Realignment talk not going away

[billfromlaketravis 11465]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

I wish the SEC would require 9 conference games, 2 power 5 OOC games, and only allow a single game from the G5. No FCS.

This would allow the 4 SEC team with in state rivalries with ACC schools to play those and another power 5 school OOC and not get punished.

I think it goes the other way. Texas needs to make damned sure they maximize their home games. I’d suggest Rice, and UTSA/UTEP on a nearly permanent schedule. All at DKR. No neutral sites, no 2 or even 3 for 1. I’d be fine with playing anybody but Ohio State for the 3rd OOC game. At least 2 of the 3 OOC games need to be at home every year. 

[redswingline 1057]

On 9/1/2022 at 1:25 PM, Trojan Man said:

  Colorado being a complete joke in football and generally apathetic towards sports is the biggest mark against them.  If their athletic department was committed to success and they were a 7-9 win team most years I think they'd get serious Big 10 consideration.  They check all the other boxes, but their administration just doesn't give a fuck about winning.

I don't know if the problem is that CO or the P12 as a whole doesn't care enough about football. Perhaps its that others care too much.

 

 

[TKthunder2 4990]

2 hours ago, redswingline said:

I don't know if the problem is that CO or the P12 as a whole doesn't care enough about football. Perhaps its that others care too much.

 

 

[Trojan Man 429]

On 9/1/2022 at 3:06 PM, bullet said:

You shouldn't blame Oregon for that.  That's just the NCAA that thinks agents are the biggest violation anyone can do.  UNC fake classes?  No problem.  Baylor, Montana rape coverups, not a big deal.  Notre Dame killing a student employee by making him stay in a tower during high winds during practice, refusing to pursue sexual harassment case against starter that lead to suicide.  Not our issue.  USC-agent, big deal.  Georgia Tech-agent gives one senior player $300 in clothes.  Player pays him back.  Georgia Tech goes on probation and forfeits their ACC title.

If I can't use sports to fill my need for irrational, tribalistic hatred what's the fucking point?

On 9/3/2022 at 4:11 PM, redswingline said:

I don't know if the problem is that CO or the P12 as a whole doesn't care enough about football. Perhaps its that others care too much.

 

 

If that's the case Colorado and the rest of the Pac 12 can't be too upset when the programs that care more about football than they do decide to leave.  It's not a good fit for them or for us.

[bullet 1596]

On 9/3/2022 at 3:19 PM, redswingline said:

This made me think of the blogs and articles saying the AAC would poach the remaining B12 teams. Clearly, a lot of people don't understand the economic disparity between different conferences.

Even without us and ou, the Big 12 poaches the G5, not the other way around. Just like the P12 poaches the MWC, even without usc and ucla

If all that is left is Oregon St. and Washington St., the MWC is stronger.  There is no economic disparity.

The only question would be whether some of the MWC schools want to dump some of the others.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2830]

On 9/3/2022 at 2:19 PM, redswingline said:

This made me think of the blogs and articles saying the AAC would poach the remaining B12 teams. Clearly, a lot of people don't understand the economic disparity between different conferences.

Even without us and ou, the Big 12 poaches the G5, not the other way around. Just like the P12 poaches the MWC, even without usc and ucla

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

On 8/31/2022 at 10:17 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

And my school has a similar argument for the Big 10.  Ain't happening for the same reason you ain't getting into the SEC.

We'll still get quite a few regular TV windows, and as long as OSU keeps winning, they'll be in those windows.  I think one of the biggest things that can hurt perception is openly pining to go be overpaid whipping boys.  Everyone knows that all the admins in the Big 12 would join the SEC or Big 10 if offered.  We're all better off just being focused on making the Big 12 the best product it can be.  Just my opinion, naturally, but even though I'd rather be in a western division of the Big 10 all things considered, it just ain't happening.  I'm not even going to waste my mental energy on it.

I'd rather win the Big 12 than go 6-6 in the Big 10 anyhow.

