Big 12 expansion options: Enrollment

[HornsRuleU]

This is part 2 of my analysis of the Dallas Morning News' article on Big 12 expansion options.

That article has some interesting data, but when it comes to enrollment, they only publish total enrollment. And, as stated in part 1, the DMN failed to provide online sorting of their data.

On Enrollment...

When it comes to gauging potential support for athletics, undergraduate enrollment is much more relevant than total enrollment, in my opinion. I doubt that many Ph.D.s or even holders of Master's degrees are that into sports. There are, of course, rare birds who attended graduate school and ARE into sports. I suspect, however, that they tend to root for their undergraduate school.

Undergraduate Enrollment:

1. Texas, 39523 students
2. Houston, 32915
3. Florida State, 32276
4. USF, 31067
5. Iowa State, 28893
6. Texas Tech, 28632
7. BYU, 27191
8. Cincinnati, 24407
9. Colorado State, 23858
10. West Virginia, 22757
11. UConn, 22595
12. East Carolina, 22252
13. Oklahoma, 21844
14. Oklahoma State, 20821
15. Kansas State University, 20634
16. Kansas, 19343
17. Boise State, 19333
18. Memphis, 17068
19. Northern Illinois, 15435
20. Baylor, 13859
21. TCU, 8894
22. SMU, 6391

I'm surprised that ISU and TTU are so near the top of the list.

Undergraduate enrollment is fairly closely tied, I'd guess, to the overall number of fans of that program. It's why Texas' football, basketball and baseball programs will always be considered "relevant". It's one of the reasons why ESPN chose Texas for The Longhorn Network.

For those who want to see total student size, including graduate students, here you go...

Overall Enrollment:

1. Texas, 51313 students
2. USF, 48793
3. Cincinnati, 44251
4. Houston, 42704
5. Florida State, 41473
6. Iowa State, 36001
7. Texas Tech, 35893
8. Colorado State, 33236
9. UConn, 31119
10. Oklahoma, 30824
11. BYU, 29672
12. West Virginia, 29175
13. Kansas, 28091
14. East Carolina, 27511
15. Kansas State University, 24146
16. Oklahoma State, 23459
17. Boise State, 22113
18. Memphis, 20585
19. Northern Illinois, 20130
20. Baylor, 16787
21. SMU, 11272
22. TCU, 10323

Notice how high UH is on these lists. They're also very near the Big 12, geographically. Only SMU's and Memphis' teams would have to travel less than the University of Houston's. They've improved in football, obviously. I can't imagine them returning to Phi Slama Jamma glory, but at least they've got history in b-ball.

The other schools with high enrollment don't fit well with the Big 12, geographically. Memphis, though, has decent enrollment and is relatively near Big 12's geographic center.

Based on geography and undergraduate enrollment alone, UH and Memphis would be the top targets.

To clarify, I'm not (!) advocating that the Big 12 expand, nor am I pushing for any certain schools, if the Big XII does decide to expand. I'm just saying that based on the analysis so far, UH and Memphis deserve a look.

I'd further suggest that FSU, BYU and Boise State are just too far away. The Big 12 doesn't need another WVU ... another long road trip. Particularly not to the west. Nor do they need another tiny religious school, like SMU.

 

[diadevic]

This is part 2 of my analysis of the Dallas Morning News' article on Big 12 expansion options.

That article has some interesting data, but when it comes to enrollment, they only publish total enrollment. And, as stated in part 1, the DMN failed to provide online sorting of their data.

On Enrollment...

When it comes to gauging potential support for athletics, undergraduate enrollment is much more relevant than total enrollment, in my opinion. I doubt that many Ph.D.s or even holders of Master's degrees are that into sports. There are, of course, rare birds who attended graduate school and ARE into sports. I suspect, however, that they tend to root for their undergraduate school.

Undergraduate Enrollment:

1. Texas, 39523 students
2. Houston, 32915
3. Florida State, 32276
4. USF, 31067
5. Iowa State, 28893
6. Texas Tech, 28632
7. BYU, 27191
8. Cincinnati, 24407
9. Colorado State, 23858
10. West Virginia, 22757
11. UConn, 22595
12. East Carolina, 22252
13. Oklahoma, 21844
14. Oklahoma State, 20821
15. Kansas State University, 20634
16. Kansas, 19343
17. Boise State, 19333
18. Memphis, 17068
19. Northern Illinois, 15435
20. Baylor, 13859
21. TCU, 8894
22. SMU, 6391

I'm surprised that ISU and TTU are so near the top of the list.

Undergraduate enrollment is fairly closely tied, I'd guess, to the overall number of fans of that program. It's why Texas' football, basketball and baseball programs will always be considered "relevant". It's one of the reasons why ESPN chose Texas for The Longhorn Network.

For those who want to see total student size, including graduate students, here you go...

Overall Enrollment:

1. Texas, 51313 students
2. USF, 48793
3. Cincinnati, 44251
4. Houston, 42704
5. Florida State, 41473
6. Iowa State, 36001
7. Texas Tech, 35893
8. Colorado State, 33236
9. UConn, 31119
10. Oklahoma, 30824
11. BYU, 29672
12. West Virginia, 29175
13. Kansas, 28091
14. East Carolina, 27511
15. Kansas State University, 24146
16. Oklahoma State, 23459
17. Boise State, 22113
18. Memphis, 20585
19. Northern Illinois, 20130
20. Baylor, 16787
21. SMU, 11272
22. TCU, 10323

Notice how high UH is on these lists. They're also very near the Big 12, geographically. Only SMU's and Memphis' teams would have to travel less than the University of Houston's. They've improved in football, obviously. I can't imagine them returning to Phi Slama Jamma glory, but at least they've got history in b-ball.

The other schools with high enrollment don't fit well with the Big 12, geographically. Memphis, though, has decent enrollment and is relatively near Big 12's geographic center.

