Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2219]

There are like ten schools that are in the same ballpark as each other and bring big value:

Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Notre Dame, Penn State, USC, Florida, LSU

Then you have a few more who hover under them like:

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennesse, Wisconsin

So, unless those are the schools you're adding.    Its not additive to the Big Ten nor SEC.  

UNC, Clemson, FSU, Oregon, Washington have solid value, but the only way you add to the big 2 now is if you get rid of lower fruit in there.   Like, sorry Mississippi State, but you're out and FSU's in.   It wouldn't bring bags of money, but it would, technically, add more, e.g. MSU is worth $30m/year, FSU may be $40-45m.   It doesn't make everyone rich, but it swaps out for a bit higher value.

But, outside ND, there is literally no one left who will add to the SEC/B1G's media money.    The only way to really make more with it now, is combine the B1G/SEC into one media contract.

 

[Hagbard Celine 11250]

welp, today's the last day for moving without breaking things

[DFW Horn 6653]

8 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

welp, today's the last day for moving without breaking things

Dr. de la Torre @ SDSU has gotta be pulling her hair out by now.

[Texas Wahoo 3631]

16 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Dr. de la Torre @ SDSU has gotta be pulling her hair out by now.

SDSU got a lot of flack for how they handled this, but I think both sides of the MW issue have handled it about as well as they could have.

SDSU thinks that they are leaving and wants to avoid paying 17 million extra, so they sent a somewhat ambiguous notice that they plan to withdraw in the future.  I can see them hoping that either (1) they will be able to argue later that this letter was their notice of withdrawal and thus they should only have to pay the 17 million or (2) this will make it clear that the Pac 12 is at fault and maybe the Pac 12 will be more likely to help them out with the extra money (e.g., loaning them the money and taking it out of their payments over the next several years).

The Mountain West did the right thing in treating it as a current withdrawal, thus forcing SDSU to clarify whether it is a withdrawal.  This clarification makes it much harder for SDSU to claim it was the necessary withdrawal before July 1 required by the bylaws.

Finally, SDSU had to clarify that it was not a withdrawal because they do not yet have the Pac 12 invite and cannot risk being left without a conference.

Both sides are dealing with a shitty situation that is outside of their control.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

22 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Dr. de la Torre @ SDSU has gotta be pulling her hair out by now.

Her and her senior staff at the President's House right now:

[USC Traveler 488]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

They have very good viewership because they have been one of the most successful programs of the BCS/CFP era.  They also will generate playoff berths and big games.  They are probably #4 on the list after Notre Dame and FSU who they won’t get anytime soon if ever and Washington. 
 

So tell me exactly which BIG schools will find it in their best interest to add UO ?  And if they're that valuable, why didn't the BIG do it over the last 12 months ?

It's not just about tv- it's about whether adding a school makes things better for the existing members.  There's more to it than just money.

(Side note- UO's tv numbers have been boosted by their scheduling of teams like UGA, OSU, LSU, Tenn, etc, which I credit them for doing.)

//

If the Zeros brought ND-level viewership, then we wouldn't behaving this debate, but they don't.  So they are evaluated on lots of different criteria.

ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, UVA are all more valuable to the BIG than UO for various reasons.  TV value matters, but it's not determinative.  If it was, Boise would have been in the PAC long ago.  

The Presidents have priorities/agendas that go far beyond tv value.  That's why BYU never got in the PAC, even though they would have been a strong addition.

UO has a lot of negatives working against them.  If UW was in VA, they'd be a lock, but they're in the PNW, which will hold them back.

And as far as schools that help USC and UCLA with travel, that would be Stanford and ASU, which are both in huge tv markets with a ton of BIG alums.

[Texas Wahoo 3631]

I thought the following chart was interesting.  Obviously football and markets and TV draw are the lion's share of realignment, but conferences clearly also want schools with good academics reputations and good overall athletics programs

Of the eight non-SEC teams on the list, two are moving to the SEC, one is moving to the Big Ten, and one is Notre Dame, which any conference would love to have.

That leaves only UNC/UVA and Stanford/Cal.  This might help explain why UNC/UVA are always listed as schools that the Big Ten and SEC would fight over.  Stanford and Cal are interesting in that they are so far away from the Big Ten and SEC and do not bring the same football success and market that USC (and to a lesser extent UCLA) does.

