[Purple Haize]

Virginia to the B10, VA Tech to the SEC. Liberty next Virginia school up.

ODU brings you a higher population density and the recruiting hotbed of the 757

Don't have the facilities or budget. Now if they got the call they could probably catch up. They're close to raising the funds for a real baseball soon.

Remember the original comparison was Pittsburgh Louisville and Syracuse. So you can’t really defend that statement ( he obviously is incapable of that as well ). So then you have to look at what each program brings. There are 3 Suitors LU, JMU and ODU. Each has its positive and it’s negative

[ballcoach15]

ODU and JMU have more in common with Big South than ACC. Heck ODU doesn't have a softball team

[Purple Haize]

ODU and JMU have more in common with Big South than ACC. Heck ODU doesn't have a softball team

LU was actually IN the Big South. So…

Now back to your earlier statement. How is Lynchburg a bigger pot of gold than Louisville Syracuse or Pittsburgh?

[ballcoach15]

LU has a better overall sports program than those schools.

[Ill flame]

A couple of thoughts:

• The NBC deal could easily be exceeded for the Irish by joining either of the Super Conferences. $75M/year doesn't sound particularly attractive in leagues pushing $100M per school distribution. South Bend is just leveraging this moment for all it is worth. And there is ZERO incentive for them to rush into anything.

• Having games on NBC every Saturday is not as valuable in 2022 as it was a decade ago. Many homes today view the big four networks as afterthoughts in a streaming world.

Notre Dame has always left a lot of money on the table to stay independent because they just don't need it. The amount of money is increasing but I don't see that being a big motivator for them. What might motivate them is having most of their major rivals in the same conference though.

We can talk about how many more people are streaming nowadays but the 25 most watched regular season games in 2021 were all on the big four networks. The 26th most watched was LSU-Alabama on ESPN with 5 million viewers and it was that networks most watched game since 2019. For reference the top 25 games had an average of 6.9 million viewers. As more people cut cable and switch to streaming they are buying antennas to watch the free channels. This is also why it's a mistake for the SEC to double down on ESPN instead of trying to get two or more games on free tv every week like the B1G does. 13 of the top 25 games had B1G schools while the SEC had 10. The other conferences combined for 7 and all but two were against B1G/SEC schools.

I am not seeing the upside for a MWC-CUSA merger. An alliance, perhaps. But a merger would lessen access to auto bids in every other sport aside from football. And the additional revenue potential from the combined leagues in football negotiations is minimal.

I agree. Right now the MWC is the top G5 and CUSA is one of the worst. I could see them poaching the CUSA teams they want such as UTEP or NMSU if they get desperate enough but how do they benefit from adding FIU or jacksonville st? MWC is still in a strong enough position that they don't need to add dead weight for no reason.

The best case scenario from a Liberty perspective in the short term IMHO is for the non-super conferences to address their new realities and reorganize based on regional connections. I don't believe we are there yet since every G5 league believes it can still improve its position in the pecking order.

I wonder if we will ever get to this point. The MAC and MWC are already solid regional conferences but they need to fix the southern conferences. The sunbelt already has the foundation to make a solid south eastern focused conference. If the east division splits off and adds Liberty, ECU, Charlotte and/or either temple, UAB or the florida schools it would likely fix the issue by forcing the AAC to be a southwestern regional conference. I don't think that is very likely without more radical realignment at the P5 level though.

[Purple Haize]

LU has a better overall sports program than those schools.

How many National titles does Louisville have? Syracuse? Liberty?
What’s their budgets? Liberty?

You’re gonna have to define “better”. I absolutely loathe Pitt but they have a decent athletic program.

[TH Spangler]

Other than # of auto bids for the conf mwc cusa merger might make sense to ESPN when mwc new TV deal comes due.

Olympic sports could play regular season games in East - West divisions.