Based on geography and undergraduate enrollment alone, UH and Memphis would be the top targets.

To clarify, I'm not (!) advocating that the Big 12 expand, nor am I pushing for any certain schools, if the Big XII does decide to expand. I'm just saying that based on the analysis so far, UH and Memphis deserve a look.

I'd further suggest that FSU, BYU and Boise State are just too far away. The Big 12 doesn't need another WVU ... another long road trip. Particularly not to the west. Nor do they need another tiny religious school, like SMU.

Be careful of enrollment stats. UNT has 36,000 students, UTA 35,000. A large portion are commuter students - part time, night school etc. Not that there is anything wrong with that - but traditionally there is less support for athletic programs. Not an expert on UH, but it is my understanding that they, along with a few others on your list, fit that category.

 

[CoachEmUp64]

Be careful of enrollment stats. UNT has 36,000 students, UTA 35,000. A large portion are commuter students - part time, night school etc. Not that there is anything wrong with that - but traditionally there is less support for athletic programs. Not an expert on UH, but it is my understanding that they, along with a few others on your list, fit that category.

These are just schools that are options for the Big 12 expansion, UNT and UTA are not options thus that's why they are not on the list.

 

[topdecktiger]

This is part 2 of my analysis of the Dallas Morning News' article on Big 12 expansion options.

That article has some interesting data, but when it comes to enrollment, they only publish total enrollment. And, as stated in part 1, the DMN failed to provide online sorting of their data.

On Enrollment...

When it comes to gauging potential support for athletics, undergraduate enrollment is much more relevant than total enrollment, in my opinion. I doubt that many Ph.D.s or even holders of Master's degrees are that into sports. There are, of course, rare birds who attended graduate school and ARE into sports. I suspect, however, that they tend to root for their undergraduate school.

Undergraduate Enrollment:

1. Texas, 39523 students
2. Houston, 32915
3. Florida State, 32276
4. USF, 31067
5. Iowa State, 28893
6. Texas Tech, 28632
7. BYU, 27191
8. Cincinnati, 24407
9. Colorado State, 23858
10. West Virginia, 22757
11. UConn, 22595
12. East Carolina, 22252
13. Oklahoma, 21844
14. Oklahoma State, 20821
15. Kansas State University, 20634
16. Kansas, 19343
17. Boise State, 19333
18. Memphis, 17068
19. Northern Illinois, 15435
20. Baylor, 13859
21. TCU, 8894
22. SMU, 6391

I'm surprised that ISU and TTU are so near the top of the list.

Undergraduate enrollment is fairly closely tied, I'd guess, to the overall number of fans of that program. It's why Texas' football, basketball and baseball programs will always be considered "relevant". It's one of the reasons why ESPN chose Texas for The Longhorn Network.

For those who want to see total student size, including graduate students, here you go...

Overall Enrollment:

1. Texas, 51313 students
2. USF, 48793
3. Cincinnati, 44251
4. Houston, 42704
5. Florida State, 41473
6. Iowa State, 36001
7. Texas Tech, 35893
8. Colorado State, 33236
9. UConn, 31119
10. Oklahoma, 30824
11. BYU, 29672
12. West Virginia, 29175
13. Kansas, 28091
14. East Carolina, 27511
15. Kansas State University, 24146
16. Oklahoma State, 23459
17. Boise State, 22113
18. Memphis, 20585
19. Northern Illinois, 20130
20. Baylor, 16787
21. SMU, 11272
22. TCU, 10323

Notice how high UH is on these lists. They're also very near the Big 12, geographically. Only SMU's and Memphis' teams would have to travel less than the University of Houston's. They've improved in football, obviously. I can't imagine them returning to Phi Slama Jamma glory, but at least they've got history in b-ball.

The other schools with high enrollment don't fit well with the Big 12, geographically. Memphis, though, has decent enrollment and is relatively near Big 12's geographic center.

Based on geography and undergraduate enrollment alone, UH and Memphis would be the top targets.

To clarify, I'm not (!) advocating that the Big 12 expand, nor am I pushing for any certain schools, if the Big XII does decide to expand. I'm just saying that based on the analysis so far, UH and Memphis deserve a look.

I'd further suggest that FSU, BYU and Boise State are just too far away. The Big 12 doesn't need another WVU ... another long road trip. Particularly not to the west. Nor do they need another tiny religious school, like SMU.

Geography doesn't matter. TV money is what matters. Houston and SMU are off the list.

 

[HornsRuleU]

Be careful of enrollment stats. UNT has 36,000 students, UTA 35,000. A large portion are commuter students - part time, night school etc. Not that there is anything wrong with that - but traditionally there is less support for athletic programs. Not an expert on UH, but it is my understanding that they, along with a few others on your list, fit that category.

Yeah, I was dead tired when I posted the OP, and was thinking exactly that about UH in the 2 minutes between posting and crashing on my bed. Cougars aren't really known for supporting athletics. [/Understatement]

Oh, and it's not my list of targets. It's Josh Friemel's list, of the DMN.

 

[HornsRuleU]

Geography doesn't matter. TV money is what matters. Houston and SMU are off the list.

Elaborate. How do you measure TV money, and how would that be much different than undergrad enrollment? Does ESPN release stats on viewers?

I agree with you on SMU, but some might say that TCU is tiny, and the Big 12 invited them...

And I get that UH is known for having weak-sauce fans, but they have too strong an enrollment to be dismissed so easily. It seems like TV money could easily expand if they develop strong teams, as they are doing in football. They had tons of BB fans when Hakeem/Akeem and Clyde were there. It's not inconceivable for UH to develop a following. Baylor did it. That's worth saying twice. Pathetic, little, sucked-forever-and-a-day Baylor actually did it!

Some say the Big 12 can't add more Texas teams. I guess I don't get why it's necessary to expand the footprint, geographically, to add TV money. Are Houstonians who aren't alums likely to watch Baylor vs. TCU? Are Houston stations likely to broadcast that?