[USC Traveler 488]

2 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

What ACC teams are truly additive to the B1G using your rationale? We know the B1G will probably want UVA, UNC, FSU, and maybe GT. Clemson is probably a non-starter academically .

ND is the only real slam-dunk addition for them.

ND is the only slam-dunk based on ratings alone, but when you factor everything else in, I think FSU, Miami, UNC, UVA are slamdunks also.

Everything else consists of tv markets, recruiting of athletes and regular students, BIG alums in the area (for fundraising off games), and academic status.

FL, VA, and NC are states the BIG is going to prioritize because the BIG schools have a fundamental problem- they are all located in states that are either losing population or growing very slowly.  Being able to recruit students from the Southeast is huge for the BIG long-term.

FSU is on the way to becoming AAU, and close enough that the BIG would take them in a heartbeat.

//

Clemson is an interesting case.  They recently put out a huge strategic plan to upgrade academics to become AAU.  Along with FSU, they bring the best tv ratings outside of anyone not named ND who isn't in the BIG/SEC in 2024, so they would bring real value.

Culturally, they're an SEC school, but there's no guarantee UGA, UF, Bama would want them in the conference, just like FSU.  There's a good chance Clemson and FSU can't get the votes to join the SEC, as they'd be much tougher to recruit against in the SEC.  Why would Kirby or Saban want to legitimize them as competitors by bringing them into the SEC ?

If Clemson can't get the SEC invite, I could see the BIG adding them as part of a bigger package of ACC schools, with "academic progress" towards becoming AAU deemed good enough for membership, especially if they're coming in with UVA, UNC and Miami.

[thunderlounge 8409]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

There are like ten schools that are in the same ballpark as each other and bring big value:

Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Notre Dame, Penn State, USC, Florida, LSU

ding ding ding

And the majority of members in the b1g/sec aren’t voting to allow less money in their pockets, or exposure.

Which is why the acc/b12 remain viable. That’s where the less than top money, but still viable, options end up.

[Al_4_ISU 12623]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

There are like ten schools that are in the same ballpark as each other and bring big value:

Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Notre Dame, Penn State, USC, Florida, LSU

Then you have a few more who hover under them like:

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennesse, Wisconsin

So, unless those are the schools you're adding.    Its not additive to the Big Ten nor SEC.  

UNC, Clemson, FSU, Oregon, Washington have solid value, but the only way you add to the big 2 now is if you get rid of lower fruit in there.   Like, sorry Mississippi State, but you're out and FSU's in.   It wouldn't bring bags of money, but it would, technically, add more, e.g. MSU is worth $30m/year, FSU may be $40-45m.   It doesn't make everyone rich, but it swaps out for a bit higher value.

But, outside ND, there is literally no one left who will add to the SEC/B1G's media money.    The only way to really make more with it now, is combine the B1G/SEC into one media contract.

 

Or for the biggest brands in those leagues to separate and create their own smaller league.  I've been castigated for making this suggestion before as some kind of sour grapes, but the more time goes by the more sense I think it makes.  Purdue and Mississppi State are far more similar to Iowa State and Oklahoma State in profile than they are Bama, Texas, LSU, etc.  In the next 10 years, I really think you'll see the top brands in the Big 10 and SEC create even more separation between themselves and the bottom 2/3rds of those leagues.

There are so few schools that can actually win a national title, and at least half of the SEC and 3/4ths of the Big 10 aren't in that boat.  If you have the biggest brands in their own league playing their own championship, you guarantee nothing but marquee home slates for those schools and big ratings, and those schools who clock in between 15-70 nationally have a much wider opportunity to win, and will absolutely draw enough eyeballs to have a lucrative product.

Yeah, someone will have to lose in the super league, but it probably won't be the same schools every year because they'll all have this really high and relatively equal access to capital.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Al_4_ISU

[Hurtlocker 2219]

30 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, someone will have to lose in the super league, but it probably won't be the same schools every year because they'll all have this really high and relatively equal access to capital.

This is the part I'm most interested to see fleshed out.   

