Rumor: ND in talks to join as Full member of ACC

[TXCyclones]

Quick question. How much money does Notre Dame currently get paid each year for their games on tv? By comparison, would that number go up when split across all of the ACC?

 

[BMWallace]

Was it this thing...?

https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ege-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/?_r=0

Silver's methodology is a little "soft" for me to really prove which fanbases are going sustain their programs through tickets and a la carte when cable TV money drives up.

This just reaffirms my thoughts that Wake Forest is easily the weakest P5 school. They share a state with 3 others in their conference, are a small private school with a small stadium. If they weren't already in the ACC, they would be laughed at for trying to get into a major conference.

 

[Tornado man]

This just reaffirms my thoughts that Wake Forest is easily the weakest P5 school. They share a state with 3 others in their conference, are a small private school with a small stadium. If they weren't already in the ACC, they would be laughed at for trying to get into a major conference.

I agree, and in terms of overall athletic budget, they are close to ISU, and get compared to us a lot. But they are nowhere near us in terms of fan base. And neither are others that we get compared to, like Indiana, Oregon State, Purdue, etc.

 

[jbhtexas]

As big of a school as USF is, there is no way that USF, UCONN and Rutgers have more money spending football fans than ISU.

I really don't get the Rutgers "magic" either, but somehow there was enough there for the Big Ten to pick them up and use them to force BTN on the cable networks up there. Maybe by some crazy osmosis effect, if you are in large population area (like Rutgers and USF). you get football fans.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I really don't get the Rutgers "magic" either, but somehow there was enough there for the Big Ten to pick them up and use them to force BTN on the cable networks up there. Maybe by some crazy osmosis effect, if you are in large population area (like Rutgers and USF). you get football fans.

I think that pretty obviously "make the NYC TV market carry the BTN, even if approximately four people are going to watch it on Saturday afternoon."

Maryland was a good academic fit, but I think they could have cared less about Rutgers. Their crappy teams mean little as long as the NYC $$$ keeps coming.

The Tampa and Orlando markets are not inconsiderable, either.

I have lived in Florida (rather briefly) and my in-laws mostly live in those two areas. Floridians care about their team from "back home" given so many of them have moved there (most of my wife's family grew up in Wisconsin, so they are still good cheesehead Packer and Badger fans), UF and FSU, the Bucs and the Rays, and THEN (distant) UCF and USF.

There are a bunch of schools that "won the tiebreaker" because of their population bases for cable TV that will lose next time around because of their lame fan bases.

 

[EYEoftheSTORM]

Several years ago, there was a study done that tried to determine the number of fans each college football team had. There was a lot of back and forth over how accurate the study was, but it seemed to be somewhat reasonable. One of the points that article was pushing, if I remember correctly, was that that fan bases provide the vast majority of the college football TV viewing audiences.

Assuming for a talking point that the study gave a reasonable indication of fan base size, there were some interesting things in the numbers. Looking at the current P5 + ND and BYU (66 teams):

1) The top 25 teams by fanbase size have over 60% of the college FB fans
2) The top 40 teams by fanbase size have over 80% of the college FB fans
3) The bottom 20 teams by fanbase size have just over 12% of the college FB fans
4) Not all of the teams in the top 40 are good year in and year out. A number of them have been recently down.
5) With a couple of exceptions, the teams in the bottom 20 are in close geographic proximity to a team in the top 40.

Looking strictly from the money side, you have about 20 teams that are getting full conference TV payout that don't bring (relatively) many fans to the TV viewing table. If you get rid of those teams, there is more money for everybody else in the "premier" league, with a minimal loss in viewing audience. And there are enough down teams in the top group that you don't have the problem of good teams beating up on each other every week (if that is really even a problem).

Furthermore, kicking out the bottom 20 would effectively eliminate them from participating in the play-for pay-pool because of the big revenue loss, assuring that the better recruits end up at the schools.

Down the road, after the bubble bursts (if it does) and if the TV networks start offering lesser money...is everybody going to be happy with a smaller cut? Or are the schools with the big fan bases (the ones that are bringing the viewing eyes to the table) going to get nasty and try and maintain their current TV payout?

