Hurtlocker

That's about as many who go to most ACC games.

The ACC Network gets a bump with DFW and the Bay Area I guess, but its not THAT big of a bump. The ACC is paid about the same as the B12, so lets, for simplicity, call it $35m. If Stanford, Cal, Oregon State or WSU were worth $35m, why isn't ESPN putting them in the B12, since they just paid for that for the 4 corners? Clearly OSU/WSU are not on par and probably value out closer to $15m, which will help the MWC. If Calford IS worth $70m combined but turned down the B12, then you could make it make sense I guess, but only for a short period of time. At your 60-70%, that only amounts to $25m/year back to FSU/Clemson to split, but then they have to ship a fuck ton of other schools out to the west coast? I mean Washington mentioned $10m in increased travel to the B1G, but they'll be making $80+m in six years. Its all sunken money. They'd be better off saying, "you play in the playoffs you split 50% and the remaining 50% is split to non-participants." That would make Clemson/FSU waaaaay more money in the short and long run as the ACC will likely be making $100-150m a year from the post season going forward.

I cannot come up with a single financial model that makes this make sense, except one. If ND joins as a full member and the ACC gets the second NBC slot.

Haha, a problem in that they looked. I would imagine politicians and HCs in 49 other states are racing to whatever powers that be to just not look.

in

They could be on Prime, they couldn't be on ABC counter CBS's afternoon slot. The new deal for the SEC the mouse is allowed to put the biggest game in any slot and any channel, as long as they pay, they're not bound to the afternoon. They should be counting ESPN though, its basically a T1 channel at this point. ESPN2/U is even to FS1, those are clearly T2. This graph is also a good indicator of how many games have hit conference networks and who doesn't play on them. But, at the end of the day, win and you get on the good channels.

That's sort of an every year thing though. How many times has A&M started in the top ten only to struggle to get 7 or 8 wins? It won't look like this in October once loses start showing up.

I'm for you can play however many you like, but they don't count on your record.

If they're going to make Iowa and Iowa State just send them a million for a game, why not just give them $2m more in the budget and call it a day?

I'm with statsman on this one, FCS games can't go away fast enough. They should be Spring games, or like post camp, pre-season, warmups or something. I get that some places have another state FCS state school that gets a boost, but they shouldn't count towards W/L or even be a part of the season. Its like if the Cowboys had an XFL game on the schedule.

Vandy?

All the well-resourced will get there, but at some point....players.

The point is it's never been even between schools. CFB isn't like the NFL with spending caps and collective bargaining. The top ten programs have always had a massive advantage over the remaining programs. At one point they were basically the only programs you ever saw on TV for decades. The current situation has new aspects to work with, but it is literally no difference. The advantage exists. Not sure why you chose Oklahoma State, but let's take that example. There will be a media difference between Texas and OkSt with the conference changes, but even while they were in the B12 together, Oklahoma State would have had to get paid almost 2.5 B1G shares, per year, to match Texas' revenue. They can't. And it really makes no difference if Oklahoma State was in the B1G or the SEC or the NFL. On the brand side of things, Texas will always get the premier television window over OkSt, always be known more by recruits, transfers, etc etc. None of this is new.

If they have less than a 30 point difference in a game, it should be counted as a loss.

Eh....you're talking about teams outside the top 25 at this point. If you want to keep it comparable, you're really only talking the top 3 seed lines in the NCAA Tourney. The further down the rankings you go the more wacky the positions become. In this case, you're really talking about who is making it in the top 10 as at least one champ won't be in the top ten and another could be low enough to start stealing spots. Consolidation is going to greatly help the SEC and B1G, but its going to help the B12 too. To do that, its rarely a 3 loss team regardless of brand. A 3 loss Washington isn't jumping a 2 loss Utah. BUT a 3 loss Bama would jump a 3 loss UNC. Its in those sections where the benefit will occur and those are fractional in the overall top ten.

You make that sound like its even now. Texas makes more on football than most schools make for their entire athletics department.

It will end up at five very soon. Wasn't your point, but previous points that the ACC or B12 won't basically get 2 in a year are terrible maths.

Its still only going to be like 40k. I always forget Kansas is only like 20k students.

Most state schools are under one BoR, his original point was about Iowa and Iowa State and the State of Iowa has one BoR last I checked. 80-90 games is a lot of inventory, twice as much as the contract the B12 just extended. I can't imagine they do this on the current contract without a price jump. Expansion alone is going to drive a ton to streaming, as you're already seeing with B1G teams not named USC/OSU/Mich/Pedo and the B12 could probably add a conference network at this point.

Seems New Mexico State too! Makes more sense in university systems, like Cal, Texas, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina, but big, first, and public are the primary. Surprised Arizona didn't make this list.

Not happening this year it seems...

Yeah especially with Tulane shocking USC

Don't forget this one: Ohio State Doc Abuses Wrestlers

I agree. They've had some strange ones. I say we just turn it all over to our future AI overlords now and be done with it.