FSU A.D. Spetman Talks Openly About Switching Conferences… And The SEC

March 7th, 2013 05:07 PM║ Posted By: John Pennington ║ Permalink ║ Schools: Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Missouri, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt
Tags: ACC, Florida State, SEC, TV

Florida State is smack-dab at the center of the current conference realignment rush. FSU is a member of the ACC, located close to the SEC, reported to be desired by the Big XII, and possibly desirous of a spot in the Big Ten.

In many ways, Tallahassee, Florida is located right on the fault line of college athletics’ shaky landscape.

Yesterday, FSU athletic director Randy Spetman talked rather openly about the future with ESPN’s “Nole Nation” website. Certainly he was more open than he or most other ADs have chosen to be in the past.

“It’s not done,” Spetman said regarding realignment. “I watch it every day, reading something about it every day, trying to get a sense and calling my counterparts and seeing where they’re really at.” He also said that FSU brass have “had conversations at the senior level about what we should consider.” He added: “There will be more of those conversations — they’ll continue. It’s an evolution every day.”

ACC commissioner John Swofford must love reading that. Ditto those ACC fans who continue to whistle past the graveyard and claim that all’s well within their favorite league.

Of the Seminoles’ current home, Nole Nation reports that Spetman “said he’s confident that the ACC is moving in the right direction, and the Noles staying remains the most appealing solution.”

But.

While discussing the key factor in all of these realignment moves — revenue — Spetman mentioned one conference by name:

“Unless you bring in a revenue for them so that they don’t reduce their conference distribution to themselves, they aren’t going to bring you in. That’s what I don’t think people evaluate as much. It would be great to be in the SEC with our radius of schools and the way our fans travel and their fans travel, but if they bring Florida State into the SEC, I’m trying to see, how do we sell that we bring them enough additional revenue that we pay for ourselves and they make more money off of us? They have Florida just two hours away that has the TV market here.”

A little more than 20 years ago Florida State passed on an opportunity to join the SEC. Then-football coach Bobby Bowden has admitted that he felt his teams could do more winning in the ACC than in the rough-and-tumble SEC. The Seminoles did win early and they did win a lot in the Atlantic Coast Conference.

But FSU’s fears in the late-80s and early-90s have haunted them for the past half-decade.

When Mike Slive and Jim Delany ushered in the era of megabuck television deals (Slive with his jawdropping pacts with CBS and ESPN and Delany with his innovative Big Ten Network), the ACC and Florida State began sailing on choppy seas. The Big Ten has the nation’s biggest alumni chapters and all of the Midwest’s massive media markets wrapped up. The SEC flat rules the college football world. Lucky for those leagues that television revenue is all about market size, cable households, and football.

The ACC is all about basketball. Regardless of the power schools it’s tried to bring in, the hardwood still tops the gridiron up and down the East Coast. For that reason the ACC has drawn the short end of the stick and fallen behind the other major conferences in terms of television revenue. As a result, Florida State has seen rival Florida zip by it in terms of cash. The Department of Education reports that UF’s athletic department brought in $120 million in 2011-12. FSU hauled in $81 million.

But what’s $39 million between hated rivals, right?

As we wrote here three years ago, we believe Florida State would be a Nebraska-like addition to the SEC. The Cornhuskers didn’t bring a wealth of cable households to the Big Ten when they joined, but they did bring a national brand. A “Nebraska versus anybody” football game will get higher ratings — and please more network partners — than any game featuring Maryland or Rutgers.

FSU could be that type of addition for the Southeastern Conference. Florida fans don’t want to hear it, but Florida State is still a massive brand. And no offense to Missouri, but do you believe most national viewers would be more inclined to watch Missouri-Georgia or Florida State-Georgia? Missouri-Auburn or Florida State-Auburn?

The point being that the SEC has already laid the groundwork for its SEC Network by adding Missouri, Texas A&M (another solid brand name with a huge alumni base) and the cable households of the Show-Me and Lone Star states. Unless the SEC can successfully nab power brands from the states of Virginia and/or North Carolina, Slive and crew should consider making a defensive move if they feel the world is moving toward 16-, 18-, or 20-school conferences.

But the SEC’s presidents most likely will not.

A Florida administration that once signed off on adding FSU in the early-90s now understands how television has changed the game. Expansion then wasn’t about TV revenue. Now it is. The Gators won’t want to help the Seminoles catch up in terms of dollars and cents.

Also, as we’ve stated here before, there are still some folks around the conference who haven’t forgotten that FSU picked the ACC over the SEC way back when. That decision didn’t sit well with SEC leaders then and some old-timers feel today that the Noles should be allowed to go down with the ACC’s ship. That or forced to try and make things work in a fly-over league like the Big XII or Big Ten where — as has been the case in the ACC — FSU will have very few natural rivals.