Well, no team that goes 6-6 in the Big 10 is going to win the Big 12. If anything, the schedule is likely easier there than here. Complete luck of the draw, but the conference has Nebraska, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Illinois, and Maryland. Christ, Minnesota is supposed to be one of the good teams.

[Al_4_ISU 12461]

10 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Well, no team that goes 6-6 in the Big 10 is going to win the Big 12. If anything, the schedule is likely easier there than here. Complete luck of the draw, but the conference has Nebraska, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue, Rutgers, Illinois, and Maryland. Christ, Minnesota is supposed to be one of the good teams.

If a Big 10 West team misses Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan out of the East, their schedule is absolutely easier than playing in the Big 12, including the new Big 12.

Look at the years Iowa goes to the conference championship.  It's when they play Rutgers and Maryland and not Ohio State and Michigan.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

5 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If a Big 10 West team misses Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan out of the East, their schedule is absolutely easier than playing in the Big 12, including the new Big 12.

Look at the years Iowa goes to the conference championship.  It's when they play Rutgers and Maryland and not Ohio State and Michigan.

They are getting rid of the division format, though, so it's even more of a crap shoot. Some unlucky school might have to face the hardest schedule in college football, while it's also possible for another school in the same conference to play the easiest. The Big 10 is a lot more chaff than wheat. The SEC is head and shoulders above it from a strength of schedule standpoint.

Edited September 6, 2022 by The Hot Dog Buffet

[Al_4_ISU 12461]

5 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

They are getting rid of the division format, though, so it's even more of a crap shoot. Some unlucky school might have to face the hardest schedule in college football, while it's also possible for another school in the same conference to play the easiest. The Big 10 is a lot more chaff than wheat. The SEC is head and shoulders above it from a strength of schedule standpoint.

Outside of Ohio State, the Big 10 is no better than the Big 12 or ACC.  It just has bigger fanbases and media markets.

['stache 21805]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

If all that is left is Oregon St. and Washington St., the MWC is stronger.  There is no economic disparity.

The only question would be whether some of the MWC schools want to dump some of the others.

It'll be up to the networks I think. When the Big East fell apart a few stragglers held it together and poached CUSA changing the name to AAC. There was a clear heirarchy, but the Sunbelt overtaking CUSA more recently turned the table a little bit. If the networks want the PAC to exist and poach the MWC, it'll happen even if its just WSU and ORST to start. Like you said, if they want to drop some of the MWC that would make the most sense. Or they could just give the MWC a better deal by adding those two, but it won't be by too much. I think it's sort of a wash. It'll still be about equivalent of AAC, with the SBC behind, then the MAC and CUSA. 

[statsman 5457]

I was looking at the Big 12 schedules for the first three weeks, and ranking the top four (Big 12 home team) games, disregarding FCS matchups. Disagree with ranks, if you like. 
 
Week 1

1. OSU vs. Ctr Mich (Thursday night)

2. OU vs. UTEP

3. UT vs. ULM (LHN)

4. -

Week 2

1. UT vs. Bama

2. OSU vs. ASU

3. TT vs. UH

4. KSU vs. Missouri

5. WVU vs. KU (credit for playing league game in week 2)

Week 3

1. UT vs. UTSA

2. BU vs. Texas State

3. ISU vs. Ohio (not State, of course)

4. KSU vs. Tulane

my question is- take out the UT and OU games, and tell me how many TV slots the Big 12 wants to sell, per week, and what they propose to put in those slots the first quarter of the season, that’s worth a network paying for. 

['stache 21805]

The networks have already paid for the entirety of the package. If they want better OOC matchups they can demand it at negotiation time. The SEC's cupcake week in November hasn't seemed to affect their valuation. And looking at this next week the best SEC OOC matchup after UT-Bama appears to be Tennessee v. Pitt. Cupcake matchups have been the norm in college football OOC forever, the networks haven't seemed to mind. If you're proposing a rule limiting FCS matchups, I'd be cool with it since there are plenty of warmup matches available within FBS. I seem to recall way back when that you could only count one FCS win for the 6-win bowl total once every three years, but that seems to not matter much anymore with 5 win teams making bowl games now.

