Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="HuskyHawk, post: 4725146, member: 1414"] It's silly because that isn't how it works. Every school used to sell their own rights. Nobody made squat. It wasn't until they started relinquishing the rights to the conference and negotiating collectively that the TV deals started growing. That, in turn, drove expansion and contracting among the conferences. They are all worth more together than they would be individually. So the question is never "Is X school worth $Y", because the answer to that is always no. The question is "does adding this particular school to the existing ecosystem we have raise the aggregate value of that ecosystem". In the case of USC and UCLA for example, UCLA is mostly meh at football and is above average at basketball. Big market, sure and lots of alumni. But the value for the B1G comes from those old Big Ten/Pac 10 ties and the Rose bowl. Big Ten fans value those matchup highly. Much more than SEC fans would. That drives ratings, as an Indiana fan tunes in to watch Ohio State vs USC. Could Kansas raise the value of the B1G enough? No, I don't think so. Could it in the SEC? Maybe yes. Now do UNC and UVA, when it comes to the B1G I think the answer is still no. SEC? Maybe yes. Florida State? They think the answer is yes, but I'm betting that for the B1G it is no (SEC is yes). It is close, but B1G fans don't really care about FSU, they might care more about Miami. The most rational SEC expansion, if it came, would probably be FSU, Clemson, UNC and Kansas. The ACC has blinders on with UConn, because the answer to the ecosystem question is yes for UConn in the ACC. We are a team that moves the needle with fans of every school except FSU. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,398

Messages: 4,394,416

Members: 10,208

Latest member: jskwrite