From Spetman’s statement, it appears that he and Florida State’s administration have more interest in the SEC than vice versa. If the two parties have already had conversations behind closed doors, why would Florida State’s AD bring up a potential FSU-SEC marriage to the press? A loud cry in the hopes of getting Swofford to pay more attention to the wants and needs in Tallahassee? Unlikely. After all, what more can Swofford do to improve ACC football and television revenue? Adding UConn and Cincinnati isn’t going to do the trick.

For now it looks as though FSU is keeping all its options open. The school seems to know that with Maryland out, the final countdown has begun for the Atlantic Coast Conference as we currently know it. And if the ACC is going down, the SEC would make the most sense as a potential landing spot.

Just don’t count on the Southeastern Conference to come to FSU’s rescue.

« Another Day, Another NCAA Release On Proposed Rule Tweaks… And Another Reason No One Will Break Away From The NCAA

Thought Of The Day – 3/8/13 »

115 comments

Newest | Oldest

Bronxvillepeter

Big Ten makes the most sense for long term financial stability AND academics. FSU's football reputation is elite. Joining the SEC would keep be a good money maker and a geographic fit, but a big step down academically and in basketball, where the SEC is consistently the worst basketball conference.

However joining The Big Ten will make FSU the most money, while bolstering both its academic reputation, and its basketball program.

KellyJones2

1 Like

@Bronxvillepeter, It depends on what FSU is looking for academically. If they want to be the worst house in the best neighborhood, then the BIG is best. Only Nebraska is ranked lower academically. In the SEC, they would be the nice house in the nice neighborhood. FSU's ranking of 97 is tied for 7th best in the SEC with Missouri. They are exactly average academically in the SEC. Vandy, Florida, Georgia, TAMU, Alabama, and Auburn are ranked higher.

Fact check on basketball. In the last 20 years, the SEC has had 6 national champions among three different programs (Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky). The BIG has had one (Michigan St. in 2000). In terms of championships, the ACC has been the best in recent history, and the SEC is neck and neck with the Big East. It is fine if you think FSU is a better fit, but saying the the SEC does not fit FSU academically and that they are consistently the worst basketball conference is untrue.

JRsec

@KellyJones2 @Bronxvillepeter Good for you KellyJones2 you beat me to it. 99% of those who post about academic fit have not one clue what they are talking about. F.S.U. was the second worst academic school in the ACC. There research spending is nowhere near AAU levels and their post graduate degree programs aren't in line either. That said they are a solid school, but hardly elite.

Scott19

NIU brings with it the #3 TV market in the country... food for thought.

WarHog38

For the FSU AD to be making public statements as this concerning a rival conference fully shows the dire predicament that the ACC is now in. This is the exact kind of public statements the Arkansas, South Carolina, Texas A&M and Missouri AD's made before their respective schools entered the SEC. Is FSU getting ready to enter the SEC? These kind of public statements makes it look like FSU sure has something cooked up or are badly trying to do so. Swofford must of about had a coronary when he heard this.

When or if FSU leaves the ACC it will be finished as a football conference. Clemson, VT and NCST will all know it and will look to escape at any good opportunity. I see you SEC'ers took care of one of those disillusioned ACC people further down on the board. These people care very little about football. Their basketball and scholastic fans. I think they resent the SEC as much as they love the ACC. Oh well, I was pounded with Talisman's Folly type thinking until I withdrew from their boards.

JansonRoberts

1 Like

The ACC will not implode tomorrow even if UVA and Ga. Tech were to annouce they were leaving for the B1G. The current political landscape in the ACC of course is weak but don't belive that it will crumble with 2 more defections. And while I can understand that FSU would not add much value in regards to adding any new footprint in and of itself, after reading what Spetman has said, I can see that Spetman may be going on record that FSU is in a position of bringing value to the SEC.......value in bringing the 2 states that the SEC is wanting to add to its footprint, Virginia and North Carolina. It is going to take the defection of more than UVA and Ga Tech to bring the ACC to a boil. FSU could be the catalyst. Question is, after UVA and Tech go, would FSU be enough or would it take FSU and Clemson to topple the conferecne. How badly does the SEC want the states of Virginia and North Carolina? Seriously consider the politics of the North Carolina University system. Duke is not a factor. We are talking UNC and NCST. UNC will not be leaving until it is clear that the ACC is finished . NCST can't go anywhere until UNC reaches out. Only way it will happen will be for the ACC to topple. We are not going to see FSU leaving for the Big 12 or B1G unless the implosion comes from a different front. There are no other realistic fronts that makes better cents (sense). Spetman seems to be laying the path for what FSU would rather have. The value of FSU to the SEC may be far more complex than adding a new tv market or adding to the network footprint, if in fact FSU is the pathway to bringing the SEC the 2 states it is wanting so badly.