[ballcoach15]

Olympic sports should not be separated from football and basketball, in reference to Realignment

[Purple Haize]

Olympic sports should not be separated from football and basketball, in reference to Realignment

Quit dodging the question. Why is Lynchburg a bigger pot of gold than Syracuse, Louisville and Pittsburgh

[JK37]

Olympic sports should not be separated from football and basketball, in reference to Realignment

No one is saying they are. And just because a school doesn’t sponsor our favorite sport, doesn’t mean their conference should drop them in all sports.

We get it: you think all conferences should be what they were, ca. 1970, e.g. regionally aligned with no regard for $$$. Wake up! It’s simply not feasible. And you don’t even realize what you’re asking for! No one is proposing to only think of FB/MBB.

But let me be clear, and don’t miss this BC: without Football and MBB at those schools making all the $$$, THERE WOULD BE NO OLYMPIC SPORTS.

UCLA’s AD inherited a program that ran a $60M annual deficit. Now the B1G comes along and offers them a lifeline. Who are they to say no? (The chagrin of Berkeley, and I personally couldn’t care less what those folks dream up to care about!)

You say ACC should add LU and ECU, and disregard sPitt, Syracuse, and BC. Maybe that’s a valid point. But tell me what the NEXT solution? Because when the ACC makes that move, and total revenue to the conference drops, and every school still in the ACC is making LESS money as a direct result of such a move, who do you think suffers? Is it the football team or the men’s basketball team? Surely not! It would be the SOFTBALL teams and other Olympic sports finding their budgets cut far more by %.

Therefore, your argument is delusional, ill-conceived, naive, and very short-sighted. And the people who would suffer from it the most are the people you claim to support!

[tyndal23]

Big 12 - LU would get enough Presidents votes based on academic and ideology. ( the only major conference that we would have a chance at getting those votes ). We don’t qualify by any other metric. How much $ would it take to buy in? Assume they go to 20 teams and need a couple more teams east. ( Memphis, USF are the lead contenders in that scenario). $200 million ? ( $20 million a year LU pays in for 10 years and takes no share of conference revenue in return ) - along with stadium commitment of 40k, athletic budget commitment etc - there is a magic number...how many on this board would be upset if that were to be announced -would it be reckless or brilliant ?

[ballcoach15]

It would be brilliant getting into B12, regardless of how we did it

[JK37]

Big 12 - LU would get enough Presidents votes based on academic and ideology. ( the only major conference that we would have a chance at getting those votes ). We don’t qualify by any other metric. How much $ would it take to buy in? Assume they go to 20 teams and need a couple more teams east. ( Memphis, USF are the lead contenders in that scenario). $200 million ? ( $20 million a year LU pays in for 10 years and takes no share of conference revenue in return ) - along with stadium commitment of 40k, athletic budget commitment etc - there is a magic number...how many on this board would be upset if that were to be announced -would it be reckless or brilliant ?

Let’s assume LU offers the deal (Why would they?!) and the B12 accepts (push.): How does LU recoup the cost?

Per year
10M? to upgrade the stadium
Another 10M in additional budget every year
And ZERO return from the conference revenue?

This sounds like what I try to teach my 8-yr-old all the time: just because you have the money (and there’s no proof LU really does!), doesn’t mean you SHOYLD or HAVE TO spend it!

So, I believe such a move would be reckless on LU’s part.

[ballcoach15]

Ticket sales, but i not know how much. Big 12 teams would bring in more fans, than currently come to our home games.

[JK37]

Would they?

I suspect not enough.

[Ill flame]

Big 12 - LU would get enough Presidents votes based on academic and ideology. ( the only major conference that we would have a chance at getting those votes ). We don’t qualify by any other metric. How much $ would it take to buy in? Assume they go to 20 teams and need a couple more teams east. ( Memphis, USF are the lead contenders in that scenario). $200 million ? ( $20 million a year LU pays in for 10 years and takes no share of conference revenue in return ) - along with stadium commitment of 40k, athletic budget commitment etc - there is a magic number...how many on this board would be upset if that were to be announced -would it be reckless or brilliant ?