[Texas Wahoo 3394]

12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The networks have already paid for the entirety of the package. If they want better OOC matchups they can demand it at negotiation time. The SEC's cupcake week in November hasn't seemed to affect their valuation. And looking at this next week the best SEC OOC matchup after UT-Bama appears to be Tennessee v. Pitt. Cupcake matchups have been the norm in college football OOC forever, the networks haven't seemed to mind. If you're proposing a rule limiting FCS matchups, I'd be cool with it since there are plenty of warmup matches available within FBS. I seem to recall way back when that you could only count one FCS win for the 6-win bowl total once every three years, but that seems to not matter much anymore with 5 win teams making bowl games now.

This year's cupcake week in November has:

1. 2 Georgia at 20 Kentucky

2. 22 Ole Miss at 16 Arkansas

3. 12 Florida at Vanderbilt

[TKthunder2 4990]

3 hours ago, bullet said:

If all that is left is Oregon St. and Washington St., the MWC is stronger.  There is no economic disparity.

The only question would be whether some of the MWC schools want to dump some of the others.

The only schools that they might like to ditch:

Founding members:
New Mexico (bad BAD in fb, good in basketball, academics, and is a solid market for this level)
Wyoming (no market, okay football)

Late additions:
Hawaii (far travel but it’s football only)
San Jose St (bad at everything, but big market)

Without a TV contract or any major bowl agreements (they all reset in 2025 IIRC) I like the PAC might actually go the way of the SWC.

[statsman 5457]

42 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

This year's cupcake week in November has:

1. 2 Georgia at 20 Kentucky

2. 22 Ole Miss at 16 Arkansas

3. 12 Florida at Vanderbilt

You get it. 
What works: teams coordinating schedule so that there are a slate of good games each week, even if there are also some garbage games

 Ehat doesn’t work: every team in the league scheduling to suit its own desire to ramp up easy for league play and bowl eligibility 

Yes, Texas has sucked the last decade. In that decade of sucking we have contributed games against ND, USC, LSU and Bama to the league broadcast partners. The league, in return, bitches about the LHN. 

['stache 21805]

17 minutes ago, statsman said:

You get it. 
What works: teams coordinating schedule so that there are a slate of good games each week, even if there are also some garbage games

 Ehat doesn’t work: every team in the league scheduling to suit its own desire to ramp up easy for league play and bowl eligibility 

Yes, Texas has sucked the last decade. In that decade of sucking we have contributed games against ND, USC, LSU and Bama to the league broadcast partners. The league, in return, bitches about the LHN. 

So your issue is with the timing of these games? Again, if the networks want that changed, they will. The networks are the reason our opening game has been on Thursday or Friday seemingly every year. They dictate everything. If they want KSU to play UGA in Week 2 and Tech to play Wisconsin in Week 3, they'll make it known and the schools will make it happen. 

And why do you disregard away games? The bigger matchups will be home-and-home so the fact it's on the road this year evens out. The WVU @ Pitt game was bigtime last week. This weekend Baylor plays @ BYU and ISU plays @ Iowa. Those are good matchups and will be in Big 12 venues next year, just like OSU v. ASU will be in Tempe next year and UT will be @ Bama.

Edited September 6, 2022 by 'stache

[ermahgerdhorn 178]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Outside of Ohio State, the Big 10 is no better than the Big 12 or ACC.  It just has bigger fanbases and media markets.

Ding ding ding.  I think that's where all of this is headed: fanbases (demographics), owned media markets, and the ability to bring in eyeballs because your product/brand is interesting to people.  Schools that can't tick 2 of those boxes are going to get heat under an equal share conference setup once realignment is completely done.  As the future SEC looks right now do schools like Miss St, aggy, Missouri, or Vandy bring to the table what schools like bama, us, ou, or Florida do?  No.  At some point phase II (phase III?) of realignment will need to either shift things to unequal revenue sharing or move schools like those listed to a lower tier. 

[TKthunder2 4990]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Outside of Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Penn State, and Wisconsin the Big 10 is no better than the Big 12 or ACC.  It just has bigger fanbases and media markets.