JRsec

@JansonRoberts I think that is exactly correct. So following your line of reasoning which would it be? 18 or 20 And if 18 is it Florida State, North Carolina, N.C. State and Virginia Tech. Or is it 20 with Florida State, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, Clemson and ? (Virginia, Pitt, West Virginia, or Georgia Tech) or Florida State, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Virginia Tech and ? (Pitt, Clemson, West Virginia, or Georgia Tech).

Seanbo

1 Like

@JRsec @JansonRoberts

If the SEC expands, I think they go to 18. I do not see Pitt or GT being in the plans. I think the SEC goes to 20 once the Big XII's Grant of Rights expire in 2026 then I see Texas coming over with Oklahoma. If Texas or Oklahoma goes else where in 2026, then I see West Virginia as replacement 1 and Clemson as back up # 2.

JRsec

@Seanbo @JansonRoberts Seanbo, I think you are correct about the number and the strategy. 3 conferences of between 20 to 24 will net each member team close to 2 million more by eliminating the 4th conference (a little more if 60 total teams and a little less if more). I do believe that taking F.S.U. is the key to raiding the ACC and have stated that from the beginning. The Orange Bowl money and the option to make the 4 team playoff are what is propping the ACC income up now. Lose your top football brand (and likely then Clemson) and the run is on. I also think Slive will do what it takes to get U.N.C. and that will mean taking N.C. State as well. I don't think the Big 10 will really take F.S.U., especially since Miami may be the next to be voted into AAU. If Delany really wants into Florida he will go to the only destination that has Big 10 connections (Donna Shalala, and the non-Hispanic population of the Miami greater area. The logic will be the same as with Maryland who also could not fill their stadium.

So if the Big 10 doesn't take F.S.U. then the SEC will have to in order to create the environment in which Virginia Tech, and U.N.C. may be had. If the overall plan is to stop then they will add N.C. State and 18 will be our number. 18 has some interesting advantages and is still way easier to schedule than 14. But I don't believe this ends at 18. I think you are dead on in believing that the last two spots to 20 will be reserved for Texas and Oklahoma. I also think that West Virginia and Clemson would make a very nice pair of substitutes.

I think in the end Texas will go where ever they take the most of their Big 12 buddies with them. I have a feeling that Oklahoma will have to can Stoops before they willingly come to the SEC. If they don't Ohio born and bred Stoops will take his Sooners to the Big 10. They may not be AAU but are certainly every bit as academically fit as Nebraska.

Finally, I'll be interested to see if the SEC will take anyone that ESPN may wish to hold onto. If the Maryland case upholds the exit fee then I think eventually Texas and a few friends may move to the ACC and SEC. ESPN will protect their best Big 12 brands by seeing them move to the ACC and SEC. If the Maryland case fails to uphold the fee then the SEC will likely get the best brands from the ACC because that is what ESPN will want.

Seanbo

@JRsec @JansonRoberts

There are only 2 schools that can kill the ACC and that's FSU and UNC. If the ACC keeps them then it survives, if not the ACC becomes the old Big East. UNC does not want to leave, so for the ACC to implode then either the B1G or the SEC has to take FSU. Once that happens then they can fight over UNC. Whoever gets UNC will be expanding to 18. The B1G grabbing Virginia and GT does not affect what FSU and UNC do.

DanHogan

@Seanbo @JRsec @JansonRoberts I'm not so sure that any conference that takes UNC will be going to 16. The B1G could (and I hope will) stop at just UVA and UNC. The SEC could offer UNC/VT or UNC/NC St, or UNC/FSU even. My guess is B12 will eventually have FSU/Clem, B1G will have UVA/UNC, and SEC will have NC St and VT. No one more than 16.

Matthew James

1 Like

There are a lot of great points here. By extending invitations to FSU and Clemson and arranging the divisions so common state schools are in separate divisions (FSU/UF, Clemson/USCe, Alabama/Auburn and etc.) and having each common state school keep their instate rivalries would, in my opinion, increase interest and revenue for the SEC. For an example, I would expect viewership in Florida to increase for West Division games for games other than UF vs ___ or Alabama vs. LSU. Anyone who has attend FSU, Clemson and a full slate of SEC games know FSU and Clemson are more of an SEC culture than let's say a Kentucky or Vanderbilt. Both fan bases travel well and will easily sellout all home games. I hope FSU and Clemson are invited into the SEC for the good of all.

