Utah to the ACC?
- Thread starter RINGGOLD94
- Start date
Can't be by much - at least not if we're weighting the sports according to their significance - or they'd be in the Big Ten.
I'm not kidding. He is an undergrad at Baylor and the go-to source for all the Big 12 expansion news you need.
Yeah, they are only the 2nd "most valuable" if you consider things other than how much money they are actually worth. Because in that measure of "value", they aren't 2nd or 22nd or 42nd. If they were anywhere close to the second most valuable in terms of the amount of money that their programs can potentially bring in for a conference, they'd be moving to a higher level conference than the ACC. In fact if they were actually worth that much there might still be a PAC12.
Which is why the B10 was interested. They may be in the B10 eventually.
I would imagine that is far from being public knowledge, though I don't doubt that someone said it while pretending to know.
The B10 took a long look at Cal/Stan. They had way more of a chance than the other P12 schools.
You guys knock Stanford, but this analysis ranks their value as being #1 in the ACC. Now, I think their TV market and academics are overweighted making them look better here but lets not pretend they are Arizona or Baylor or SMU. They are an elite brand name.
Also, remember my "ACC should kick out BC argument?" This justifies it. BC and Stanford have similarly fantastic markets yet this guy's methodology says Stanford should be in the B10 and BC should be in the American.
SMF is right; the consensus is that Stanford would be in the Big Ten today if it were up to the university presidents. The TV partners are the ones who only accepted Oregon and Washington.
I need to know why I should believe that guy over the 750,000 others who have them ranked 750,000 different ways. Cal above UNC doesn't make you do a double-take?
Yea, UNC is over Cal but I think the point is he isnt so far off that Stanford is BC or GT or SMU.
Funny thing about that analysis is would be the most valuable in the B12.
Altimore's rankings heavily skews to academics.. I think he took down the scatter chart from a year ago, but he had Stanford #1 of all the schools. And it wasn't close. The problem Altimore fails to address, Stanford isn't very good in the major sports and the fan interest is awful. Big 12 didn't want them, and Stanford didn't want the Big 12.
The Big 12 would have absolutely taken Stanford over a duplicate Utah or duplicate Arizona team if Stanford was interested. They were not. They chose Independence over the B12 and then accepted the ACC offer when it came.
Disagree in Big 12 interest in Stanford. Rivalries and brands are more important in the streaming world than markets. Saying that, Stanford may be in the Bay Area but even the Bay Area fans don't really care about them. It's Niners all the way with college fans of USC, Oregon, and Big 10 teams way more than Stanford.
The Big 12 isn't as stupid as you make them out to be. There is a 0.0% chance that the Big 12 tells Stanford no if Stanford wanted in. The league added commuter schools no one cares about then duplicate teams in Utah and Arizona. They take Stanford and Cal if either of those teams wanted in.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It wasn't even close.
Desirability Ratings: Measuring Each Power 5 School’s Conference Value
The SI analysis shows Stanford has the 24th ranked TV viewership in the P5. Maybe they aren't watching the Bay area, but someone is.
I dont think Stanford is as valuable as you think they are but they are definitely higher than most here think. The Big Ten looked at them and Cal in depth and they would have been 19 and 20 if the B10 decided to go to 20. Schools like Utah, Az, etc werent considered by the B10.
Its true that Stanford and Cal dont have large local fanbases but Stanford is a national brand. One of the biggest brands in college sports. Even as a Pitt fan, when Stanford comes in, that means something. I cant get excited about GT or BC or Wake. But the name Stanford does something. Not saying they are FSU or Clemson but they are a brand.
Maybe I have been mistakenly too down on Stanford. I trust Forde's stuff more than Altimore.
I have no personal value for Stanford. I am referring only to the SI analysis.
That's one of the dumbest lists I have ever seen. You think Wisconsin is the 7th most desirable school in the country? Northwestern ahead of Nebraska, which sells out a 90,000-seat stadium despite having seven consecutive losing seasons.
Not only is the weighting/formula stupid, as TV is almost all that matters and academics and Olympic sports mean very little, but I would also like to know (I refuse to read any article that came up with a list this stupid) where they got the rankings within the individual categories. Florida State is #56 in football and Iowa is #9? Yeah, sure. They must have used records from like 2017 - 2021, which mean absolutely nothing. Only an idiot would view this list as anything but a pathetic attempt to be different. Yeah, USC only has half the football program that Iowa State does. Sure they do.
So you think Cal and Stanford are more desireable than which of the following schools?