FIFY

If you include UT/OU in the B12, and exclude USC/UCLA from the B1G, you still are down.  I’d have to take away Penn St/Wisconsin (next best 2) and the Illinois/Rutgers (worst 2) to make it somewhat balance out.

UT&OU/UM&tOSU
Okie St/Michigan St
Iowa St/Iowa
West Virginia/Nebraska
K State/Minnesota
TCU/Northwestern
Baylor/Maryland
Tech/Purdue
Kansas/Indiana

[statsman 5457]

5 hours ago, 'stache said:

So your issue is with the timing of these games? Again, if the networks want that changed, they will. The networks are the reason our opening game has been on Thursday or Friday seemingly every year. They dictate everything. If they want KSU to play UGA in Week 2 and Tech to play Wisconsin in Week 3, they'll make it known and the schools will make it happen. 

And why do you disregard away games? The bigger matchups will be home-and-home so the fact it's on the road this year evens out. The WVU @ Pitt game was bigtime last week. This weekend Baylor plays @ BYU and ISU plays @ Iowa. Those are good matchups and will be in Big 12 venues next year, just like OSU v. ASU will be in Tempe next year and UT will be @ Bama.

I disregarded away games because they don’t count for the conference’s media contracts. 
 
I don’t know an easier way to say this-you don’t have to wait for the networks in order to schedule tough, exciting games. You just don’t. I know that it goes against the Snyder book on building a program, but you can do it any way. 

[redswingline 1057]

5 hours ago, ermahgerdhorn said:

  As the future SEC looks right now do schools like Miss St, aggy, Missouri, or Vandy bring to the table what schools like bama, us, ou, or Florida do?  No.  At some point phase II (phase III?) of realignment will need to either shift things to unequal revenue sharing or move schools like those listed to a lower tier. 

The SEC has always distributed its TV money evenly across its member schools and I don't see that changing.

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1084]

5 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

FIFY

If you include UT/OU in the B12, and exclude USC/UCLA from the B1G, you still are down.  I’d have to take away Penn St/Wisconsin (next best 2) and the Illinois/Rutgers (worst 2) to make it somewhat balance out.

UT&OU/UM&tOSU
Okie St/Michigan St
Iowa St/Iowa
West Virginia/Nebraska
K State/Minnesota
TCU/Northwestern
Baylor/Maryland
Tech/Purdue
Kansas/Indiana

How could you possibly whiff on pairing Baylor and Penn State?  Unbelievable.

[billfromlaketravis 11465]

9 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

This year's cupcake week in November has:

1. 2 Georgia at 20 Kentucky

2. 22 Ole Miss at 16 Arkansas

3. 12 Florida at Vanderbilt

I think SEC Cupcake Week gets phased out with the 9 game conference schedule. It may already be trending that way given the aforementioned slate of games. 
 

I do like the current model of 3 OOC games followed by the start of conference play. It kind of sucks that Clemson played a conference game in their season opener. 
 

I don’t think the SEC - FCS games are going anywhere. SEC schools want a guaranteed home game and win for bowl eligibility. They’ll just be played in September instead of November. Members seem to have their heels dug in on it, and it’s not just aggy and the small schools. Even mighty Bama is playing Austin Peay. 
 

I’m not advocating Texas play FCS opponents. Rice is close enough. 

[Jimbob 420]

From a strategic standpoint, playing a tough early conference game and a late season easy game just makes too much sense.  Why should the SEC change that strategy even with 9 games?

1. It’s early in the season and people are excited just to have football.  So while most teams are playing shitty OOC have prime matchups spread over the first 3 weeks.   Eyeballs.  
 

2. losing early doesn’t hurt as bad, people have short memories and gives time for the loser to recover in rankings. Who really wants to see Bama/LSU play late then rematch in the MNC?   If they played early and the loser seems to improve over the season, a rematch is more palatable.  Expanded playoff is going to provide for a lot more rematches, so we will see what kind of fuckery comes from it. 
 