DanHogan

1 Like

@Matthew James A very interesting point re splitting the in-state rivals and its impact on interest level. There's one problem though. Increasing interest doesn't necessarily increase revenue. Assuming the SEC maintains its incredibly high level of play, I dare to say tier 1 revenue can't go any higher based on interest level -- because the interest level is already sky high. Now, in the event that cycles continue to.. well.. cycle, split divisions could keep interest levels up in Alabama, Florida, and SC and revenue levels up as well. The tier 2 level is sky high as well (both interest and revenue) to the point that new members that have quality football would push still high quality games down into tier 3. But, in the event that the SEC drops just a bit -- we are talking about a 50-year view here -- protecting tier 2 quality through interest in divisional races would be of some value. The problem is the subscriber model that will be in place at the tier 3 level -- where your idea would help increase interest the most -- just plain doesn't work this way. Fans will demand that carriers give them their SEC Network regardless of the interest level that they have in any individual game. Now, if the subscriber model morphs into something that more closely matches day-to-day viewership, or the model more depends on advertisements than subscriber fees, then this would help a lot.

The problem is your idea quite likely increases the number of games that viewers in those states will be interested in, it doesn't really translate into higher tv revenues. At least not while the conference is so strong.

Matthew James

@DanHogan Do you feel the SEC could get away with charging $x for access to one division and $x+$y for the complete conference?

DanHogan

@Matthew James Conceivably, the SEC could charge nominally more for a network because both UF and FSU fans are highly interested. But, I'd doubt that this number would be considerably different than they could get with UF and FSU in the same divisions but all fans clamoring for the station. So, sure, I'd guess that it might be a little more but not enough to pay FSU's way like adding the state of Virginia would pay Virginia Tech's share.

ezgame

Good write-up MrSEC... I think you've capture the essence of FSU's delima, especially this part.

"It’s not done, Spetman said regarding realignment. I watch it every day (me too.), reading something about it every day (me too!), trying to get a sense and calling my counterparts (braggard.) and seeing where they’re really at (I just got fellow bloggers?).” Spetman also said FSU brass have, “had conversations at the senior level about what we should consider.” He added: “There will be more of those conversations — they’ll continue. It’s an evolution every day.” ACC commissioner John Swofford must love reading that."

Is it wrong to secretly enjoy others hypothetical sufferage? Then plot their ultimate downfall, like playing the game Risk?

ezgame

This quote from Spetman almost killed me, "It would be great to be in the SEC".... wait for it. wait. wait.

WWWwwwwhhhaaaaaaaat? <slow motioned head turning upwards, eyes wide open, yet can't stop staring at screen>... I need the Etrade Baby jif doing his, "Here's my shocked face.... whaaat!"

Seanbo

1 Like

FSU is worth much more to the B1G than they are to the SEC.

In terms of cable subscribers, the state of Florida has 5.2 million of them. The Big Ten Network currently gets 15 cents per month for those subscribers currently but the charge $1 per month for member states. Doing the math, FSU is worth more than 53 million dollars a year just to the BTN, that does not include what FOX things FSU is worth in 2017 when the B1G tier 1 and 2 rights expire plus you can add extra bowl money. The 53 million alone would not only pay for FSU but also give the current B1G schools another million+ each.

What FSU can offer theSEC isn't financial, its protection from other conferences. The states of Florida and Georgia produces more SEC recruits than any other state and even though Georgia produces the same amount of recruits to SEC as Florida, Florida produces more 4 and 5 star recruits. Florida produced 52- 4 or 5 star recruits while Georgia produced 24. While the SEC will still beat the B1G in recruiting in the south, FSU gives the B1G more exposure to recruits. Exposure not by just coming to Tallahassee to play but exposure on the BTN with recruits watching FSU on TV.

Seanbo

Don't misunderstand me about FSU, stopping the B1G at Virginia is the biggest priority to the SEC. That's why getting UNC is so important to the SEC even it means grabbing Duke.

Second point, FSU only chance to get in either conference is if they need an 18th school.

ezgame

1 Like

@Seanbo If a conference really, really, really, really, REALLY wants someone... They'll get them. Question is, how much did they have to give up, in order to get them?

If the SEC Presidents thought... IDK, Montana State? was the key to increasing their own revenue by infinity. You can bet your house & mine that all the SEC Presidents (and Slive too) would be wining & dining Montana State's President & B.O.Ds something serious.

JRsec

1 Like

@ezgame @Seanbo Never bet your house on the talent, focus, and testosterone levels of 18 to 24 year old males! But I get your point.

Roggespierre

@Seanbo Why? I'm not trying to be a wise guy here - I really want to know why it's important to stop the Big Ten at Virginia.

Also, I tend to think that if it takes getting Duke to get UNC, then the SEC is not going to get UNC. If, on the other hand, it requires taking NC State, then I think the SEC has more than a puncher's chance.

Roggespierre

1 Like

@Seanbo @JRsec That's a good point, and I certainly won't argue that pro football isn't more popular than college football in the north.

