Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hurtlocker

  1. Yeah I'd imagine what you see most, regardless of if the B1G has 5 two loss teams: ACC/B12 - the champ gets the bye, if the loser of the CCG is good, they get a wild card B1G/SEC - Champ gets the bye, loser is wild card (so the CCG means something), and best team not in the CCG gets in.
  2. Right, it's not absolute, its probability. The point here isn't that no three loss teams would make it into the CFP, it's that with the expansion of conferences, even with going to 9 conference games, there should be a sizable amount of two loss teams to fill the slots. Never, under any circumstance, was it stated that it would never happen, just that the probability is low for several reasons: As many as 11 P5 teams (Including ND) should have 2 losses or less in any given year The 12th team is the next highest champ outside of the P5. These are usually outside the top 15, even with less losses. That means there will be more teams will less loses available for those 6 spots. With the expansion to 16 there will be more B1G and SEC teams with 2 losses or less, making the best 3 loss team potentially the 4th option within that conference. This may be the single biggest reason why there are less 3 loss B1G/SEC teams - they can get 3 in with two-losses (or less!) With B12 expansion to 12 (or 14 for the ACC) there is a higher chance for more 2 loss or less teams being viable contenders. With 11.38 possible 0-2 loss teams in the P5 per year it is extremely probable that you get this result, yearly: B1G = 3 total, Champ + two 2 loss or better SEC = 3 total, Champ + two 2 loss or better ACC = 2 total, Champ + one 2 loss or better B12 = 2 total, Champ + one 2 loss or better PAC = 1, Champ Non-P5 = 1, Champ The B1G and SEC should have 2.25 teams, each, per year who have 3 losses. Those teams need to have a good enough record against their own conference (e.g. wins come against the best teams, not the worst) to beat out 2 spots. That's it, two available spots, that extra ACC/B12 team. Of course, it could be a year like last year where there was a 3 loss team in the top ten and there were a lot more losses to go around to everyone - that's when reality kicks probability in the balls.
  3. I miss the days of flightaware updates scanning the skies like we're tracking a moon landing.
  4. Yes, it would have to be part of a larger movement to generate two things: a more consistent strength of schedule over 12 games. Nothing will ever be exact, but at least starting with all P5 events the playing field considerably. Our 11 P5 and one G6. Make it so anything outside that doesn't count as a game for the playoffs. Folks will change schedules quick. Watch how fast the FCS is scheduled in the spring for a money making game. generate more revenue. If its all 12, and all P5, it will boost the quarter to third of the games that are not generating much now. It works best if its 8 conference and 4 OOC in H-H, but it looks like everyone is moving to 9 conference games soon. (as soon as the SEC does it the ACC will have no choice but to follow). So what you could do is a scheduling agreement for two games a year (one home, one away). To your point it makes most sense when its the same network setting it up, like SEC/ACC, B12/B1G. But you could mix it up with creative contracts. You'd need to protect current rivalries and then add to it. So Florida may always have FSU/Miami, Kentucky with Louisville, etc, then fill in the gaps with the rest. Kentucky will bitch less about Louisville if everyone in the P5 is playing 11-12 P5 games a season.
  5. It does have value, but do your point, it needs to be scheduled correctly. If you look at the Big12/SEC challenge in basketball, they didn't really mix it up. Nearly every year it was Kentucky/Kansas. I think one year it was Texas/Kentucky, but mostly Texas/Tennessee. Now if you did a scheduling agreement, you could increase the overall value. So if ALL of the ACC's OOC games were against the SEC on ESPN and lets say all the Big 12s were against the Big Ten on Fox, you could increase the base value of all those games. Even though its not always Florida/Florida State, Florida/Duke is better than Florida/McNeese State. Per above though, the powers that be try and schedule the biggest hits instead of just randomizing it.
  6. Yeah that's one of the handful of always on OOC games. WVU/Pitt, Iowa/Iowa State, Kentucky/Louisville, Georiga/Tech, Bedlam if they do it, Clemson/SC, i'm sure there are more but I'm not thinking of any standouts that go yearly. The problem is that's 1 of 4 OOC games for the SEC/ACC. So when they have value, the non-con still comes out to next to nothing. And while those few do factor in, the biggest reason they don't matter is they're inconsistent. With a conference schedule you will know how many times Texas will play Bama over the life of a contract and you have the home and homes. So you have the game whether its Florida/LSU or LSU/Florida. Florida/FSU, is only at Florida half the time. The other half of the value goes to the ACC. For the rest of the big OOC games, like if USC plays a home and home against Texas, that amounts to one game out of like less than 1% of the total games on the contract.