3. late lesson easy game lets teams rest and heal, spread them over 3 weeks and there’s still plenty of good matchups for the TVs. 
 

4.  If the conference as a whole is getting a win while the other conferences are going .500 there is going to be favorable movement in the polls as losers drop in rank.  
 

The late season cupcake is a large part of the SEC myth along with 8 conference games.  That myth that began while we were good has turned into reality with SEC winning 12 of the last 16.  It helps when they get 2 teams into a 4 team playoff or both slots in the BCS MNC which has happened multiple times, and the SEC myth helped that happen.  
 

if we went back to the early 2000s when the B12 was arguably the strongest conference AND if we had competent leadership who decided to adopt those strategies, realignment would probably look a lot different right now.  

[ermahgerdhorn 178]

9 hours ago, redswingline said:

The SEC has always distributed its TV money evenly across its member schools and I don't see that changing.

Exactly.  And if that doesn't change the SEC will have to relegate some members to make it fair to the producing schools.  Based on current and known future members I'd split them as:

Contributing:

Alabama
Texas
Oklahoma
Georgia
Florida

Marginal:
Tennessee 
LSU
Arkansas
Auburn
Kentucky (Basketball at least)
Ole Miss

Bottom Tier; Not-Contributing:
Missouri 
aggy
Miss St
South Carolina
Vandy

It's hard to argue that the bottom tier school shouldn't be downgraded to FCS or a non P5 conference.
 

[billfromlaketravis 11465]

This thread has gone full regard on relegation. 

[statsman 5457]

Yep. Teams get relegated when their conference collapses around them. They don’t get relegated when their conferences sign more and more profitable media deals. 

[TKthunder2 4990]

24 minutes ago, ermahgerdhorn said:

It's hard to argue that the bottom tier school shouldn't be downgraded to FCS or a non P5 conference.

[General Specific 3256]

This thread has gone full regard on relegation. 

And we should also convert to the metric system, because Europe!!!!1!

[oSuJeff97 3435]

11 hours ago, statsman said:

I disregarded away games because they don’t count for the conference’s media contracts. 
 
I don’t know an easier way to say this-you don’t have to wait for the networks in order to schedule tough, exciting games. You just don’t. I know that it goes against the Snyder book on building a program, but you can do it any way. 

That seems pretty odd, given that most "big" non-conference matchups are scheduled as a home-and-home series... e.g. the games that were pointed out... Baylor/BYU, OSU/Az State, ISU/Iowa, etc. 

If the argument is that teams need "schedule better for more desirable TV games" then not counting away games that are part and partial to said tougher scheduling seems a bit disingenuous.

I know that, from OSU's standpoint, after Arizona State, we have home-and-home series upcoming with Arkansas (x2), Oregon, Alabama, Nebraska and Colorado.  Seems like we should get "credit" for scheduling those games, including the ones on the road.

Edited September 7, 2022 by oSuJeff97

[Not a Sock 2313]

1 hour ago, ermahgerdhorn said:

Exactly.  And if that doesn't change the SEC will have to relegate some members to make it fair to the producing schools.  Based on current and known future members I'd split them as:

Contributing:

Alabama
Texas
Oklahoma
Georgia
Florida

Marginal:
Tennessee 
LSU
Arkansas
Auburn
Kentucky (Basketball at least)
Ole Miss

Bottom Tier; Not-Contributing:
Missouri 
aggy
Miss St
South Carolina
Vandy

It's hard to argue that the bottom tier school shouldn't be downgraded to FCS or a non P5 conference.
 

I am sorry but you’re a delusional homer if you think A&M contributes nothing to the SEC, that is a Texags level of a cognitive dissonance take to make.

Edited September 7, 2022 by Not a Sock

[statsman 5457]

I don’t know how else to say it- you get credit when it’s a home game, because it counts toward the media deal. You don’t get credit when it’s away, because that counts toward the opponent’s media deal. I know that’s a trade off. 
 