On a slightly different but related note, I find the differences from pro market to pro market very interesting. Of course schools like Auburn, Alabama and South Carolina are the most popular sports properties in their respective states. But that's true of big college teams in all small and sparsely populated states that lack professional teams - Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc. It's not a phenomenon that is exclusive to the SEC.

But why is it that George, Florida and Ohio State are all more popular than the professional sports teams in their home states? I suppose the reasons are different from state to state. The Bengals and Browns have combined to win zero Super Bowls. The Falcons have a history of mediocrity. The pro teams in Florida share a state that's really three different states in a cultural sense - Jacksonville Southern, Tampa Midwestern, and Miami Northeastern.

Then again, how do we explain the fact that the Saints get better TV ratings in Louisiana than LSU? The Cowboys are by far the most popular team in Texas. For that matter, they're also the most popular sports team in Arkansas.

Why are these states so different? I really have no idea.

ezgame

@Seanbo @JRsec @Roggespierre IMHO, I too think its about subscribers. Disagree that one conference could monopolize a region, because the population is diverse. Meaning, how many Bama & Auburn fans make-up that state's population? I'd guess 60-70%, and the remaining fans are not interested or root for maybe SCar, or maybe transplanted from Oregon... IDK? Plus, how many can afford cable? They may just have a converter box or antenii up? The percentages go down as you look harder at whom has what, where & why? Bottom line...it isn't 100% of Alabama's population that may supports an SEC Network?

IMHO, if a conference can get $2, $3 or $4 per subscriber... they're doing good. Cash in, exit stageright.

Seanbo

2 Like

@JRsec @Roggespierre

Consider this. The North is pro football oriented while the South is college oriented. The SEC having monopoly in the South could lead to the SEC being able to get $2, $3 or $4 per cable subscriber while the B1G may only be able to charge half that because they are competing with the pros.

Cable companies in Alabama better carry the SEC network because of Alabama and Auburn fans will demand it, same in North Carolina if the SEC had UNC and Duke. In Pennsylvania, who is more popular the Steelers and Eagles or Penn State. In Illinois, the Illini and Northwestern or da Bears, in Wisconsin, the Badgers or the Packers. You can go on and on with this.

The bottom line is the SEC can charge more for its product than the B1G can especailly if the SEC has no other conferences to compete against.

JRsec

1 Like

@Seanbo @Roggespierre Exactly! That is what I meant by Clemson and F.S.U. being SEC like teams. If the Big 10 expands into the South without SEC like teams it ultimately gains them markets, but does nothing to upset the SEC's hold on quality Southeastern football. Give them up to a conference that can pump cash into them and it becomes another matter.

The best leverage the SEC will have when realignment is over is its power football product. The more of that they own the more the networks have to listen to the SEC's demands. Lose that hold over SE power football teams and the SEC loses its leverage. When the networks started rewarding the footprint model they were setting up all of these conferences for loss of regional leverage. It's a smart ploy by the networks. Who in their right mind believe that the networks will continue to pay three different conferences full coverage of a state in which each of them have one team. They won't. I said over a year ago on this site that there would be an eventual switch to a saturation model and divided states will be forced to divide the total market of the state by their team's ratings share. The networks are going to pay for North Carolina, Texas, and Florida three different times. They wanted to split the larger states to get their future overhead down. Conference commissioners, even the best ones, have their roots in television contracts. They think in terms of the networks. Delany was very bright to see that the only way to stabilize his revenue stream was to own his own production capabilities. The SEC will only get weaker by allowing the networks to break up its control over its own region of the country. Monopolize the South and you will never lose your leverage. Allow others to grow product down here, especially if we fail to expand North, and we will eventually only lose leverage and income. Bank on it. You play chess 5 moves out and you are a winner. You play it a few more moves out and you are a champion. Most players think 2 and 3 moves out. The footprint model is in the 2nd and 3rd permutation of thinking and the networks are at 5 moves on us. They are looking at essentially the hostile takeover of an undervalued product. Legislation and regulations will eventually close the window for conferences to own and market their own product. When that happens watch out. F.S.U. and Clemson may not pay us now, but they will later. Add to them U.N.C., Virginia Tech, N.C. State, and possibly Georgia Tech and we will be calling our own shots 20 years from now if Washington politics and the Fed practices haven't destroyed the nation.

Expansion in the South to 24 if it involves Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia and Kansas would still be a winner too.

Seanbo

2 Like

@RoggespierreAnother thing to consider. With the US population shifting south with people leaving the Rust Belt. Stopping the B1G at Virginia could pay huge dividends to the SEC 10 even 20 years from now if the SEC has a monopoly.