 

[HornosaurusRex]

traitors: undergrad/overall

Colorado: 25864/31300
Nebraska: 19979/25006
Mizzou: 27654/35441
Aggy: 47093/59129

Hook 'em

 

[topdecktiger]

Elaborate. How do you measure TV money, and how would that be much different than undergrad enrollment? Does ESPN release stats on viewers?

I agree with you on SMU, but some might say that TCU is tiny, and the Big 12 invited them...

And I get that UH is known for having weak-sauce fans, but they have too strong an enrollment to be dismissed so easily. It seems like TV money could easily expand if they develop strong teams, as they are doing in football. They had tons of BB fans when Hakeem/Akeem and Clyde were there. It's not inconceivable for UH to develop a following. Baylor did it. That's worth saying twice. Pathetic, little, sucked-forever-and-a-day Baylor actually did it!

Some say the Big 12 can't add more Texas teams. I guess I don't get why it's necessary to expand the footprint, geographically, to add TV money. Are Houstonians who aren't alums likely to watch Baylor vs. TCU? Are Houston stations likely to broadcast that?

Yes, Houston stations are likely to broadcast Baylor vs. TCU. (The Houston stations who broadcast the games don't have a choice. They are affiliates of a network (Fox, ABC, etc.) and broadcast whatever feed they get from the network HQ.) Yes, Houstonians who aren't alums are likely to watch Baylor vs. TCU.

Here's the thing on all of this. Football fans in Houston are pretty much going to watch the game either way. The difference of fans who will or won't watch the game because Houston isn't in the Big 12 is minimal. Perfect example. Every week, there are several threads on this board whenever A&M is playing, with running in-game commentary. Why is that? Because Texas fans are tuning in to see A&M lose. Thing is, ESPN (or whoever) doesn't care why you are tuning. They just care that you are tuning in.

The other thing is, there are more fans in Houston than just UH fans. There are probably as many UT fans in the city alone, not counting fans of Tech, Baylor, and TCU. Between all those people, that amount of extra fans you would pick up by adding UH is minimal. Well, because of that, ESPN and Fox aren't going to pay extra money for Houston, when the Big 12 pretty much has that market saturated in the first place. ESPN and Fox would get much more bang for their buck by adding a completely new market where the Big 12 doesn't already get regular coverage.

To your point about TCU, they didn't have any effect on the contract. West Virginia and TCU were just replacement teams for A&M and Missouri. WVU and TCU were not expansion, so they didn't affect the TV contract. Either way, the Big 12 had 10 teams to package to the networks. When A&M and Missouri left, all you needed were basically warm bodies to fill those spots.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

Big 12 offers to pay the exit fee to bring in FSU and Clemson. Bingo we are back to 12 teams and our footprint now extends to Florida and South Carolina.

With that the Big 12 is now 12 teams again and more importantly, they are now the hands down 2nd best conference in America.

They go east west divisions with:

East Division
FSU
Clemson
WVU
Kansas
TCU
Tech

West Division
Texas
Baylor
KSU
Oklahoma
OSU
ISU

Big 12 investment would be about 70 million in exit fees, financed over the length of the next two TV contracts would be chicken scratch.

 

[diadevic]

Big 12 offers to pay the exit fee to bring in FSU and Clemson. Bingo we are back to 12 teams and our footprint now extends to Florida and South Carolina.

With that the Big 12 is now 12 teams again and more importantly, they are now the hands down 2nd best conference in America.

They go east west divisions with:

East Division
FSU
Clemson
WVU
Kansas
TCU
Tech

West Division
Texas
Baylor
KSU
Oklahoma
OSU
ISU

Big 12 investment would be about 70 million in exit fees, financed over the length of the next two TV contracts would be chicken scratch.

You are forward thinking commissioner material.

 

[topdecktiger]

Big 12 offers to pay the exit fee to bring in FSU and Clemson. Bingo we are back to 12 teams and our footprint now extends to Florida and South Carolina.

With that the Big 12 is now 12 teams again and more importantly, they are now the hands down 2nd best conference in America.

They go east west divisions with:

East Division
FSU
Clemson
WVU
Kansas
TCU
Tech

West Division
Texas
Baylor
KSU
Oklahoma
OSU
ISU

Big 12 investment would be about 70 million in exit fees, financed over the length of the next two TV contracts would be chicken scratch.

Won't work. The problem isn't exit fees. The problem is the ACC has a GOR. $70 million wouldn't be anywhere near the actual figure.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

Won't work. The problem isn't exit fees. The problem is the ACC has a GOR. $70 million wouldn't be anywhere near the actual figure.

Timing is everything. The Grant of Rights isn't a lifetime thing, it goes to 2026-27 it will need to be renewed. You time it so they announce right before a new GOR is signed, and if needs be you work on the state legislature to outlaw their schools to be hamstrung by any GOR.

According to this article
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...r/22116192/acc-approving-grant-of-rights-deal

The GOR will go down every year so when the ACC and ESPN start negotiations you pull the schools and agree to fund the schools so they don't lose much. In this regard you do it about 3 to 4 years before their contract renews.

Again the cost would be about 70 million between the two schools.

 

[topdecktiger]

Timing is everything. The Grant of Rights isn't a lifetime thing, it goes to 2026-27 it will need to be renewed. You time it so they announce right before a new GOR is signed, and if needs be you work on the state legislature to outlaw their schools to be hamstrung by any GOR.

According to this article
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...r/22116192/acc-approving-grant-of-rights-deal

The GOR will go down every year so when the ACC and ESPN start negotiations you pull the schools and agree to fund the schools so they don't lose much. In this regard you do it about 3 to 4 years before their contract renews.

Again the cost would be about 70 million between the two schools.

Well here is your problem. You are assuming the conference is dumb enough to let the GOR run out completely and not renew it before 2027. You are also assuming that the schools would want the state legislature to pass such a law in the first place. You are also overlooking that fact that if that law is passed, then the schools can't sign a GOR with their new conference either. That would mean another conference could swoop in and steal those teams from you just as easily.