Historically, big brands aren't built in the regular season, they're built on championship runs.  Championship runs that are, typically built on regular seasons full of cupcakes and nonbrands.   Like an exhibition season to get to the finals.

Brands, when losing, still draw ok, but no where near what they draw when winning.   But we've made all these changes ONLY for the regular season media contracts.  Way more money, but also more Ls than when it was more fractured.  Also, even if you get four teams in the playoff, not everyone makes it through.   Brands aren't built on almost winning.   First and second round loses are no better off than a bowl game, IF you're a brand.

So something is going to happen over the next 5-10 years:

• Either what you say is right and the brands will always be battling for supremacy and it will be an Ohio State natty one year then Bama the next then Michigan, then Texas, then USC...etc.   If that happens the money will roll.
• Or, one or two teams make it through a gauntlet repeatedly of the backs of the other ones, who start to languish and act rashly, firing coaches, upending programs and basically spiraling their own failure. 

I kind of anticipate that the second will happen, because that's kind of what always happens.   Someone puts it all together at once and goes on a run.   Then everyone reacts to that run and some fail miserably until someone finally upends it and does their own run.   It is rarely an even cage match.

If the second does happen, teams that are in other conferences and put together a run will be able to build a much bigger brand.   If Oregon stays in a depleted Pac and wins a natty or two, they'll become the new Clemson or FSU or the next Miami.   Not a blueblood, but always in the convo.   Do that for long enough and it builds until you are.   Case in point, UConn basketball.   Wasn't a blueblood in the 80s, but they are now.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

welp, today's the last day for moving without breaking things

I'm beginning to think the Pac's backout point is July 31st and that's fucking San Diego, which is today.

I think they're fine though.   If the MWC won't let them stay and the Pac/B12 are not interested, call the AAC.   Mike will take you, Mike likes everyone.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

Also, ESPN just laid off a ton of staff, including a lot of household names.

Probably for freeing up money to spend on 15 late night windows.

[bullet 1630]

3 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

He still loses a 10-4 vote.

I forget what percentage the SEC bylaws state as the minimum to add members. Moot point

that agreement is total fiction. Florida has spnsored FSU.  And their purpose now is not to build the SEC network that’s in permanent decline so having new states is not as important.   FSU is absolutely first on the SEC list they would love to have them.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

23 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Also, ESPN just laid off a ton of staff, including a lot of household names.

Probably for freeing up money to spend on 15 late night windows.

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[bullet 1630]

3 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

There are like ten schools that are in the same ballpark as each other and bring big value:

Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Notre Dame, Penn State, USC, Florida, LSU

Then you have a few more who hover under them like:

Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennesse, Wisconsin

So, unless those are the schools you're adding.    Its not additive to the Big Ten nor SEC.  

UNC, Clemson, FSU, Oregon, Washington have solid value, but the only way you add to the big 2 now is if you get rid of lower fruit in there.   Like, sorry Mississippi State, but you're out and FSU's in.   It wouldn't bring bags of money, but it would, technically, add more, e.g. MSU is worth $30m/year, FSU may be $40-45m.   It doesn't make everyone rich, but it swaps out for a bit higher value.

But, outside ND, there is literally no one left who will add to the SEC/B1G's media money.    The only way to really make more with it now, is combine the B1G/SEC into one media contract.

 

You significantly underrate a few schools.  According to the Sic-em analysis, your 2nd tier schools are 19, 14, 17 and 13.  At least equal to your 2nd tier are Auburn #4, FSU 9 and Clemson 10.  USC in your first tier, of course, during a down period and playing on the left coast, is #21.  Oregon lead the Pac 12 schools at #20.

['stache 22141]

Fuck OU, but on what basis would they be second tier under the analysis? They are top 10 in revenue, ratings, etc., the numbers that matter. And even if it was close, keeping OU and Texas together as a conference game is a massive value.

[bullet 1630]

2 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

So tell me exactly which BIG schools will find it in their best interest to add UO ?  And if they're that valuable, why didn't the BIG do it over the last 12 months ?

It's not just about tv- it's about whether adding a school makes things better for the existing members.  There's more to it than just money.

(Side note- UO's tv numbers have been boosted by their scheduling of teams like UGA, OSU, LSU, Tenn, etc, which I credit them for doing.)

