Question re: Realignment Drivers
I seem to remember reading an article last year that talked about a shift in the drivers for conference realignment, but I can't seem to find it again (my google-fu is not strong today).
The driver for past major realignments was to acquire schools in large population states, where the numbers were greater for cable subscriptions to conference network channels. That was the purpose in the B1G bringing in Maryland (DC area) and Rutgers (NYC area); the ACC in bringing in Syracuse (NY), Boston College (MA/Boston area), and Pitt (PA); etc. But the article I'd read last year was talking about the diminishing importance of cable subscribers to the conference networks in the future, due to the trend of cord-cutting. The analysis focused on the strength of what they called "marquee" matchups, those that would bring more national attention due to factors such as big-name teams, playoff significance, and such. These marquee games were driving so much more ad revenue than regional games, that the authors concluded that the inventory of marquee games would be more important than the geographic footprint, and future realignment decisions would be made with that in mind.
We're seeing this play out over the past year, with Texas and Oklahoma going to the SEC, and USC and UCLA going to the B1G. The SEC is going to add 8-10 marquee games to its inventory with this move, and the same goes for the B1G.
That said, if this is true, wouldn't that make Clemson and Florida State (and maybe Miami) much more viable targets for B1G or SEC expansion than any of VT/UVA/UNC/NCSU? I don't see any of the latter four driving a game of national importance over the first three (though I have my hopes for VT down the road with Pry).
Am I crazy thinking this way, or does this make sense? Did anybody else read anything to this effect over the past year?
13 Replies
4y
Even when VT is bad, cameras and viewers still tune in for the atmosphere. ND, Miami, and Clemson all regularly play ACC games in the middle of the day.
When was the last time VT played one of those school at home when the sun was out?
(In response to this post by Freddyburg Hokie)
S
Stech
4y
that ignored. Also, it's about college football fans and not just people. One thing I do think is the SEC has always been about marquee matchups and not the number of people in the city. Now with professional football back in LA, it will be interesting to see if the LA college teams pick up steam. I know the Dolphins, Falcons and Steelers own their markets fans and that has really hurt the ACC.
(In response to this post by Freddyburg Hokie)
2
2hhoop3
4y
that has hurt the ACC in those three markets is much more about the ACC teams in those markets and the product they put on the field. Maybe an argument could be made for the Steelers but, I do not see it with either the Dolphins or Falcons.
(In response to this post by Stech)
S
Stech
4y
the recruits or the other way around. Either way, most people aren't going to a game on Saturday and Sunday. I think Miami moving to Dolphins was a huge mistake. Pittsburgh had a good team last year and still had a bunch of empty seats. Georgia Tech does good when Clemson and Virginia Tech come to town, because we buy tickets. However, even when they were winning under Johnson, it wasn't a hard ticket to get a hold of.
** Edited by Stech at 7/7/2022, 5:38:16 PM
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
4y
...and they were getting national-level ratings, then they would be hot properties for expansion, and would add to the "marquee games" inventory.
(In response to this post by 2hhoop3)
4y
How much would adding a second, or even third dilute the media $. VA & NC are virgin territory, large wealthy states that are untapped. Streaming pays X$ in states without SEC schools, and more, maybe 4X$ in states with SEC.
(In response to this post by Freddyburg Hokie)
S
Stech
4y
market size like the ACC and PAC that struggle filling stadiums in Miami, Pittsburgh and even Atlanta without away fans filling the stadium.
(In response to this post by TabbHokie)
4y
...you're right. But that was the previous realignment model.
(In response to this post by TabbHokie)
4y
the SEC in terms of marquee matchups. Not the way a Texas, OK, USC and UCLA do in terms of tv viewers. Those are matchups that can't be found within the conference currently. For all the SEC knows, South Carolina vs Alabama could be bigger than Clemson vs Alabama in the near future. Or put another way, they probably already have some of the market they would get from a Clemson vs Alabama because they have South Carolina vs Alabama. If that makes sense, so the returns are diminished some. So yeah, it makes them more attractive to the SEC than any of the other ACC teams, but they aren't nearly as attractive as a market they have zero exposure too. A long those lines, in the long run, they might get more from UNC or UVa or VT than they would Clemson or FSU. Obviously no one thinks UNC, UVa or VT is on par with Clemson or FSU, but what is Clemson going to look like in 2036? Furthermore, any team that the SEC does add to a 'mega conference' is likely to see huge dividends almost immediately in recruiting, fundraising, etc. So does the SEC (or B1G) really have an opportunity to play kingmaker with a market that they don't have already?
(In response to this post by Freddyburg Hokie)
4y
Is a case of diminishing returns? I don’t know. SC is the #23 state in population and #42 in per capita income, well behind VA & NC.
(In response to this post by IronBlood)
4y
I'm guessing that the decision-makers are weighing that kind of impact, trying to determine what will be marquee matchups in the near- and long-term.
But the national eyeballs are important here, because they drive a different level of commercial that you can sell for the game. So no, I don't think South Carolina v Alabama has anywhere near of a national interest than Clemson v Alabama. The fact that those two schools are in the same market don't mean that they drive the same out-of-market interest, which is what I think is the driver here.
(In response to this post by IronBlood)
V
VTejrep
4y
the SEC that we know today was built on regional matchups of state schools with rabid fan bases (Vandy being the exception). Looking at the teams they have added recently (Texas A&M, Missouri, Texas and OU), they not only check that box but also add new states and new markets. They don't have a history of adding big city, private schools like Miami. Could they make an exception? Of course but it would be contrary to everything we've seen. FSU fits that model better and i don't see them adding a third Florida team. Who else makes sense going forward? Big state schools with a rabid fan base and a good or new market. VT, UNC, NC St, FSU, Clemson and perhaps UVa. WVU would be a great fit but without the market.
(In response to this post by Freddyburg Hokie)
4y
But those recent additions were under the previous paradigm of increasing eyeballs for the conference network due to cable subscriptions. Cord-cutting trends have changed that model, so those recent additions are not good predictors of future additions.
(In response to this post by VTejrep)