Something else also doesn't make sense. On the one hand, you say to time it so that you get the schools right when the GOR runs out. Then on the other hand, you say you pull the schools 3-4 years before the contract renews. Well, both the GOR and TV contract expire in 2027. If you try to pull out the schools 3-4 years beforehand, then you are looking at well over $70 million. The exit fee alone is $32 million for each team. (It's actually $52 million, but since the ACC settled with Maryland we will go with 32). That puts you at $64 million. If you pull the teams out 3-4 years early, then you still have 3-4 years of TV rights that they have to forfeit. That's well over $100 million right there, not counting the exit fee.

 

[NU 71 72 74]

The University of Central Florida has 63,000 students while the University of South Florida has 49,000 students. Orlando and Tampa are solid TV markets. The Big 12 could do worse than invite these sleeping giants to an expanded conference.

.02

and, Go Cats !! and, Hook 'em for the Wife !

 

[Son of Wasatch]

Well here is your problem. You are assuming the conference is dumb enough to let the GOR run out completely and not renew it before 2027. You are also assuming that the schools would want the state legislature to pass such a law in the first place. You are also overlooking that fact that if that law is passed, then the schools can't sign a GOR with their new conference either. That would mean another conference could swoop in and steal those teams from you just as easily.

Something else also doesn't make sense. On the one hand, you say to time it so that you get the schools right when the GOR runs out. Then on the other hand, you say you pull the schools 3-4 years before the contract renews. Well, both the GOR and TV contract expire in 2027. If you try to pull out the schools 3-4 years beforehand, then you are looking at well over $70 million. The exit fee alone is $32 million for each team. (It's actually $52 million, but since the ACC settled with Maryland we will go with 32). That puts you at $64 million. If you pull the teams out 3-4 years early, then you still have 3-4 years of TV rights that they have to forfeit. That's well over $100 million right there, not counting the exit fee.

You make the announcement 3 or 4 years before the GOR/TV deal runs out and you let them play a couple more years in said conference. Then they jump and the cost is much lower. Maryland got out of everything for 32 million. It will be the president set and followed moving forward.

Of bigger concern to me isn't the exit fees but rather the sales pitch to bring them to the Big 12. Come to the Big 12 and fight with Texas and Oklahoma for supremacy oh, and go to Aimes Iowa and Manhattan Kansas for games once every 8 years. Not very compelling. I would say it would take also getting Notre Dame on board for the Big 12 to actually make sense for Clemson and FSU to jump ship.

 

[topdecktiger]

You make the announcement 3 or 4 years before the GOR/TV deal runs out and you let them play a couple more years in said conference. Then they jump and the cost is much lower. Maryland got out of everything for 32 million. It will be the president set and followed moving forward.

Of bigger concern to me isn't the exit fees but rather the sales pitch to bring them to the Big 12. Come to the Big 12 and fight with Texas and Oklahoma for supremacy oh, and go to Aimes Iowa and Manhattan Kansas for games once every 8 years. Not very compelling. I would say it would take also getting Notre Dame on board for the Big 12 to actually make sense for Clemson and FSU to jump ship.

It doesn't work that way. If you announce 3/4 years before leaving, then the conference can withhold all money (TV, bowls, everything) for those years.

You are incorrect about Maryland. The ACC did not have a GOR when Maryland announced they were leaving. The $32 million Maryland paid was only the exit fee. Maryland did not have to deal with a GOR when they left.

If the teams leave 3 years early, they forfeit their three years of TV money. That's $20 million per year. That would end up being $120 million for the two teams. Then you would have $64 million on top of that for the exit fee. That ends up being $184 million, just ballpark, that it would cost for the two teams to leave the conference.

 

[HornosaurusRex]

If you announce 3/4 years before leaving, then the conference can withhold all money (TV, bowls, everything) for those years.

The revenue split is contractual and there is no way to stop payments to a conference member for the amount contracted, so the conference may be able to keep a defecting team's tv rights and corresponding revenue (assuming the GOR is enforceable), but they can not withhold agreed upon splits to a current conference member.

Hook 'em

 

[doneagain]

Well here is your problem. You are assuming the conference is dumb enough to let the GOR run out completely and not renew it before 2027. You are also assuming that the schools would want the state legislature to pass such a law in the first place. You are also overlooking that fact that if that law is passed, then the schools can't sign a GOR with their new conference either. That would mean another conference could swoop in and steal those teams from you just as easily.

Something else also doesn't make sense. On the one hand, you say to time it so that you get the schools right when the GOR runs out. Then on the other hand, you say you pull the schools 3-4 years before the contract renews. Well, both the GOR and TV contract expire in 2027. If you try to pull out the schools 3-4 years beforehand, then you are looking at well over $70 million. The exit fee alone is $32 million for each team. (It's actually $52 million, but since the ACC settled with Maryland we will go with 32). That puts you at $64 million. If you pull the teams out 3-4 years early, then you still have 3-4 years of TV rights that they have to forfeit. That's well over $100 million right there, not counting the exit fee.

Well, here is your problem. The conference is not going to be making the decision to keep the grant of rights from ending. A vote by the schools will determine that. The ACC already saw Maryland and FSU vote in opposition to rules restricting their movement options.

With well documented financial issues in the ACC...

http://thecomeback.com/thestudentse...nd-themselves-in-major-financial-trouble.html

... it is not hard to envision other programs looking at other options in greener pastures. Maryland already bolted despite the huge payout. Each year that passes, the GOR gets smaller.

The ACC is no closer to a network than it was 5 years ago. The B10 could come calling for UVA, UNC and/or GT, and they do have a successful network to offer. They want to continue to sell their network for premium prices in large markets, so that could drive them to make a move.