Seanbo

1 Like

@Roggespierre

Money can do wonders for a program. Why would the SEC want a challenger in their part of the country even if the risk is low. There isn't an immediate threat but in 10 years would will things look like? Who would have predicted 10 years ago a team like Oregon or even Boise State? Look what the SEC has done for Texas A&M. UNC with the same amount or more money invested as SEC schools is a sleeping giant. What could B1G money do for FSU's programs?

Roggespierre

@Seanbo That's true and that's a lot of money to leave on the table. There are two relevant questions: 1) is the Big Ten willing to take a school that is not, has never been, and likely never will be an AAU member? 2) Does Florida State want to be in the Big Ten. I think the answer to both is maybe. The first question depends on who is making the decision. If it's the academicians, then FSU is not going to get a Big Ten invite. If the ADs and Delany can convince them otherwise, then it might be possible. The second question depends on FSU's other options. Would it rather be in the Big Ten than the current ACC, a watered down ACC, or the Big 12? I can't begin to predict the answer.

Seanbo

1 Like

@Roggespierre

1st answer-Don't know. FSU is a no brainer for the B1G in every way but AAU status. Notre Dame isn't AAU but the B1G would take them. FSU might just offer more than the Irish considering that the BTN is already in Indiana.

2nd answer-FSU wants to be able to compete with SEC schools. Financially, they are going to have a hard time keeping up with SEC budgets in the ACC. Joining the Big XII will help a little but really doesn't solve the problem, joining the B1G will. FSU's 1st choice is the SEC (hands down), they royally screwed up in 1990. Second choice is the B1G. I don't think they will join the Big XII unless at least 3 other southern schools go with them. Some form of the ACC with a southern division is 3rd choice. (something like an ACC South of FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Wake and VT)

Roggespierre

All good answers. There is no doubt that FSU could bring REALLY big money to the Big Ten. But it's almost impossible to overstate the importance that Big Ten presidents place on associating with "peer" institutions. Fair or not, they probably do not view FSU in that way. Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech, yes.

Notre Dame is the biggest national and international brand in college sports. It also is an elite academic institution, although it will never be AAU due to its religious affiliation. It happens to be in Indiana, but the Big Ten's interest has nothing to do with my beloved him state, much as I would like to believe that it does.

I'm not as convinced as some that the Big Ten would be so good for FSU. The Noles are better off sticking with whatever southern teams they can keep together. They might even be better off in a weakened ACC. I could be wrong, of course. The Big Ten dollars are indeed attractive.

DRays

2 Like

From a content perspective, FSU / Va Tech / Clemson / NC State is the best add.

I understand, but don't agree with, all the push-back on FSU and Clemson. From a new territory perpsective, the SEC is only going to add the states of NC and VA (barring the outside/unlikely additions of OH via Cincinnati and PA via Pitt). In VA, there is UVA and Va Tech. UVA is not a good fit and they don't want to be in the SEC anyway. Done and done. So pick-up Va Tech and that's best we can do for the state of VA.

The state of NC is dicier. There's UNC, Duke, and NC State. If you want to argue that replacing UNC and Duke for Clemson and NC State in the four team group above is overall more attractive, you could. But I think in terms of cultural fit the Clemson / NC State pairing is stronger and still gets you into NC. And if NC State can pull a Texas A&M (that is use an SEC invite to distinguish itself from its big brother), then they will deliver the state of NC more strongly than they get credit for as of now.

So take those four and you get as much new terriority as your going to get in any case, plus great additional content. That seems like the clear way to go to me.

JRsec

@DRays If you took Pitt, N.C. State, Virginia Tech, and either Cincinnati, Syracuse, (or West Virginia if you could get them) plus Clemson and F.S.U. your new markets would more than cover the two current footprint additions. I know Syracuse is way out of the box, but if you are taking Pitt they are the next contiguous state North and if the divisions are regional anyway, what the heck. What I don't like about it is losing Southern flavor, but the money would be good for the SEC to gain New England exposure. Sure we would get two better fits if we went to a Kansas and Oklahoma school, but the larger markets are in the Northeast. That Northern Division would look like this: Kentucky, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech. How much different is that than what has been discussed as being possibly acceptable: Kentucky, N.C. State, Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, West Virginia?

HanselGretel

1 Like

While UNC would be my first choice, I would love both FSU and Clemson in the SEC. Both would add to TV ratings and ratings equal dollars.

Roggespierre

@HanselGretel In the broadcast model, yes. In the conference cable network model, no. The cable money is in monthly subscriber fees. SEC broadcast ratings on CBS and tier 2 ratings on ESPN are not going to increase significantly if Florida State and Clemson are added. The reason is that every time those schools appear on CBS or ESPN, they would be replacing LSU, Alabama, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee, or South Carolina, which would get crammed back down to tier 3 and be on the SEC Network. The per-school payout would actually decrease because no additional cable subs would be added. Even if FSU and Clemson were as popular as the NFL, it would still be impossible to make up the shortfall.