Everybody might be well happy with a smaller TV payout, and everything goes on status quo. On the other hand, from what I see in the numbers, I don't really think the Alabamas need the Vandys, and could do perfectly fine without them around.

This is a valid point and I agree with it to a point. Sure if you look at it today weekly matchups against Texas, Penn State, Oregon, and Michigan sound awesome. But 2 or 3 years of Georgia, Nebraska, or Washington going 3-9 in this super is going to put you in the exact predicament the big boys are in now.

Bottom line, the bottom feeders are just as important as the big dogs.

 

[SECyclone]

Regardless of what happens with the ACC, I still think the entire landscape of college athletics will be very different 8-10 years from now. With all the cord cutting going on, ESPN declining at a rapid pace, and the increase of Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/Sling etc I think the whole what "TV Market" do you bring will be nearly obsolete. I see it transitioning from TV market size to actual fan base size.

Just my 2 cents.

Agree 100%. Bring back conferences by region. I miss the days of close road trips.

 

[Cycsk]

I agree too, and there seem to be a number of Sooner fans that want the SEC too. The fly in the ointment for those folks is that the SEC is likely a ways down on Boren's list. He is a Rhodes Scholar who wants to hob nob with AAU-type intellectuals, not southern good ol' boys.

The Rhodes Scholar is not just an academic thing. It is an award that combines academic and athletic excellence. Here are the numbers of Rhodes Scholars by SEC and Big 12 conferences:

Auburn 4, LSU 14, Miss St 2, TAM 5, Alabama 15, Florida 12, Georgia 24, Mississippi 25, SC 9, Tenn 7, Vanderbilt 26, Kent 9, Missouri 18, Arkansas 10

Baylor 5, Iowa State 5, K-State 13, O-State 1, TCU 2, Kansas 27, Oklahoma 28, Texas 29, WV 24, TTU 1.

I don't think Boren cares that much about academic elitism. He just wants institutional power.

 

[Cycsk]

As big of a school as USF is, there is no way that USF, UCONN and Rutgers have more money spending football fans than ISU.

How many people are primarily fans of their university? Not USF, UConn, or Rutgers fans. Most have their devotion split many ways. Much more than us.

 

[isu83]

http://www.theuconnblog.com/2017/5/...-conference-realignment-undefeated-against-nd

Just a rumor, but if this were to happen. A huge ripple effect is coming.

Maybe ND is working NBC for more money. Hard to know what the talk is about other than just more talk. I try to ignore it.

 

[OnlyCyclones]

The Rhodes Scholar is not just an academic thing. It is an award that combines academic and athletic excellence. Here are the numbers of Rhodes Scholars by SEC and Big 12 conferences:

Auburn 4, LSU 14, Miss St 2, TAM 5, Alabama 15, Florida 12, Georgia 24, Mississippi 25, SC 9, Tenn 7, Vanderbilt 26, Kent 9, Missouri 18, Arkansas 10

Baylor 5, Iowa State 5, K-State 13, O-State 1, TCU 2, Kansas 27, Oklahoma 28, Texas 29, WV 24, TTU 1.

I don't think Boren cares that much about academic elitism. He just wants institutional power.

What I'm gathering for this is that the Rhodes people don't like ag schools.

 

[jbhtexas]

I don't think Boren cares that much about academic elitism. He just wants institutional power.

The academic reputation of OU is important to Boren. From Berry Trammel, last year about this time when Big 12 expansion was talk was rampant:

Evan Grant: I've heard this discussion over and over again, I've heard about teams that you could attract, there doesn't seem to be anybody realistic that is very attractive in terms of upping the game TV market-wise. Why does Oklahoma not just start engaging the SEC in trying to join that league and get into that pie?

Tramel: "The academic powers that be, if they were going to leave the Big 12, they'd way rather go to the Pac 12. There's not a lot of enthusiasm for the SEC on the academic side. There's not a lot of enthusiasm for the SEC on the football side, either. The people that I hear that want to go to the SEC are all fans."