Likewise for the SEC. The SEC could round off the south eastern states footprint by grabbing NC State and Virginia Tech, and again they do have the network to offer that the ACC is lacking.

Even the B12 is now making a push for a network, and they have been interested in FSU and Clemson. If other schools bolt for the B10 and SEC, no team in the ACC is safe. David Boren likes Pitt and Louisville, too.

Big 12 schools are making well over $20 million right now without a network. If/when the network gets going, the combining of the tier 3 rights will push the annual take towards $30 million. Expansion will be a priority because they will be following the model already laid out by the B10.

Obviously, the P12, SEC and B10 could make plays for B12 schools, too. But the B12 is attempting to be proactive, and the ACC is not. It is a little ironic that the ACC could be in peril, considering they were the ones that started all this by poaching the Big East of Miami, BC and VT.

 

[topdecktiger]

The revenue split is contractual and there is no way to stop payments to a conference member for the amount contracted, so the conference may be able to keep a defecting team's tv rights and corresponding revenue (assuming the GOR is enforceable), but they can not withhold agreed upon splits to a current conference member.

Hook 'em

Yes they can. The ACC withheld Maryland's TV revenue when they left for the Big Ten.

Well, here is your problem. The conference is not going to be making the decision to keep the grant of rights from ending. A vote by the schools will determine that. The ACC already saw Maryland and FSU vote in opposition to rules restricting their movement options.

With well documented financial issues in the ACC...

http://thecomeback.com/thestudentse...nd-themselves-in-major-financial-trouble.html

... it is not hard to envision other programs looking at other options in greener pastures. Maryland already bolted despite the huge payout. Each year that passes, the GOR gets smaller.

The ACC is no closer to a network than it was 5 years ago. The B10 could come calling for UVA, UNC and/or GT, and they do have a successful network to offer. They want to continue to sell their network for premium prices in large markets, so that could drive them to make a move.

Likewise for the SEC. The SEC could round off the south eastern states footprint by grabbing NC State and Virginia Tech, and again they do have the network to offer that the ACC is lacking.

Even the B12 is now making a push for a network, and they have been interested in FSU and Clemson. If other schools bolt for the B10 and SEC, no team in the ACC is safe. David Boren likes Pitt and Louisville, too.

Big 12 schools are making well over $20 million right now without a network. If/when the network gets going, the combining of the tier 3 rights will push the annual take towards $30 million. Expansion will be a priority because they will be following the model already laid out by the B10.

Obviously, the P12, SEC and B10 could make plays for B12 schools, too. But the B12 is attempting to be proactive, and the ACC is not. It is a little ironic that the ACC could be in peril, considering they were the ones that started all this by poaching the Big East of Miami, BC and VT.

Florida St signed the GOR. See, you keep mixing and matching things to try to prove your point, and it's leading to incorrect assumptions. Florida St did vote against the exit fee, but after that, they voted for the GOR. For your theory to be correct, Florida St should have voted against the GOR as well, but they didn't.

Here is yet another problem with your theory. You mentioned that the ACC doesn't have a network, but you make the assumption that the Big 12 will get one. Not likely. ESPN delayed launching the ACC network, mostly because of its financial issues. Well, ESPN's financial issues aren't going away any time soon, so that doesn't make it any more likely that they will start a Big 12 network either. The Big 12 has two other options, partner up with Fox, or go it alone. Fox may be interested, maybe not. No indication at this point. Going it alone won't produce much profit, as is evidenced by the Pac 12's problems.

Bottom line, there simply isn't enough money in it for Clemson and Florida St to move to the Big 12. When this was as issue in 2012, Florida St's president sent an email to the alumni explaining how this move wouldn't be financially viable. He mentioned that the Big 12's contract doesn't offer enough of an increase, and he noted that Florida St's travel expenses would increase by $2 million a year in the Big 12.

Regarding the contract, the Big 12's TV contract doesn't pay out over $20 million. The contract is for $2.6 billion over 13 years. That works out to an average of $200 million a year. Divided 10 ways, that's $20 million per school, right on the button. The total payout from the conference last year was $27 million, but that included bowl games, NCAA tournament, etc. The $27 million is not strictly TV contract money. By contract, Clemson got $25 million in total payout from the ACC last year. Given that the travel costs from Clemson are going to be on par with Florida St (probably a little more), that would eat up the $2 million extra the Big 12 paid out, plus the fact that the pot would be split 2 extra ways.

 

[HornosaurusRex]

Yes they can. The ACC withheld Maryland's TV revenue when they left for the Big Ten.

Announcing that you are leaving when the GOR expires provides no grounds to withhold revenue in the absence of other penalty clauses. Unreasonable withholding of revenue under such circumstances would be in violation of contract or would otherwise make the contract unconscionable and therefore void and unenforceable.

Hook 'em

 

[topdecktiger]

Announcing that you are leaving when the GOR expires provides no grounds to withhold revenue in the absence of other penalty clauses. Unreasonable withholding of revenue under such circumstances would be in violation of contract or would otherwise make the contract unconscionable and therefore void and unenforceable.

Hook 'em

Sorry, but this has already happened. Maryland's payout was withheld in their final year (2012) when they announced they were leaving for the Big Ten. Also, there wasn't even a GOR when Maryland announced. Their payout was withheld because the had basically separated themselves from the conference when they announced their move.

The other thing is, this has nothing to do with the TV contract. The TV contract is just between the network and the conference, not the individual schools. ESPN just pays the conference a lump sum, and it's up to the conference how the money is distributed. There is nothing in the TV contract that says School X must get such-and-such amount. That's purely an internal matter between the league and the schools.

 

[Roady]

FSU or Clemson playing in a division with TCU, Kansas, and Tech would be a desperation move of the last resort.

The alumni of these two schools inhabit the east coast, the recruiting footprint is the east coast and southeast.

There is little fan interest in p[laying Kansas, Tech, etc.

Such a move makes no sense for FSU.