  7. Per @TKthunder2's point of history may not be as helpful going forward, i decided to do a little regression analysis to figure out how many two-loss or better teams we may see in conference play after realignment. What's different isn't really the brands, those always existed. And the brands played each other. In the new SEC/B1G you've got about 40-50% heavy brand hitters, which is similar to the 12 team SEC/B1G, so percentage wise that doesn't change much. What benefits is when Bama's down, there is a better chance someone else is up. The numbers are just more consistent year over year as teams rise and fall. Assuming the current version of the P5 remains as is AND assuming everyone goes to 9 conference games, that means that just between the B1G and SEC we are likely to see about 5.12 two-loss or better teams, in conference play, every year. Including the ACC, Big 12, and Pac 12, that total number comes up to 10.88. Now those are just losses in conference. There is a bit of an assumption that the top ten teams won't have additional losses out of conference, but it could happen. OOC is a bit harder to napkin math. But generally speaking, if a big brand takes out a big brand in a preseason match up, it is super hard for that school to get back into the narrative, without thumping whoever is at the top. If you're not a big brand and lose, you're toast. Projected conference play two-loss or better: Big/SEC = 5.12 (2.56/each) ACC = 2.24 B12 = 1.92 Pac = 1.6 You also have to deal with Notre Dame in here as well, which also has the possibility of degrading the ACC's numbers a bit if they run, but if they make it every other year, we're at 11.38 two-loss or less teams available for 12 spots. So, could 3 losses make a run, possibly, but I think you'd have to have a super good story to tell as to why you should jump two losses. Because, as you hear often, "they had their chance". And with nearly 3 teams a year getting in from either the B1G or SEC each year with only two-losses or left, we're going 4-5 deep on the threes and there are a ton of them - nearly 9 a year from the SEC/B1G alone. You'd really have to stand out.
  8. Definitely. The first one to move destabilizes everything. Colorado may not be Texas in valuations, but they're leaps and bounds ahead of San Diego State. And if the Pac is struggling to find the right puzzle pieces for money now, that all goes away once the dam breaks.
  9. In short, yes. If two loss Pitt or Baylor got their second loss in their CCG, I can absolutely see them getting in over a 3 loss team in the B1G/SEC who didn't play in their CCG. Brands will matter, like they always have, but wins will matter too, as they always have. If there is a 2 loss SEC, I expect them to get the benefit of the doubt over a 2 loss ACC. Could a 3 loss SEC CCG loser get in over a 2 loss B12, i can see that too. But considering there are only 6 spots, assuming that 3 losses is good enough in the B1G/SEC is hopeful optimism. Not to mention the fact that there could be three 2-loss SEC teams in any given year. 2 loss = often 3 loss = needs tons of help
  10. I do love you going back, but I'd still call a 7% chance of grabbing a wild card as a 3 loss team a rarity. That also basically means that 2 loss or less teams have a 93% chance of making it. So, it will happen, but, per your point, we shouldn't expect a lot of them.
  11. Reminds me when the Pac 10 wanted to make the Pac 16 by raiding the Big 12 and take their BCS qualifier, which was a thing at the time. Then the Pac would have two post season ins instead of one, and double the money. Then everyone told them that wasn't a thing and, without that additional guarantee, things started falling apart. Even if the Pac dies, they're going to give out 6 auto bids. It would just mean the AAC and Sunbelt start getting teams in more. Worst case, they drop it to 5, but bringing those teams to the B1G won't increase how many they get in too much, just who gets in. Usually 2, at most 4. I don't see where a lot of 3 loss teams are making this. Rarity perhaps. But we're only talking 6 total spaces, even if 4 of the top ten come from champs, the rest of the top ten is going to fill in the remainder. There are usually at least one from each conference who finished second with 2 losses or less and 3 loss teams are generally out of the top ten. Generally.
  12. right, my point was those schools leaving caused the B12 to increase the pain for leaving. The ACC followed suit. I don't believe the Pac did.
  13. Not a 20 year contract, a 20 year Grant of rights. The premise being, its not a short term stop. If you come here you're committing to build this up and we have four media contracts to do so. The Bylaws already state membership is for 99 years, which gives the buyout some teeth. The B12 isn't the B1G/SEC, clearly, but they're the conference right now generating the most buzz outside that group. They don't need to cater to a single brand or two and likely will ensure if anyone joins that that group is committed to each other for a while and, if you're not, stick in the Pac and wait.
  14. Not sure how much wishful thinking it is, it doesn't seem far off. If you look at the top 20 non USC/UCLA games two thirds involve Oregon, only a handful involve Washington. They have the "great school" cache, but there is zero national buzz around the Huskies. If the Big Ten takes three, would they pick the Huskies or Colorado, or would they fuck them both and take Stanford, Utah and Colorado to make a stepping stone to Cali, since both are also AAU? I'm with @Vertigo on "betting on yourself" but Missouri will tell you there is no guarantees Uncle B1G will rescue you. Both OU and Washington would be advantaged by playing a more national schedule, no matter how difficult the travel is. So you're stuck with: Play in a depleted PAC and put all your eggs on the 12 team playoff or Join the B12 for a more national schedule and more exposure, but the B12 will likely lock everyone up for 20+ years to kill wandering eyes. At some point it may become a knife fight for who goes down with the ship and who gets off and it may not be who we assume.