To begin i don't think we would even be considered with $200 million over 10 years but i'll humor you since there is nothing else to talk about in july. Our current budget is around $50 million. At a minimum we would need a budget near $75 million to be near the bottom of the league in spending and around $100 million to be in the upper middle class. So between an additional $50 million a year on the yearly budget, $20 million a year on kickbacks to the Big 12 and several million more on facility upgrades lets just round up and say it'll cost the university out of pocket an extra $100 million a year. Yes ticket sales will increase but that'll be a drop in the bucket compared to this budget increase.

Based on the data i've seen Liberty apparently PROFITS $300-500 million a year so in theory we can afford it until the LUO money dries up. My question is, would Liberty benefit more from taking most of that money and putting it in the endowment for when the online money goes away like they've been doing or would it better be spent on advertising through sports? At the end of the day I think it would be more responsible to just keep building up the entire school and the athletics side will eventually end up where we want them to be. As an optimist I see our likely short stint in C-USA as a great opportunity to assert ourselves as a top G5 and see where things land. More realignment is inevitable, a better situation will come along for us.

[tyndal23]

Big 12 - LU would get enough Presidents votes based on academic and ideology. ( the only major conference that we would have a chance at getting those votes ). We don’t qualify by any other metric. How much $ would it take to buy in? Assume they go to 20 teams and need a couple more teams east. ( Memphis, USF are the lead contenders in that scenario). $200 million ? ( $20 million a year LU pays in for 10 years and takes no share of conference revenue in return ) - along with stadium commitment of 40k, athletic budget commitment etc - there is a magic number...how many on this board would be upset if that were to be announced -would it be reckless or brilliant ?

To begin i don't think we would even be considered with $200 million over 10 years but i'll humor you since there is nothing else to talk about in july. Our current budget is around $50 million. At a minimum we would need a budget near $75 million to be near the bottom of the league in spending and around $100 million to be in the upper middle class. So between an additional $50 million a year on the yearly budget, $20 million a year on kickbacks to the Big 12 and several million more on facility upgrades lets just round up and say it'll cost the university out of pocket an extra $100 million a year. Yes ticket sales will increase but that'll be a drop in the bucket compared to this budget increase.

Based on the data i've seen Liberty apparently PROFITS $300-500 million a year so in theory we can afford it until the LUO money dries up. My question is, would Liberty benefit more from taking most of that money and putting it in the endowment for when the online money goes away like they've been doing or would it better be spent on advertising through sports? At the end of the day I think it would be more responsible to just keep building up the entire school and the athletics side will eventually end up where we want them to be. As an optimist I see our likely short stint in C-USA as a great opportunity to assert ourselves as a top G5 and see where things land. More realignment is inevitable, a better situation will come along for us.

Head to head with Memphis as the 20th team and assume $40 million annual Big 12 tv contract payout per school. - Memphis would take instant revenue of $2 million ( roughly) away fro the other 19 schools per year - so it is a $4 million net ( roughly ) per school for 10 years if they took LU instead. 10% more per school is a serious #.

Assume after the 10 year outlay, it all comes back to LU in the subsequent 15 years. Does it also increase on campus enrollment x%, online enrollment x%, booster donations x % to help offset the “ investment”.

I hope we have at least considered and crunched numbers to make a pitch.

[Ill flame]

Head to head with Memphis as the 20th team and assume $40 million annual Big 12 tv contract payout per school. - Memphis would take instant revenue of $2 million ( roughly) away fro the other 19 schools per year - so it is a $4 million net ( roughly ) per school for 10 years if they took LU instead. 10% more per school is a serious #.

Assume after the 10 year outlay, it all comes back to LU in the subsequent 15 years. Does it also increase on campus enrollment x%, online enrollment x%, booster donations x % to help offset the “ investment”.

I hope we have at least considered and crunched numbers to make a pitch.