More money? Sooo? Say you can give FSU an additional $10 million per year and their athletic revenue jumps from the current $121 million to $131 million. Is that a huge motivator?

Enough to play in a different time zone where they have few alumni? Where donations will go down? Where they don't recruit?

I don't think so.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Sorry, but this has already happened. Maryland's payout was withheld in their final year (2012) when they announced they were leaving for the Big Ten. Also, there wasn't even a GOR when Maryland announced. Their payout was withheld because the had basically separated themselves from the conference when they announced their move.

The other thing is, this has nothing to do with the TV contract. The TV contract is just between the network and the conference, not the individual schools. ESPN just pays the conference a lump sum, and it's up to the conference how the money is distributed. There is nothing in the TV contract that says School X must get such-and-such amount. That's purely an internal matter between the league and the schools.

Maryland actually paid no exit fee, she just did not collect her contract checks. The 32 million was the money not paid to Maryland by the ACC that was generated through the ACC/ESPN/Raycom package and the basketball payouts. Maryland more than made up for that in Big Ten pay outs. Rutgers saw an ever bigger boost since it was exiting the AAC.

By the time the time comes for FSU/Clemson/GT need to give notice, the difference between what everyone else is making and what the ACC members make, will make leaving the ACC a no-brainer.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

FSU or Clemson playing in a division with TCU, Kansas, and Tech would be a desperation move of the last resort.

The alumni of these two schools inhabit the east coast, the recruiting footprint is the east coast and southeast.

There is little fan interest in p[laying Kansas, Tech, etc.

Such a move makes no sense for FSU.

More money? Sooo? Say you can give FSU an additional $10 million per year and their athletic revenue jumps from the current $121 million to $131 million. Is that a huge motivator?

Enough to play in a different time zone where they have few alumni? Where donations will go down? Where they don't recruit?

I don't think so.

That is exactly what I was saying, the sales pitch just isn't there. Now if you tell them, come to the Big 12 and your division will also have Notre Dame, then there is true motivation to make the jump especially if you are talking a 6 team division where 4 FSU Clemson Notre Dame and WVU and the last two are Texas teams like say TCU in the DFW Metroplex and Tech or Baylor. Now there is an opportunity to play two to 4 times in the state of Texas in front of Texas recruits.

Frankly I think the only way any of this actually happens is if the Big 12 is dissolved and a new conference is created with about 7 teams for the Big 12 and 5 teams from the ACC including Notre Dame.

Take Texas OU OSU Kansas TCU WVU and Baylor, add in Notre Dame, FSU Clemson Virginia and Georgia Tech. Then you have a conference that rivals the SEC.

West has KU, OU, OSU, Texas, TCU, and Baylor
East has FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, WVU Notre Dame and Pitt

Give the Big 12 an amazingly big media footprint and rivals the SEC for best football in America.

Side note the reason I picked Pitt is that they are the #1 rival of West Virginia and I have this thing about taking care of them since they joined the Big 12. The rest of the Big 12 will be able to put together a pretty nice conference

ISU, KSU, Tech can grab SMU, Rice, Houston, BYU, Colorado State, and Boise State and form a pretty good league.
,

 

[Charleston Mountie]

That is exactly what I was saying, the sales pitch just isn't there. Now if you tell them, come to the Big 12 and your division will also have Notre Dame, then there is true motivation to make the jump especially if you are talking a 6 team division where 4 FSU Clemson Notre Dame and WVU and the last two are Texas teams like say TCU in the DFW Metroplex and Tech or Baylor. Now there is an opportunity to play two to 4 times in the state of Texas in front of Texas recruits.

Frankly I think the only way any of this actually happens is if the Big 12 is dissolved and a new conference is created with about 7 teams for the Big 12 and 5 teams from the ACC including Notre Dame.

Take Texas OU OSU Kansas TCU WVU and Baylor, add in Notre Dame, FSU Clemson Virginia and Georgia Tech. Then you have a conference that rivals the SEC.

West has KU, OU, OSU, Texas, TCU, and Baylor
East has FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, WVU Notre Dame and Pitt

Give the Big 12 an amazingly big media footprint and rivals the SEC for best football in America.

Side note the reason I picked Pitt is that they are the #1 rival of West Virginia and I have this thing about taking care of them since they joined the Big 12. The rest of the Big 12 will be able to put together a pretty nice conference

ISU, KSU, Tech can grab SMU, Rice, Houston, BYU, Colorado State, and Boise State and form a pretty good league.
,

I am going to hate myself for suggesting this but,

Pitt is only a rival to us older Mountaineers. Pitt has not been relevant for the last 30 years in football - and that is what this all about. They lose regularly to directional teams from Ohio. WVU already owns the Pittsburgh market and the only time Heinz fills up is when WVU or Notre Dame play there and that is because we bring the fans. As much as the history says yes include Pitt, Pitt has done nothing to make that relevant for the last 30 years.

Notre Dame is only going to join a conference when they are flat out notified that there is no way for them to get to the NCP except through a conference. Until then they will find somebody dumb enough to buy their deal of everything but football such as the ACC does now and the Big East did before that.

If those two are off the table for the reasons I suggested then your conference could go two ways:

Basketball has worth - Substitute Notre Dame and Pitt with Louisville and Cincinnati. Both are worthy of rival status for WVU and both bring very nice basketball. Both spend money on their athletics and both have on-campus stadiums, which Pitt does not. With both you get access into relatively larger state populations, whereas Pitt brings nothing new since WVU already covers that market. Both have had decent to good football teams as well and are easy to get by plane for the Big-12 and by car from WVU. This would balance the heavy basketball schools in the West division.