  15. Right, its a window that exists until the next one. There is no world where whatever the Pac puts together doesn't include a GoR for at least the amount of time of the deal. So, they have to slip out before its signed. I don't know the buyout amount, which is separate from the GoR. UCLA/USC moved to get onto the Big Ten's timing, not sure if they got at that time due to a two year notice, like Texas/Oklahoma did, or because they had to have announced it to sign the B1G's deal to start next year. If its a one year buyout or two year buyout, they'll need to announce before July. The only difference is do they just not get paid for next year or do they need to come up with more to give the Pac for that second year or is it too expensive and they can't afford to move. No matter what the Pac does, its going to involve losing money, they have $50m to make up to Comcast too to the tune of $4+m/team.
  16. I don't think so to be honest. The only reason the B12 did it is it saved Texas and Oklahoma buyout money and they were under contract. The B12 has a much harder buyout than the P12 has because they've been through turmoil and built new bylaws to combat it (side note, the ACC copied it when they stabilized). The Pac is still more like the old B12, where Nebraska/A&M and company basically left for free. If four schools don't want to stick around, they won't be valued in the entire contract. The Pac will require they sign a GoR to get any of the money and I'd be shocked if the GoR didn't run longer than the next contract just to keep everyone together. The Pac is coming at this from a different angle, they need long term stability and it will be codified some how in the new deal.
  17. I think Oregon and Washington are in the worst possible position. They believe they deserve to be paid like USC, because "they're not Arizona nor Colorado" and to a degree that makes sense with Oregon being the top draw in the remaining Pac. But the top draw in the remaining Pac isn't even in the same conversation as the top draw in the Big/SEC. They're a rung below with FSU/Miami. Bigger than the ACC/B12, by about $10m, but still $20m behind the SEC/B1G. So do you become the big dogs of the B12, likely paying everyone $5m more than they make now, knowing they'll lock you up for a long time, killing the dream. Or do you make it work with less, counting on the expanded playoffs to up your profile to hope for something bigger in 6 years? That's not a very fun position to reside.
  18. It kind of works that way on the west coast too. There are actually a lot of B1G alum in LA, along with a massive amount of USC/UCLA. The Rose Bowl connection to the Big Ten is real for a reason. Is that true in the NW? I'm not sure. While I'm not sure its viable, I think it makes more sense for them to add UVA/UNC/Tech with ND to go to 20, than Stanford/Oregon/Washington. But then again, I also thought it made more sense to pair UCLA/USC with Texas/Oklahoma than what shook out, so what do I know.
  19. It would suck for hard core PAC viewers too. Streaming is usually a quarter the audience of Linear, and not like major linear, but like ESPNU or FS2. A stream you need to pay $99 a year on? I'd guess that weeds out all but the most hard core fans. Apple will have a clause in that contract that their investment in the rights is directly tied to the amount of subscriptions they receive. 250k subscribers = $25m/year That doesn't pay the schools a lot.
  20. TV deals do require a GoR, that is literally the entire reason they exist. Even back before we all knew about them, GoRs existed in The Big 12 and B1G and SEC and every other sports rights package. They were just one year deals that would be resigned yearly as part of the media contract. The reason being, if you're a broadcaster, you can't have Ohio State selling their rights twice or backing out of a game you're putting money into producing. The longer the GoR you sign, the less risk it is for the broadcaster, the less risk the higher money you'll make for whatever it is you're selling. In the Pac's situation, as of July 1st, assuming you need a one year notice, the best a team can do to get out would be the year after (or pay more money than most of these schools seem to have). Now you're in a one year media deal you just said you don't want to be a part of, where they require you to sign a GoR for likely longer than you want to stay. Can you deal with it, sure, but it becomes unnecessarily complicated. Either they move before the one year window or they sit out of realignment until a year before the next contract.
  21. Yes, basically. If they have to give a year's notice before their contract ends, that's by the end of June. Also why there isn't a rush, for the four corners schools. If the deal comes in by June, win, if it doesn't they know the Big 12 will take them. Oregon and Washington are in a pinch. The Big 12 won't offer a temporary fix and the Big Ten doesn't have to do jack shit. If the B1G doesn't step in with something they'll have to choose between staying with a depleting Pac or a "truck stop" Big 12. Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado knows they have options. The rest will be wherever they be, regardless of what it pays. After July 1st though, things can get tricky if you can't leave your conference, but don't want to sign a GoR.
  22. ""Nobody’s asked us – I shouldn’t even say that. We’re committed to the Pac-12," he said. "What I’ve said along with the other presidents and chancellors is we’re not going to even think about going anywhere, none of us, until we see what kind of offer we get, and that’s still being worked out. And I’m confident it’s going to be fine.""
  23. Exactly, and they happen to play in DFW, which allows all the other teams in the league to get games in Texas and, at the time, keep at least two games in Texas per year for recruiting once the Aggy's left. They were a no brainer add and definitely have pulled their weight in football, being the only Big 12 team to make the CFB Champ game, while growing basketball to compete. They pull solid ratings too.
×
×
  • Create New...