Either way in this scenario we would not be adding value, if Memphis isn't adding value either instead of choosing one or the other the big 12 would just not choose either. Thats why they didnt already take boise st, memphis or smu. $4 million a year for 10 years doesn't get them very far if they are still trying to compete with the B1G/SECs $100 million+ a year. I could see your bribery scheme working if we had tried that amount on the sunbelt but the roi wouldn't have been worth it. Also the on campus enrollment is already pretty maxed out without building more dorms while online enrollment keeps going up too. Imo this would feel like chick fil a focusing on advertising more instead of opening more restaurants. The ones that are already open are doing so well do they really need more advertising?

https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2021/0 ... d-in-2021/

[Sly Fox]

We can talk about how many more people are streaming nowadays but the 25 most watched regular season games in 2021 were all on the big four networks. The 26th most watched was LSU-Alabama on ESPN with 5 million viewers and it was that networks most watched game since 2019. For reference the top 25 games had an average of 6.9 million viewers. As more people cut cable and switch to streaming they are buying antennas to watch the free channels. This is also why it's a mistake for the SEC to double down on ESPN instead of trying to get two or more games on free tv every week like the B1G does. 13 of the top 25 games had B1G schools while the SEC had 10. The other conferences combined for 7 and all but two were against B1G/SEC schools.

Freshly released ratings this week show that for the first time ever a full 1/3 of all TV viewing is now on streaming platforms (33.7%). That now exceeds broadcast TV (22.4%) and is about to surpass cable (35.1%). Accessability is no longer the issue it once was. It is apples to oranges comparing ratings of top tier games that are almost exclusively placed on linear broadcast channels based on Pre-COVID thinking. If all the best games are on the linear nets then of course the numbers are going to be higher. As we start to see the effect of streaming impact decisions by the content providers then we will get a more realistic idea of how the numbers compare. The ad-based model of broadcast is under siege from subscription-based challengers. There is more data to be extracted out of OTT than can currently be extracted out of cable providers or simply "dumb" Nielsen numbers provided to advertisers by broadcasters that don't give the rich intel today's market expects. You'll just have to trust me on this one.

[Ill flame]

We can talk about how many more people are streaming nowadays but the 25 most watched regular season games in 2021 were all on the big four networks. The 26th most watched was LSU-Alabama on ESPN with 5 million viewers and it was that networks most watched game since 2019. For reference the top 25 games had an average of 6.9 million viewers. As more people cut cable and switch to streaming they are buying antennas to watch the free channels. This is also why it's a mistake for the SEC to double down on ESPN instead of trying to get two or more games on free tv every week like the B1G does. 13 of the top 25 games had B1G schools while the SEC had 10. The other conferences combined for 7 and all but two were against B1G/SEC schools.

Freshly released ratings this week show that for the first time ever a full 1/3 of all TV viewing is now on streaming platforms (33.7%). That now exceeds broadcast TV (22.4%) and is about to surpass cable (35.1%). Accessability is no longer the issue it once was. It is apples to oranges comparing ratings of top tier games that are almost exclusively placed on linear broadcast channels based on Pre-COVID thinking. If all the best games are on the linear nets then of course the numbers are going to be higher. As we start to see the effect of streaming impact decisions by the content providers then we will get a more realistic idea of how the numbers compare. The ad-based model of broadcast is under siege from subscription-based challengers. There is more data to be extracted out of OTT than can currently be extracted out of cable providers or simply "dumb" Nielsen numbers provided to advertisers by broadcasters that don't give the rich intel today's market expects. You'll just have to trust me on this one.

Something to keep in mind about that streaming data is that platforms like sling tv, youtube tv, hulu live, fubo etc all count as streaming but essentially operate like another cable provider that can also be viewed from any device. Anecdotally i don't know anyone with traditional cable anymore because the services i have listed have replaced them. Those streaming services are even included in Nielson ratings just like if you were watching on cable. Does that mean peoples sports viewing habits have drastically changed or have they just found a cheaper version of the same product? I'm not sure, I wish ESPN+ or Stadium was more transparent so we can compare how the average game on there compares to a game on ESPNU or CBSSN for example. My assumption is that it is still much more advantageous to be on linear TV and this will remain true for awhile.

[Purple Haize]

Ticket sales, but i not know how much. Big 12 teams would bring in more fans, than currently come to our home games.