Football is worthier - Substitute Notre Dame and Pitt with North Carolina State and Virginia Tech. This is why I hate myself for suggesting this because Virginia Tech has been one of the most underhandedly run school since the conference carousel started, but there is also no school Mountaineers hate more. Likewise, Hokies can't stand the ground Mountaineers walk on. North Carolina State gets lost in the shuffle these days but is a rather decent school and one that has some history with FSU-Clemson-GT and they would find the inclusion of the Wolfpack a natural act. The downside is the NC State is only occasional noteworthy in basketball and Virginia Tech will never be anyone in basketball.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Yes they can. The ACC withheld Maryland's TV revenue when they left for the Big Ten.



Florida St signed the GOR. See, you keep mixing and matching things to try to prove your point, and it's leading to incorrect assumptions. Florida St did vote against the exit fee, but after that, they voted for the GOR. For your theory to be correct, Florida St should have voted against the GOR as well, but they didn't.

Here is yet another problem with your theory. You mentioned that the ACC doesn't have a network, but you make the assumption that the Big 12 will get one. Not likely. ESPN delayed launching the ACC network, mostly because of its financial issues. Well, ESPN's financial issues aren't going away any time soon, so that doesn't make it any more likely that they will start a Big 12 network either. The Big 12 has two other options, partner up with Fox, or go it alone. Fox may be interested, maybe not. No indication at this point. Going it alone won't produce much profit, as is evidenced by the Pac 12's problems.

Bottom line, there simply isn't enough money in it for Clemson and Florida St to move to the Big 12. When this was as issue in 2012, Florida St's president sent an email to the alumni explaining how this move wouldn't be financially viable. He mentioned that the Big 12's contract doesn't offer enough of an increase, and he noted that Florida St's travel expenses would increase by $2 million a year in the Big 12.

Regarding the contract, the Big 12's TV contract doesn't pay out over $20 million. The contract is for $2.6 billion over 13 years. That works out to an average of $200 million a year. Divided 10 ways, that's $20 million per school, right on the button. The total payout from the conference last year was $27 million, but that included bowl games, NCAA tournament, etc. The $27 million is not strictly TV contract money. By contract, Clemson got $25 million in total payout from the ACC last year. Given that the travel costs from Clemson are going to be on par with Florida St (probably a little more), that would eat up the $2 million extra the Big 12 paid out, plus the fact that the pot would be split 2 extra ways.

You numbers do not add up according to official reports.

The ACC reported a total payout of 291.7 million to be distributed among its 14 full members at an amount of 20.8. That amount is just 500,000 dollars shy of the total which one assumes was the basketball share paid to Notre Dame as the 15th member in non-football sports. It must be remembered that the ACC has no additional Tier 3 income as that is part of the total package. Each school does bring in other revenues on their own branding that fall outside of the contracted products but it is not much.

The Big-12 reported a total payout of 252 million where 8 full members each received 25.6 million, TCU received 24 million and WVU received 23 million. TCU got a million extra over WVU because of its Peach bowl CFP appearance. Unlike the ACC, the Big-12 schools also receive Tier 3 revenues from 3 to 15 million each. Texas gains the most at 15 million, WVU 2nd with 6.6 million and Oklahoma 3rd with 6.5 million.

These totals then provide the least paid school - TCU - at 24 + 3 = 27 million compared to the best in the ACC was Clemson at 21.3 million. The top in the Big-12 are Texas at 40.6 million and Oklahoma at 32.2 million. WVU's 29.6 is somewhere in the middle of that pack for the Big-12 is 40% better than the best in the ACC. No serious school in the ACC can tolerate that type of gap for very long. FSU is already very unhappy and Clemson is no less happy.

 

[diadevic]

You numbers do not add up according to official reports.

The ACC reported a total payout of 291.7 million to be distributed among its 14 full members at an amount of 20.8. That amount is just 500,000 dollars shy of the total which one assumes was the basketball share paid to Notre Dame as the 15th member in non-football sports. It must be remembered that the ACC has no additional Tier 3 income as that is part of the total package. Each school does bring in other revenues on their own branding that fall outside of the contracted products but it is not much.

The Big-12 reported a total payout of 252 million where 8 full members each received 25.6 million, TCU received 24 million and WVU received 23 million. TCU got a million extra over WVU because of its Peach bowl CFP appearance. Unlike the ACC, the Big-12 schools also receive Tier 3 revenues from 3 to 15 million each. Texas gains the most at 15 million, WVU 2nd with 6.6 million and Oklahoma 3rd with 6.5 million.

These totals then provide the least paid school - TCU - at 24 + 3 = 27 million compared to the best in the ACC was Clemson at 21.3 million. The top in the Big-12 are Texas at 40.6 million and Oklahoma at 32.2 million. WVU's 29.6 is somewhere in the middle of that pack for the Big-12 is 40% better than the best in the ACC. No serious school in the ACC can tolerate that type of gap for very long. FSU is already very unhappy and Clemson is no less happy.

I like this thinking. Make it happen.

 

[HornsRuleU]

<snip>... the Big-12 is 40% better than the best in the ACC. No serious school in the ACC can tolerate that type of gap for very long. FSU is already very unhappy and Clemson is no less happy.

Quick, before they renegotiate a TV contract!

(I think you meant, "no more happy," or maybe, "no less unhappy.")

 

[topdecktiger]

You numbers do not add up according to official reports.

The ACC reported a total payout of 291.7 million to be distributed among its 14 full members at an amount of 20.8. That amount is just 500,000 dollars shy of the total which one assumes was the basketball share paid to Notre Dame as the 15th member in non-football sports. It must be remembered that the ACC has no additional Tier 3 income as that is part of the total package. Each school does bring in other revenues on their own branding that fall outside of the contracted products but it is not much.

The Big-12 reported a total payout of 252 million where 8 full members each received 25.6 million, TCU received 24 million and WVU received 23 million. TCU got a million extra over WVU because of its Peach bowl CFP appearance. Unlike the ACC, the Big-12 schools also receive Tier 3 revenues from 3 to 15 million each. Texas gains the most at 15 million, WVU 2nd with 6.6 million and Oklahoma 3rd with 6.5 million.

