- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 47,465
Look, @Cane & Able , I respect your knowledge of the Big 10 and all of the machinations that have been going on.
And I'm not saying that Condi isn't making an effort.
But I will absolutely bet against her. She is bright and talented, and also vastly overrated in this arena. And she has no leverage. Zero.
You've been telling everyone how non-AAU F$U and Clemson are Big 10 1A and 1B due to TV viewership and Fox/CBS/NBC pulling the strings. Fine, I'll play along for the moment.
First, we have Stanford and Cal. ESPN only thought that the Pac 12 was worth $30M per school, and Stanford-Cal were mid-value Pac 12 schools anyhow, and arguably in the bottom 4. Apple TV offered the Pac 12 only $20M per school. And when the Big 12 had the CHANCE to take any additional Pac 12 schools, Oregon and Washington (both more valuable than Stanford and Cal) were only worth $30M each. So that means that by ALL available metrics, ALL available "willing seller/willing buyer" situations (you know, the process that determines FMV), we can set the value of Stanford and Cal at between $20M and $30M per year. Which would REDUCE the average payout of all ACC schools, not increase it.
Second, we have ND. Now, $65M per year from football is a nice number. But, again, given that the ACC is paying around $35M per school, you would need for two things to be true: (a) ND is WILLING to give away $28M of its $30M in monetary advantage to the ACC, simply to get what it basically already has, which is "games against ACC opponents"; and (b) if ND gives up $28M to (presumably) 14 existing ACC schools (momentarily setting aside the REDUCTION in payments to the ACC due to the additions of Stanford and Cal), then that means each ACC school would get...wait for it...an extra $2M per year by bringing ND into the fold. Annnnnnd...we are currently running behind the Big 10 by $25M per year. Not sure that this closes the gap.
Third, we have this miraculous "fourth school". Let's say it's SMU. Why? How? In what bizarre financial model does SMU "change the game", let alone fix any of the two preceding points (one where Stanford-Cal REDUCE the ACC payouts, the other where ND only increases the ACC payouts by $2M per school).
Look, you have spent countless hours telling us how the Big 10 is betting big on the "people want to see great matchups" promise. Now you are trying to convince us that new matchups involving Stanford and Cal and ND (maybe) and SMU will completely transform the game and lead to the ACC making anywhere close to Big 10 money? Yeah, this doesn't sound like anything you've said for months.
Now, even if we want to squeeze a bit of extra juice out...
---More conference games? So, if we JUUUUUST play 10 conference games, suddenly ESPN will back up the Brinks truck? This does not sound anywhere close to the truth, not when the 14 or 15 team ACC (without the powerhouses of Stanford, Cal, and SMU) are doing deals with The CW.
---OTA vs. streaming? You've spent months telling us how OTA ain't dead yet, and it's the primary driver, meanwhile we are supposed to believe "thar's gold in them there streaming hills" when ESPN is desperate to put more and more games on the ol' Plus-O, not to mention the fact that they LOVE the SEC far more than the ACC.
---Travel and regions? In a time when the SEC is slavishly holding to its tight-tight footprint, and the Big 10 finally caved to taking FOUR teams from the Pacific states, somehow we are supposed to believe that "only" two California teams (in probably the least sports-interested MSA in Cali) are going to be a revenue driver? And, look, I can wrap my head around people in the east having the willingness to stay up past midnight on a Saturday to watch USC or UCLA, but I don't think you've factored in the concept that NOBODY in California is going to be getting up at 9 am to watch the vast majority of the east-coast ACC teams play noon EST games. Maybe in Vegas/Reno, and I've actually watched some noon Miami games out there in the casinos. But come on, now...
And finally, let's sum this up. WHY would ND and the rest of the ACC do ANYTHING that Condoleezza Rice asks? Because she's a great debater? Because she has naked photos of certain ACC presidents? Look, I realize she's done some admirable things in the political arena, and has parlayed that into a grossly undeserved role with the CFP selection committee. But if you're trying to convince us that a little Condi-jawing will FINALLY convince ND to give up its football independence after decades of EVERY OTHER LOGICAL ARGUMENT leading to failure...
Well, choose to believe what you want. You're a good guy with fantastic information. You've given me a lot of new things to consider, such as the demographic shifts within the United States, and the fact that not every TV sports viewer is some 17-year-old cable-cutter who knows how to stream games on dark-net websites.
But you're also accustomed to dealing with the smarter university presidents and conference commissioners. You haven't spent enough time dealing with the morons and no-visionaries of the ACC.
Look, the ACC has backed itself into a corner. There are no financial avenues forward that will allow us to match the Big 10/SEC levels of cash-money. So, who knows, maybe some of our idiot ACC presidents like Julio Frenk will be bamboozled into the fools' gold of Stanford-Cal. But if we keep falling for this banana in the tailpipe, then we will blow our chance. The Big 10 will wake up and realize that USF is an AAU school in a market that ACTUALLY watches football rabidly (unlike the SF Bay Area). And then schools like F$U and Clemson and Miami will truly be ****-out-of-luck.
I respectfully decline Wesley Snipes' advice, and I bet against Condoleezza Rice in this situation.
R- may be an actual vote tomorrow. “Miami is school no one wants to talk about … but our sources have Miami against expansion.”