Florida State
UNC
Clemson
Virginia
Miami
I trust that you know little about most things, including this topic. You are both football-centric and geographically biased.
You know who else is those things? The people calling the shots.
Know what else? This list has already been proven to be rubbish by virtue of ranking Stanford ahead of Washington and significantly ahead of Oregon. We have real life examples as to why that is wrong, and yet here you are pontificating.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Soon as I saw this rumor I assumed someone would run to the Lair to tell us that the Big12 is the best thing since sliced bread.
LOL.
Stanford has a higher overall value than Washington for very good reasons. Again, you are too football-centric.
Value to a conference goes well beyond the factors you narrow-minded fans want to consider.
Dear Dipstick,
Washington is in the Big Ten. Stanford is not. Thus, Washington was considered more valuable.
Sincerely,
Common Sense
There is so much blog and talking wonk wonk wonk to sift through but I've wondered why some of those schools are/were more desirable than Stanford, especially Uva. It would seem that the only thing making them 'desirable' is their physical proximity/location in the southeastern US. Without looking it up, I would expect in terms of prestige, alumni, endowment, overall sports performance that Stanford would rate above UVa in most if not all categories. Why the Big would take UVa over Stanford is a mystery to me, other than to say that they now have a team in Virginia (though shouldn't Maryland cover most of this vis-a-vie recruiting/DelMarVa exposure, etc?)
I couldn't care less about what the B10 thinks or did. They, like you, are football-centric and driven by greed.
You'll absolutely hate my next statement but I've been consistent on it for years. College athletics is not for you or any other fans. It is for the students. The big sports have been bastardized due to TV money and greed and it will ultimately lead to its collapse back to its original intent for most schools.
Football and all other sports were formed long before TV came along and they will continue in some form after the collapse. Stanford's value aligns with that original intent. That's why those Olympic sports in they excel and you hate are important.
Also, dispstick, those same brilliant people added Rutgers and Maryland. How valuable are they?
At the time, pretty valuable. Got an extra dollar for everyone with cable in the NYC market, as I understand it, because it required them all the add the B10 Network. As television/streaming evolves, would Rutgers be as valuable now? No, I doubt it.
Rutgers was a total fail. They didnt need Rutgers to get BTN in NY/NJ. PSU is the #1 team in Jersey anyway.
If they didn't, then why did they do it? That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.
I would agree that most people in NYC/NJ probably don't care much about Rutgers, but they obviously did it for some reason that existed at the time.
Idiocy? Mistakes are made. The ACC adding BC was a mistake. The B12 adding duplicate Utah's and Arizona's were a mistake. The B10 made a mistake with Rutgers, plain and simple. They have a 0 fanbase in NYC and are the #3 team in NJ behind PSU and ND. It was simply a mistake.
Adding Rutgers and Maryland in the early 2010’s helped the Big Ten build a significant recurring revenue source in the BTN and the carriage fees involved in distributing to the NYC and DMV markets. With that massive recurring revenue source as a backbone, it allowed them to more effectively leverage their largest, most valuable rights.
No different than the ACC, just a decade or so behind. The ACC Network is a massive asset, and it will get even more massive with adding California and Texas to the footprint. ESPN knew how valuable it would be for the ACC to have the network once it got off the ground, just like the SEC, so in exchange for ESPN investing to set up the network, they locked in the more valuable rights for a very low price. What ESPN didn’t want was to take on a bunch of risk in launching a new TV channel, have that channel be successful, and then have the ACC turn around and sell the more valuable rights to someone else because the valuable rights were on a short term contract.
No different than the ACC, just a decade or so behind. The ACC Network is a massive asset, and it will get even more massive with adding California and Texas to the footprint. ESPN knew how valuable it would be for the ACC to have the network once it got off the ground, just like the SEC, so in exchange for ESPN investing to set up the network, they locked in the more valuable rights for a very low price. What ESPN didn’t want was to take on a bunch of risk in launching a new TV channel, have that channel be successful, and then have the ACC turn around and sell the more valuable rights to someone else because the valuable rights were on a short term contract.
It doesn't matter what someone on a message board declares to be a geographical region's "team," though. They added Rutgers and got an extra dollar (again, if I'm remembering correctly) for every cable subscriber because it required them to have the B10 Network. How is that a mistake? It doesn't matter if the New Jersey Dudevil opens a Twitter account and says people from the area like Notre Dame more than they like Rutgers. Whether you pull for Rutgers or Hawaii, you were getting the B10 Network.
Again, the valuation would be a little different this time around. Especially if these apps all come to fruition.