These totals then provide the least paid school - TCU - at 24 + 3 = 27 million compared to the best in the ACC was Clemson at 21.3 million. The top in the Big-12 are Texas at 40.6 million and Oklahoma at 32.2 million. WVU's 29.6 is somewhere in the middle of that pack for the Big-12 is 40% better than the best in the ACC. No serious school in the ACC can tolerate that type of gap for very long. FSU is already very unhappy and Clemson is no less happy.

Yes, they add up. You are using 2014 numbers for the ACC, vs. 2015 for the Big 12. If you want to get an accurate comparison, you have to use the same year for both conferences.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Yes, they add up. You are using 2014 numbers for the ACC, vs. 2015 for the Big 12. If you want to get an accurate comparison, you have to use the same year for both conferences.

No they still do not add up.

2014 ACC total payout all sources: $291.7 million
2015 ACC total payout all sources: $302.3 million

That is a gross increase of only $10.6 million or an average of roughly $750,000 dollars per member.

$21.3 - Clemson
$20.2 - Florida State
$20.2 - Duke
$19.8 - North Carolina
$19.5 - Miami
$19.4 - Boston College
$19.3 - Virginia Tech
$19.2 - Georgia Tech
$19.2 - Syracuse
$18.9 - Pitt
$18.3 - Virginia
$17.9 - North Carolina State
$17.9 - Wake Forest
$4.9 - Notre Dame

Here is the point of note in all of this, while Maryland's $18.0 payout was retained as part of agreement upon their exit to the Big Ten, Louisville got zero payout as a newcomer.

How would you like to spin those numbers?

 

[topdecktiger]

No they still do not add up.

2014 ACC total payout all sources: $291.7 million
2015 ACC total payout all sources: $302.3 million

That is a gross increase of only $10.6 million or an average of roughly $750,000 dollars per member.

$21.3 - Clemson
$20.2 - Florida State
$20.2 - Duke
$19.8 - North Carolina
$19.5 - Miami
$19.4 - Boston College
$19.3 - Virginia Tech
$19.2 - Georgia Tech
$19.2 - Syracuse
$18.9 - Pitt
$18.3 - Virginia
$17.9 - North Carolina State
$17.9 - Wake Forest
$4.9 - Notre Dame

Here is the point of note in all of this, while Maryland's $18.0 payout was retained as part of agreement upon their exit to the Big Ten, Louisville got zero payout as a newcomer.

How would you like to spin those numbers?

No spin necessary. They aren't correct. Clemson got $25 million from the ACC last year. Georgia Tech got $27.3. http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...ffirms-Georgia-Tech-Athletic-Associations-Rev

 

[Charleston Mountie]

No spin necessary. They aren't correct. Clemson got $25 million from the ACC last year. Georgia Tech got $27.3. http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...ffirms-Georgia-Tech-Athletic-Associations-Rev

Perhaps you made another error or perhaps not, your comprehension skills have been called into question before:

"Operating revenue sources include distributions from its athletic conference (Atlantic Coast Conference, or ACC), seat and ticket sales, advertising and sponsorships, student athletic fees, and gifts."

The ACC TV package is only a part of that total. The total is defined in the first sentence of the pertinent paragraph. You are really not very good at this.

 

[topdecktiger]

Perhaps you made another error or perhaps not, your comprehension skills have been called into question before:

"Operating revenue sources include distributions from its athletic conference (Atlantic Coast Conference, or ACC), seat and ticket sales, advertising and sponsorships, student athletic fees, and gifts."

The ACC TV package is only a part of that total. The total is defined in the first sentence of the pertinent paragraph. You are really not very good at this.

Nope. Wrong again. You are the one who didn't read carefully.

GTAA's ACC distributions accounted for 41.2% of fiscal 2015 operating revenues and increased over 40% from 2014 to $27.3 million, mainly due to a broadcasting agreement with ESPN and the College Football Playoff structure.

It specifically says the ACC distributions were $27.3 million. You just ignored that because it didn't fit your narrative. Sorry, but the numbers are there in black and white.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

Nope. Wrong again. You are the one who didn't read carefully.

GTAA's ACC distributions accounted for 41.2% of fiscal 2015 operating revenues and increased over 40% from 2014 to $27.3 million, mainly due to a broadcasting agreement with ESPN and the College Football Playoff structure.

It specifically says the ACC distributions were $27.3 million. You just ignored that because it didn't fit your narrative. Sorry, but the numbers are there in black and white.

Try again grasshopper. You still have it wrong - read it all. There is this thing called context. You seem to have a problem with that as well as general reading comprehension.

 

[topdecktiger]

Try again grasshopper. You still have it wrong - read it all. There is this thing called context. You seem to have a problem with that as well as general reading comprehension.

No, you have it wrong. The $27.3 million is the money Georgia Tech got from the ACC. Georgia Tech's overall revenue is around $66 million. That includes ticket sales, alumni donations, etc. The $27.3 million is just the money from the ACC.

You want to talk context, here you go. The article says:
Operating revenue sources include distributions from its athletic conference (Atlantic Coast Conference, or ACC), seat and ticket sales, advertising and sponsorships, student athletic fees, and gifts.

Ok, that's defining operating revenue for you. Operation revenue includes ACC money, plus several other sources. Now, the article then says:
GTAA's ACC distributions accounted for 41.2% of fiscal 2015 operating revenues and increased over 40% from 2014 to $27.3 million

Ok, this is telling you that ACC money was 41% of the total operating revenue. Then it tells you how much the ACC money was, which was $27.3 million. You can't say the $27.3 million is the total operating revenue for Georgia Tech. Here's why. You said earlier that Georgia Tech go $19.2 million from the ACC in 2015. Well, 19.2 is 70% of 27.3. The article specifically said the ACC money was 41% of the overall revenue. 70% is not 41%. It's obvious that the article is stating that the $27.3 million is the amount of ACC revenue, not total revenue.