Unfortunately, the best way for Florida State and Clemson to make themselves appealing to the SEC would be to move the campuses to the states of North Carolina and Virginia. Barring that, the economics just don't work.

PhD223

To answer your question regarding how many national viewers would be inclined to tune in to watch Missouri - Georgia, per ESPN:

ESPN2’s prime-time telecast of Georgia at Missouri averaged a 2.4 US rating (2.8 coverage), 4,119,000 viewers and 2,726,000 households, making it the network’s highest-rated and most-viewed Saturday regular-season college football game.The SEC contest is ESPN2’s second most-viewed and third highest-rated regular-season college football game on any day. http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2012/09/espn2-sets-saturday-record-abc-has-highest-rated-game-of-day-large-audience-for-espn/

kelticreid

1 Like

I know John has been leading the charge that FSU has the "name recognition" to being value to the SEC. And while I don't disagree that the Seminoles are nationally recognized, the truth is that they bring very little in monetary value to the conference.

Yes, they could provide another opportunity for a marquee matchup on Tier 1 or 2 in theory. But in reality as a member of the SEC they would only be a top draw if they were beating other SEC teams once they entered their conference slate. The SEC is not the Big 12 with 2 prominent programs (OU and Texas). The SEC has 5-6 legitimate national powers and several other programs that have acheived a high level success in spurts.

Being the prettiest girl invited to the dance is great but being the 5th or 6th prettiest girl . . . doesn't add much value to the dance and that's what the Noles will be . . . just another pretty girl at a dance already filled with beauty pageant contestents.

The future of the SEC is the SEC Network and this is where FSU doesn't bring value. Is CBS and ESPN really going to pay another 20-25 million a year if FSU joined the SEC? "Wow, we don't get any more game but one or two of those might have FSU in them? Awesome! Here's a suitcase full of cash, DEAL!!!"

And in the framework of the SEC Network, value is gained by adding both new territories and teams with big followings in those territories. As the flagship state university with the biggest alumni base, UF already delivers Florida to the nth degree. The suggestion that FSU can "REALLY deliver Florida . . . or at least continue to deliver it, is foolish." While FSU has value for other leagues that create conference networks or are looking to add more marquee teams (B1G, Big 12, ACC, etc) it has limited value to the SEC. And unless the big push switches from wholly or partially owned conference networks to big broadcast network contracts (which is highly unlikely) FSU is going to end up going elsewhere (as will Clemson for the same reasons).

torris187

Un @kelticreid FSU does and will deliver additional value. If that were not the case, then why doesn't the SEC kick out Auburn and Ole Miss? There are already 2 bigger teams in that conference, why not just eject them and split the difference between fewer teams. Alabama and Miss State could say they claim the whole state and that Auburn and Ole Miss add nothing to the conference.

Also, Florida is a much bigger state than Miss and Alabama, so if any state could justify supporting two colleges, it would be Florida (and of course Texas).

local37220

@torris187 @kelticreid The SEC is not ejecting founding members. Do you think any law firm is kicking out an original partner unless they do something heinous? I get your dollars and cents point, but the PAC could make the same move with Wazzou and Oregon St. as well as the BIG could with Purdue and Michigan State. You have to think about founding members in terms of a business owner. You always want to invest in properties that add to your existing properties. The Mississippi schools have worked the SEC "company" wonderfully considering their position as a partner. I would argue that Auburn should not be in this conversation. They net over $100 mil in revenue, which is fourth highest behind Bama, Florida, and LSU. FSU is in the 75 to 80 mil range, which is the ballpark with Kentucky and TAMU.

BobbyandBear

1 Like

@torris187 @local37220 @kelticreid Torris makes an excellent point. The folks that say having one school in a state locks up the TV market have no understanding of southern fans. I love college football, so I watch most of the important games from around the country each weekend. However, as an FSU fan, I will watch one or maybe two big Florida football games a year (Florida-Georgia for example), but only so long as the lizards are losing. Other than that, you couldn't pay me to watch those future handbags and boots play any sport against any opponent. I imagine Florida fans feel the same way about FSU, as do Alabama and Auburn fans, etc. If you truly want to count my TV set as a revenue source and lock up the Florida TV market, you better understand that simple fact.

local37220

1 Like

@torris187 @kelticreid True, but giving the boot to a founder is certainly not the norm, nor should it be. If networks took the time to pay out in a more common sense method (actual eyeballs compared to households with the ability to watch), then solidifying a state makes complete economic sense for a region like the South. Shoot, if the SEC added FSU, Clemson, UNC/NCST, and Va. Tech, they would have a network that could be a full service Southern network that a huge chunk of the population would watch for anything, news included (I'm only half joking). If the SEC truly stays at 16 schools, I completely get adding just a VA and NC school and stopping. However, if they go 20, I don't see any other non-BIG school outside of UT or OU that makes more overall sense than FSU, Clemson, or Ga. Tech.

torris187

@local37220 @kelticreid When business/big money is involved, being a founding member means something, but not much. The CEO/founder of Groupon was just fired this week by the board of directors, and he founded the company.... Also, yes, Law firms DO kick out founding members, it happened to the guy who represented Madoff . Removing founding members happens in the business world, as well in cartels in America (which is what conferences are).