How many seats does the FB stadium hold? How much would the price of tickets needs to increase to cover just one of those $10 million figures? And to a fan base who already complains about the costs of tickets. And parking. And apparel. And concessions.
So even if EVERY home game sold out Ticket sales wouldn’t cover the cost. Keep trying.

[Purple Haize]

Would they?

I suspect not enough.

Not even remotely close. Ticket sales would have to INCREASE current revenue by about $1.5 million every home game to meet one metric.

[Purple Haize]

@Sly Fox those streaming numbers are deceptive if I’m watching a prime time game on ABC does it really matter if it’s via Cable Satellite or YouTubeTV? Or ESPN on DirecTv ComCast or Hulu?

[tyndal23]

Head to head with Memphis as the 20th team and assume $40 million annual Big 12 tv contract payout per school. - Memphis would take instant revenue of $2 million ( roughly) away fro the other 19 schools per year - so it is a $4 million net ( roughly ) per school for 10 years if they took LU instead. 10% more per school is a serious #.

Assume after the 10 year outlay, it all comes back to LU in the subsequent 15 years. Does it also increase on campus enrollment x%, online enrollment x%, booster donations x % to help offset the “ investment”.

I hope we have at least considered and crunched numbers to make a pitch.

Either way in this scenario we would not be adding value, if Memphis isn't adding value either instead of choosing one or the other the big 12 would just not choose either. Thats why they didnt already take boise st, memphis or smu. $4 million a year for 10 years doesn't get them very far if they are still trying to compete with the B1G/SECs $100 million+ a year. I could see your bribery scheme working if we had tried that amount on the sunbelt but the roi wouldn't have been worth it. Also the on campus enrollment is already pretty maxed out without building more dorms while online enrollment keeps going up too. Imo this would feel like chick fil a focusing on advertising more instead of opening more restaurants. The ones that are already open are doing so well do they really need more advertising?

https://www.liberty.edu/champion/2021/0 ... d-in-2021/

TV market Value - we don’t add, but can argue national eyeballs over local tv market.

$4 million per team per year a 10 % overall increase.

The ROI is in the following decade when LU starts getting $40 -80 million a year back ( worst case and or better case if tv contracts keep doubling every 10 years ). The other short term revenue stuff like enhanced enrollment and bigger booster $ are just fringe. I think I have been clear on “ not counting” on local fan base / ticket sales. We would be most like WF in ACC as a neutral field for most games.

We have been doing $100 million plus a year in campus construction past decade and nearly complete with building projects, converting that over to Athletic Budget isn’t that big of a stretch.

[rtb72]

Olympic sports should not be separated from football and basketball, in reference to Realignment

No one is saying they are. And just because a school doesn’t sponsor our favorite sport, doesn’t mean their conference should drop them in all sports.

We get it: you think all conferences should be what they were, ca. 1970, e.g. regionally aligned with no regard for $$$. Wake up! It’s simply not feasible. And you don’t even realize what you’re asking for! No one is proposing to only think of FB/MBB.

But let me be clear, and don’t miss this BC: without Football and MBB at those schools making all the $$$, THERE WOULD BE NO OLYMPIC SPORTS.

UCLA’s AD inherited a program that ran a $60M annual deficit. Now the B1G comes along and offers them a lifeline. Who are they to say no? (The chagrin of Berkeley, and I personally couldn’t care less what those folks dream up to care about!)

You say ACC should add LU and ECU, and disregard sPitt, Syracuse, and BC. Maybe that’s a valid point. But tell me what the NEXT solution? Because when the ACC makes that move, and total revenue to the conference drops, and every school still in the ACC is making LESS money as a direct result of such a move, who do you think suffers? Is it the football team or the men’s basketball team? Surely not! It would be the SOFTBALL teams and other Olympic sports finding their budgets cut far more by %.

Therefore, your argument is delusional, ill-conceived, naive, and very short-sighted. And the people who would suffer from it the most are the people you claim to support!

FACT! Very logical post. Reality sucks sometimes....but it is still reality.