it is inconsequential compared to the impact of NCAAF.
No line of qualified people can change this reality.
That's not the right question being asked
Because the issue isn’t what percentage of total revenue basketball accounts for. The relevant question is: how can each conference add to their revenue.
The ACC isn’t likely to pluck Florida from the SEC. They’re not likely to add Georgia. Or Penn State. These aren’t realistic options.
So the ACC has to be creative. It has to find ways to add to the revenue. Those Big East schools do just that. They won’t be enough to keep up with the SEC or Big Ten, mind you, but basketball revenue is still a fair portion of the total pie and enough to improve the conference over what it otherwise would be.
There are only three options:
1) Go down in flames
2) Sit tight
3) Improve the best you can
One could argue that sitting tight is equivalent to going down in flames if in fact the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC aggressively seek expansion. So if you’re the ACC, you’re looking to add revenues in any way you can. If your total basketball revenues, with tournament and future media deals, increase several million per school… that’s absolutely worth it.
Oh, and don’t ignore the fact that if we derive at four superconferences, the ACC will have one quarter of the pie when the new playoff is instituted. That’s the price of survival.
The question was the relevance of BB in expansion
If NCAABB is a fractional portion of shared revenue compared to NCAAF
It is inconsequential in FBS conference expansion.
A Big East team can add to the NCAABB revenue isn’t the issue,
A Big East team adding more than their portion of shared revenue overall is needed.
The NCAABB revenue gains a Big East program can bring
won’t make up for their poor NCAAF revenue showing.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