//

If the Zeros brought ND-level viewership, then we wouldn't behaving this debate, but they don't.  So they are evaluated on lots of different criteria.

ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, UVA are all more valuable to the BIG than UO for various reasons.  TV value matters, but it's not determinative.  If it was, Boise would have been in the PAC long ago.  

The Presidents have priorities/agendas that go far beyond tv value.  That's why BYU never got in the PAC, even though they would have been a strong addition.

UO has a lot of negatives working against them.  If UW was in VA, they'd be a lock, but they're in the PNW, which will hold them back.

And as far as schools that help USC and UCLA with travel, that would be Stanford and ASU, which are both in huge tv markets with a ton of BIG alums.

There are only 6 schools not in the P2 who are serious regular playoff contenders.  Washington and Oregon, along with FSU, Clemson, Miami and ND are the others.

Washington and Oregon help lock up the west coast.  They help lock up the playoff contenders.  And while none of the surveys of fan interest are perfect, Oregon is consistently the favorite team in California north of San Francisco.  In some surveys, it is ahead of Cal and Stanford in parts of the Bay Area.

McMurphy said the Big 10 was looking at 7 schools-UW, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, Notre Dame, FSU and Miami.  We know Cal and Stanford were at the bottom of that list as they weren't in Chicago making presentations.  McMurphy is not the only one who is convinced Washington and Oregon will be invited sometime in the next decade.

Virginia and UNC have value, but its not like moving into NYC.  And their fb tv viewership is very pedestrian.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

1 minute ago, bullet said:

There is only 1 school not in the P2 who is a serious regular playoff contender.  Clemson.

FIFY

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Your guess is as good as mine. 🤣

[Uncle Nate 2097]

4 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Your guess is as good as mine. 🤣

Greg Flugaur knows less than anyone, and that's saying something.  Dude is in a basement in Chicago or Minnesota or something and basically just reads whatever rumors are out there on Twitter and then does a podcast or tweet-cast or youtube or whatever about it.  I guarantee you that if the PAC 12 presidents were presented with a deal today, he would be the last to know (like seriously, you all at Surly would know before he would).

Jason, on the other hand, does seem to have at least a couple of solid connections within UA, so I'm not so quick to dismiss what he says.  And if he is saying something that is opposite of the PATC guy, then Jason is the one who is right.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Uncle Nate

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

ND is the only slam-dunk based on ratings alone, but when you factor everything else in, I think FSU, Miami, UNC, UVA are slamdunks also.

Everything else consists of tv markets, recruiting of athletes and regular students, BIG alums in the area (for fundraising off games), and academic status.

FL, VA, and NC are states the BIG is going to prioritize because the BIG schools have a fundamental problem- they are all located in states that are either losing population or growing very slowly.  Being able to recruit students from the Southeast is huge for the BIG long-term.

FSU is on the way to becoming AAU, and close enough that the BIG would take them in a heartbeat.

//

Clemson is an interesting case.  They recently put out a huge strategic plan to upgrade academics to become AAU.  Along with FSU, they bring the best tv ratings outside of anyone not named ND who isn't in the BIG/SEC in 2024, so they would bring real value.

Culturally, they're an SEC school, but there's no guarantee UGA, UF, Bama would want them in the conference, just like FSU.  There's a good chance Clemson and FSU can't get the votes to join the SEC, as they'd be much tougher to recruit against in the SEC.  Why would Kirby or Saban want to legitimize them as competitors by bringing them into the SEC ?

If Clemson can't get the SEC invite, I could see the BIG adding them as part of a bigger package of ACC schools, with "academic progress" towards becoming AAU deemed good enough for membership, especially if they're coming in with UVA, UNC and Miami.

Notre Dame is obviously the school to keep the closest eye on.  They haven't extended their NBC deal yet, they hired an NBC Sports guy to be AD, and the Big Ten schools just got them an AAU invite - despite the Irish being outside the Top 100 nationally in R&D output.  It feels like there are things happening behind the scenes.  