Sherrington: Are you saying that Oklahoma is being snobby academically with the SEC and they don't want the competition in football?

Tramel: "I would say the latter is more true. I don't think they're being snobby. I think they look at the Pac 12 as a way to enhance their academic reputation. SEC is about the same as the Big 12. Big 12 used to be better and then the SEC got two of the better academic institutions from the Big 12 and sort of tilted it. But I think they'd rather be in a league with Stanford and Cal and UCLA than in a league with Mississippi State or Georgia."

https://sportsday.dallasnews.com/co...t-know-texas-feels-like-important-save-big-12

And from a few days ago:

Boren didn’t quell the notion that if a conference change is made that he’d rather it be to a conference that has a high academic standing.

“Well, let’s put it this way — the Big Ten and Pac 12 have both emphasized academics and they do have, I think, deserved stature in the academic community,” Boren said. “That’s not the only factor that should be considered obviously. I’m a football fan too—and athletic fan—and I want us in a conference that’s very competitive regularly.”

http://newsok.com/article/5548946

 

[Al_4_State]

If OU makes the playoffs this year, they'll shut up.

We should all hope for OU and Texas to be regular playoff participants and for each of them to get a national championship in the next 5 years. If that happens, you won't hear a word about the Big 12 being weak and their incentive to move will be gone. No one else is in a position to proactively join a more profitable league.

 

[ISUalum2012]

I want this. Obviously room for discussion with some teams included and what region they're in, but in general 8 regions with 9 teams seems optimal.

Regular season is reduced to 11 games (8 regional + 3 free schedule), and the playoffs are expanded to 16 teams (8 regional winners + 8 at large bids).

 

[Al_4_State]

The only thing I'd prefer to that set up is using the 8 9 team divisions and recreating the Big 8 + Colorado State.

 

[Sigmapolis]

I want this. Obviously room for discussion with some teams included and what region they're in, but in general 8 regions with 9 teams seems optimal.

Regular season is reduced to 11 games (8 regional + 3 free schedule), and the playoffs are expanded to 16 teams (8 regional winners + 8 at large bids).

View attachment 47859

Here is an 8x10 that I liked (80 instead of the 72 in your 8x9)...



Pretty similar overall, though. The cores and regions of emphasis for the eight conferences is the same. Not having KU/Miz and UF/UGA in conferences hurts me to see. Putting the Oklahoma schools in with California schools (and not Texas schools) hurts, as well.

 

[mctallerton]

Here is an 8x10 that I liked (80 instead of the 72 in your 8x9)...

View attachment 47861

Pretty similar overall, though. The cores and regions of emphasis for the eight conferences is the same. Not having KU/Miz and UF/UGA in conferences hurts me, though.

I understand the idea is a regional thing but the balance in some of these conferences is terrible (not your fault).

 

[Sigmapolis]

I understand the idea is a regional thing but the balance in some of these conferences is terrible (not your fault).

I do not think there is a way around that if you go geographical.

I imagine that would work itself out over time, though -- e.g., Nebraska might return to some more prominence in its own pond without Texas, OU, tOSU, and Michigan around.

 

[ISUalum2012]

Balance is certainly a concern, but it already is to some extent. In my 8x9 set up at least each region has some sort of historical power.

NW: Oregon/Stanford
SW: USC
MW: Nebraska/Wisc
North: Mich/OSU/Notre Dame
S: Texas/LSU
SE: Loaded
E: Clemson/Georgia
NE: Penn St

I think each conference would be competitive, but obviously the SE is dumb loaded.

 

[mctallerton]

I do not think there is a way around that if you go geographical.

I imagine that would work itself out over time, though -- e.g., Nebraska might return to some more prominence in its own pond without Texas, OU, tOSU, and Michigan around.

Its not your fault, I would think some of the teams would be willing to travel a bit more in order to stay out of such power loaded conferences. It also isn't just a football thing, The Great Lakes is stacked in basketball too.