If these same state schools bring in no money, then they should, as a business owner be ejected. However, I don't believe that is the case. I believe that schools in the same state help solidify the state. Not every college football person in Florida watches only Florida, a lot of people watch Florida, so adding FSU will increase viewers in Florida, by how much is debatable.

ppbrittain

FSU doesn't have AAU membership and isn't likely to ever get there. As far as the B1G goes, that's been a deal breaker heretofore (remember NU was an AAU member when they were invited).

RT77

1 Like

@ppbrittain

I'm a college professor. The AAU angle is Greatly exaggerated. The Truth is that every school in that conference, with the exception of Northwestern, would much rather have another 5 million/yr than any manufactured air of academic superiority resulting from AAU purity in its membership.

ppbrittain

@RT77 That's an interesting take. The only reason I keep going back to it is that when Mizzou and B1G were sniffing around, much was made of the AAU requirement. So, fortunately, Delaney took the Bugeaters who went in as junior members an Mizzou entered the SEC as a fully vested member of the SEC from day one.

DanHogan

@ppbrittain @RT77 I don't think the AAU thing has been exaggerated as much as it has been misrepresented. Big Ten presidents don't demand that members show up on that AAU website until they'll be associated with them. I think it is more like they demand that member schools be solid academically (the measurement of such a thing can be debated) and solid research institutions. Under the vast majority of cases, schools that fit this mode are AAU members because of their academics and research. Notre Dame is an exception because it has very high academics and has just recently increased its research. I recently compared Notre Dame with other schools across the country using the probably-not-exact-but-close-enough data on Wikipedia to find that they'd rank something like 3rd or 4th in the Big Ten. I read a quote from the Notre Dame president stating that they'd like an AAU invitation but none has been in the offering yet.

If you look at the full listing of schools' research endowments for all schools nationally, and look down the list until you see schools that could conceivably fit in the Big Ten, among the first ones you see are UNC, UVA, and Georgia Tech. I'd suspect a similar academic list might just yield the same results. I'd even wonder if "AAU" isn't the right metric because.. well.. it isn't stringent enough. But it is an easy to look-up parameter for even non-professionals like all of us to find so it helps us understand who might be in and who out.

ezgame

@ppbrittain

Notre Dame didn't have AAU status, yet they got a Big10 invite in 1998-2000 timeframe.

I see the AAU status as more like fast tracking or highlighting universities towards Big10 membership. Its not a sacred cow, just strongly emphasized or desired.

ppbrittain

@ezgame Yeah, there's no doubt they would have bent the rules for ND. I don't mean to disparage FSU as an academic institution but the B1G does take its academic profile seriously. I'm not sure that FSU is a match for that.

I guess the questions are: does the gentlemen's agreement with UF, UGA and SC stand with regards to their instate rivals (if it was ever real)? Also, wouldn't adding UNC and VPI do much more in terms of adding households for Project X? It will be interesting to see what happens.

ezgame

@ppbrittain FSU would hold its own, if invited to BIG.

Not sure either, I think if University Presidents are truly banding together to exclude a potential memeber just because of gamesmanship or something petty... They're doing their conference, University & position a dis-service. People make mistakes, hopefully others can compensate?

True. Sometimes I wonder how big or how many should be within a conference?

Seanbo

@ppbrittain

Do you not think that the B1G didn't know Nebraska was going to lose their AAU status? 2 B1G schools voted to remove AAU status from Nebraska.

ppbrittain

@Seanbo Perhaps, but at least the B1G had plausible deniability.

Trackbacks

News, Discussion and Rumors 3-7-13 | Conference Expansion says:

March 7, 2013 at 5:41 pm

[...] John Pennington, a.k.a. @MrSEC shares a new post, writing… FSU A.D. SPETMAN TALKS OPENLY ABOUT SWITCHING CONFERENCES… AND THE SEC [...]

Log in to Reply
FSU AD Spetman Talks Openly About Switching Conferences… And The SEC | A.C.C. College Football says:

March 8, 2013 at 12:29 am

[...] Send This Story To A Friend [...]

Log in to Reply

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 7th, 2013 at 5:07 pm and is filed under Homepage . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.