The expansion situation surrounding the Irish is hard to read.  Warren mentioned other PAC schools as targets, by name, and I think the President at Northwestern mentioned travel concerns with the L.A. schools being on an island.  The three PAC schools that help the "travel" concerns most would be Stanford, Cal, and ASU - the last of which just coincidentally (?) got an AAU invite.

https://247sports.com/college/ucla/Article/Big-Ten-realignment-Northwestern-president-not-really-thrilled-w-210657008/

Theoretically, if the Big Ten added ND, Stanford, Cal, and ASU, they could seriously limit travel issues for existing members and help the two L.A. schools in that regard, at the same time.  I don't know if ND actually pays those expansion bills, but we know there is an escalator in the B1G contract for ND already in place.  Adding western inventory could bring ESPN back to the table for the late kick games, so who knows.  

[bullet 1630]

3 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

FIFY

I guess you have already forgotten about FSU, Miami and Notre Dame's multiple MNCs and Oregon's multiple 2nd place finishes.  Washington has an MNC and has been up there a lot as well.

I posted this before, but there are a relative handful of schools who have dominated the rankings, most of whom dominated in the 60s/70s as well as more recently.  13 schools since 1968 have 10 or more top 5 finishes and each has 6 or more top 3 and all but Michigan (only 1)  have multiple AP MNCs.  Anyone posting on this board could figure out who those 13 are.  There are 7 other schools (LSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Clemson, Washington, Oregon, Colorado) with 5-7 top 5 and all but Tennessee (2) also have at least 3 top 3 finishes.  All but Washington (a coaches' title) and Oregon (lots of 2nd places) have an AP MNC.  Outside the group only TCU, UCLA, Arizona St. and Pitt even have 3 top 5 finishes.  Only TCU (3) and Pitt (2) have more than 1 top 3 finish.  So there are only 19 schools (20 if you think CU comes back from the dead) who are consistent threats.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

Looks like they were both right.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Jabberwocky

[Uncle Nate 2097]

25 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Looks like they were both right.

Can someone translate for me what "significant linear concepts" means?

[77horn 216]

15 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Can someone translate for me what "significant linear concepts" means?

[BurntOrange&White 41863]

47 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

Looks like they were both right.

WTF does "significant linear concepts" mean?

[camel at sea 589]

23 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Can someone translate for me what "significant linear concepts" means?

It sounds like linear carriers that are not traditionally college football carriers (i.e. the CW or something like it.)  

[Uncle Nate 2097]

2 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

It sounds like linear carriers that are not traditionally college football carriers (i.e. the CW or something like it.)  

Tonight on MeTV...it's the Carol Burnet Show, followed by Oregon State vs. Cal.

[LTtxfan 50005]

13 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Tonight on MeTV...it's the Carol Burnet Show, followed by Oregon State vs. Cal.

 

Tim Conway's Elephant Story

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[DFW Horn 6653]

2 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Reads like the PAC wants to stay together as 10 come hell or high water.

Oh, well. Big 12 is still in a good place.

[bullet 1630]

42 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Tonight on MeTV...it's the Carol Burnet Show, followed by Oregon State vs. Cal.

Wouldn't having Oregon St.-Cal drag down ratings for Carol Burnet as opposed to being followed by Black & white Perry Mason episodes?!

[Hurtlocker 2219]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

You significantly underrate a few schools.  According to the Sic-em analysis, your 2nd tier schools are 19, 14, 17 and 13.  At least equal to your 2nd tier are Auburn #4, FSU 9 and Clemson 10.  USC in your first tier, of course, during a down period and playing on the left coast, is #21.  Oregon lead the Pac 12 schools at #20.

I'm discussing brands, not how well some teams do in big games or when they're good.  At 6-6 more people will still watch Texas or Michigan than will tune into Aurburn or FSU or Clemson.    Oregon's brand is growing but it is not in that top tier.

Nebraska has fucking blown for decades, but they still carry more brand power than Oregon.     

When consolidating for regular seasons, you want brands.   Viewers will come.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

5 minutes ago, bullet said:

Wouldn't having Oregon St.-Cal drag down ratings for Carol Burnet as opposed to being followed by Black & white Perry Mason episodes?!

This is why Carol Burnet is before OSU-Cal.  The hope is her show will boost the ratings for the game.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

36 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

Oh man, Brett Yormark is a cold, calculating SOB.  Release this on the same day after the reports the Pac 12 still doesn't have shit and have fucked it up so bad that SDSU had to grovel back to the MWC with hat in hand.