I can explain it for you but I can’t understand it for you. You get three non-conference games. If one is against a P5 opponent (home and away), one against a G5 opponent (home and away) and one against a FCS opponent (home), your seasonal contribution to the media deal, out of three dates, is one P5 game or one G5 game. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

8 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I think SEC Cupcake Week gets phased out with the 9 game conference schedule. It may already be trending that way given the aforementioned slate of games. 
 

I do like the current model of 3 OOC games followed by the start of conference play. It kind of sucks that Clemson played a conference game in their season opener. 
 

I don’t think the SEC - FCS games are going anywhere. SEC schools want a guaranteed home game and win for bowl eligibility. They’ll just be played in September instead of November. Members seem to have their heels dug in on it, and it’s not just aggy and the small schools. Even mighty Bama is playing Austin Peay. 
 

I’m not advocating Texas play FCS opponents. Rice is close enough. 

Sort of jumping onto 5 posts on this so not total from or directed at Bill, but as more money is desired, scheduling will change.

Currently most conferences schedule for home games, because home games paid the bills.   And, for some schools, home games still do.   Ohio State is around $70m in ticket sales, for instance, rivaling its new network deal.   For most teams though, these new media deals are paying the bills.   For instance, UCLA averaged $18-20m in ticket sales prior to the pandemic.   They're going to get $70m in media moving to the Big Ten.    That is going to change how these entire media deals are structured.

First and foremost, unless it is a made for TV sporting event, like Oregon/Georgia to kick off the season at a "neutral" site, out of conference games have basically zero worth to a conference's media rights deal.   That's why they're called Tier Three.  It is fodder.   The networks can't value them because they never really know who you're playing a decade out, it can change, they can't count on it and usually, if it is a good team, its a home and away, so they only get half the value.

The Big Ten leads over the SEC, not because of bigger product or markets or brand, but because they put more "quality" inventory on the market.   For football alone, at 16 teams, the Big Ten is offering 72 football games to all of its partners, to the SEC's 64.    Doesn't feel like much but that 12.5% difference adds up, to the tune of about $200m.   It is only a matter of time until the SEC moves to 9 conference games as well to bridge this gap because they no longer need home games nor FCS freebees due to the expansion of the playoffs.

The Big 12, in expanding to 12, could move to 8 conference games, but I doubt they can afford it.   The Big 12 with UT/OU was going to make about $60mish before the move, at 9, compared to the SEC making more....at 8.   Lose the big brands, you need to sell more, not less.   I'm going to speculate that the next big media change will come from the ACC/Pac/B12 in trying to catch up a little.   They'll either move to 10 conference games to guarantee 6 at home (H/A the two remaining) or sell them all via a scheduling agreement with the ACC/Pac.    As long as the networks know what they're getting (e.g. a P5 team), each league could boost their sales to 12 while maintaining 6 home games (8 conference games, plus 2 HnH).   That would provide those leagues with a 33% value increase to the current deal.   So now if you're making $45m, you'll make $60.   You're in the game again, you just have to give up your cupcakes.

TLDR: OOC ain't worth shit.  And it's the next big change coming.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

4 minutes ago, statsman said:

I don’t know how else to say it- you get credit when it’s a home game, because it counts toward the media deal. You don’t get credit when it’s away, because that counts toward the opponent’s media deal. I know that’s a trade off. 
 
I can explain it for you but I can’t understand it for you. You get three non-conference games. If one is against a P5 opponent (home and away), one against a G5 opponent (home and away) and one against a FCS opponent (home), your seasonal contribution to the media deal, out of three dates, is one P5 game or one G5 game. 

 

23 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

That seems pretty odd, given that most "big" non-conference matchups are scheduled as a home-and-home series... e.g. the games that were pointed out... Baylor/BYU, OSU/Az State, ISU/Iowa, etc. 

If the argument is that teams need "schedule better for more desirable TV games" then not counting away games that are part and partial to said tougher scheduling seems a bit disingenuous.

I know that, from OSU's standpoint, after Arizona State, we have home-and-home series upcoming with Arkansas (x2), Oregon, Alabama, Nebraska and Colorado.  Seems like we should get "credit" for scheduling those games, including the ones on the road.