I like the man's style.

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

 

 

[LTtxfan 50005]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nate said:

Can someone translate for me what "significant linear concepts" means?

 

 PAC 10

[Hurtlocker 2219]

19 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Oh man, Brett Yormark is a cold, calculating SOB.  Release this on the same day after the reports the Pac 12 still doesn't have shit and have fucked it up so bad that SDSU had to grovel back to the MWC with hat in hand.

I like the man's style.

Haha, that is the benefit of timing, the next year starts tomorrow.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

16 minutes ago, Jabberwocky said:

 

This seems a no brainer.   The windows are filling up fast and you can either put more games on streaming, at 12-14 teams, or you can take more windows.   They've got 2 on Saturday, but getting Thursday and Friday nights not only takes games off streaming to linear, but also takes options away from the Pac.    

After next year, they could add 2-4 more west coast teams and take the late night window too and keep 3-5 linear slots on every week.   Granted, not all in the top three camps of Big Noon on Fox and ESPN/ABC in prime, but its far better branding to be on tv than not.   And playing Thursday night on ESPN is better than FS1, like, ever.   And FS1 is better than any conference network or streaming.   

 

Edited June 30, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[LTtxfan 50005]

Brett Yormark:

 

[camel at sea 589]

25 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I'm discussing brands, not how well some teams do in big games or when they're good.  At 6-6 more people will still watch Texas or Michigan than will tune into Aurburn or FSU or Clemson.    Oregon's brand is growing but it is not in that top tier.

Nebraska has fucking blown for decades, but they still carry more brand power than Oregon.     

When consolidating for regular seasons, you want brands.   Viewers will come.

How would you measure a brand power battle between Oregon and Nebraska?  

TV audience?  Appeal to recruits?  Merch sales?  Ticket prices for an opponent when they visit?  NU has been irrelevant for nearly all of the adult years of U.S. millennials and they've been a total non-factor for the entire lives of Gen Z.  

[Hurtlocker 2219]

So this is an interesting one that I am not sure about.   Brian is pretty good with media numbers, but the B12 just signed an additional data deal a little bit ago.  I basically monetizes targeted ads.    The NFL's is like a quarter or a half bill, so I'd be shocked if the B12 was getting $84m a year, but this could be a part of where basketball has more value due to the shear number of games.    Not really my wheelhouse, but interesting if true.

3 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

How would you measure a brand power battle between Oregon and Nebraska?  

TV audience?  Appeal to recruits?  Merch sales?  Ticket prices for an opponent when they visit?  NU has been irrelevant for nearly all of the adult years of U.S. millennials and they've been a total non-factor for the entire lives of Gen Z.  

Thats kind of how I'd measure it, like a Q-score.   When Nebraska sucks balls, they're still pulling in similar numbers to Oregon when at their best.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[Welshy 914]

23 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

Oh man, Brett Yormark is a cold, calculating SOB.  Release this on the same day after the reports the Pac 12 still doesn't have shit and have fucked it up so bad that SDSU had to grovel back to the MWC with hat in hand.

I like the man's style.

He's a huge upgrade, but he didn't do anything magical. 

ESPN: 
"Todays your lucky day. Our data, and Fox agrees (fox nods), shows the big12 has financial viability if..."

Yormak applying chapstick:

"Do you like your balls sucked or licked"

[Jabberwocky 1666]

 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

13 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

So this is an interesting one that I am not sure about.   Brian is pretty good with media numbers, but the B12 just signed an additional data deal a little bit ago.  I basically monetizes targeted ads.    The NFL's is like a quarter or a half bill, so I'd be shocked if the B12 was getting $84m a year, but this could be a part of where basketball has more value due to the shear number of games.    Not really my wheelhouse, but interesting if true.

Thats kind of how I'd measure it, like a Q-score.   When Nebraska sucks balls, they're still pulling in similar numbers to Oregon when at their best.

 

I think it goes way beyond just targeted ads.  When it was first announced, they were talking about how this data could be used by advanced analytic sites for gambling sites and the like?  I admit I don't know much more than that, but it was interesting to hear all the ramifications that could result from a data deal like this.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

So....SMU and Boise?