Two things here:

1) Statsman is right in that you only get paid for your home games.   So if you play a home and home against anyone, that second year is on their contract.   A prime example is Iowa/Iowa State or Pitt/WVU, some of the few rivalries between conferences that actually rate consistently well.   Each conference only has it every other year, so the value is spaced out.   It would actually be worth more like Bedlum, where the network could value it yearly.  

2) Credit:   If you mean credit for scheduling stronger opponents for a bump in the post season, done.  That's how it works.   However, unless the networks can have guaranteed games, they're not worth anything.   Providing the networks with less risk increases what its worth.  That's why conference games are worth more.   It isn't that Texas is worth more than Kansas.   Its that both are worth more than our worst fear, that you schedule St Mary's Home for the Blind, and we get it every year.

The only way to increase the OOC value of a contract is to guarantee games to a network.   Per above, if the Big 12 went all in with ESPN, played 10 conference games and had a H/H with the ACC on ESPN, that ESPN could help facilitate, their value would jump 30% over going to market with 9 conference games and 3 OOC>

[ermahgerdhorn 178]

23 minutes ago, Not a Sock said:

I am sorry but you’re a delusional homer if you think A&M contributes nothing to the SEC, that is a Texags level of a cognitive dissonance take to make.

They do now but we bring the Texas media market to the table in a much more....widespread manner.  We also bring nationwide eyeballs to the TV deal.  Where the SEC sits right now is like someone using a 1994 Ranger for work and then getting a brand new F-250.  If the insurance costs the same for both there's no point in keeping the Ranger just for nostalgic purposes. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

In other news...

Expanded CFP Media Rights Could Double Current Deal

Quote

With the College Football Playoff expanding from four to 12 teams by 2026, it could command media rights deals with multiple TV partners yielding over $2 billion annually, sources told Front Office Sports.

The CFP’s current deal with ESPN reportedly pays an average of $470 million a year through 2026, but the expanded playoff could fetch as much as $2.2 billion annually — more than double the current payout.

Bob Thompson, the former president of Fox Sports Networks, said combined annual rights of $2 billion would be a “little light” given the addition of so many new postseason game telecasts.

“I think it will be north of $2 billion. So ($2.2 billion) is possible,” Thompson told Front Office Sports.

The CFP would top the annual fees for the NCAA’s deal with CBS/Turner for the Division I men’s basketball tournament  — which paid $870 million this year. 

It would also usurp the Big Ten’s latest mega-deal, which will average more than $1 billion annually. 

Network Bidding War

A major bump in rights fees may not be the only way the future contract looks different. 

Like the Big Ten Conference and the NHL the CFP is expected to pursue an NFL-like strategy of splitting rights among TV partners. SEC commissioner Greg Sankey told “The Paul Finebaum Show” that the CFP plans to have multiple networks bid on the deal. 

ESPN wants to renew, sources previously told FOS, but Fox is also interested — as are CBS and NBC.

CFP could fetch $2.2 billion in annual media rights fees.

- Topping the entire Big Ten contract....with 11 games.

Look for a Fox vs. ESPN bidding war for CFP TV rights.

- If you see them dragging their feet until 2026, this is why they're doing it.   They'll make more segmenting and farming out the games NFL style, to multiple networks, than the Mouse can afford on its own.  

What they're not talking about - splitting the pie

- How do you split $2b annually?    Currently the P5 split about 70% between them, evenly.  The Big 12 earned more than the ACC/Pac12 because of this.   The Big Ten/SEC will want bigger shares, but it may be difficult to sell to 11 presidents on the council, who forced expansion on the commissioners to provide more access, especially when you go back and see how teams from across the spectrum would have been represented if they started with 12.    It would shock me if they kept the current system of splitting regardless.   It would not shock me if they implemented a version of "shares" like they use for the NCAA tournament, where each win pays out more over time

Spoiler

The basketball tournament guarantees one share to each participating conference per year, then more shares can be earned through wins leading to the semis (where payouts stop).   This is then paid out on a 6 year cycle to blend the good and bad years.

- How it is paid out will directly contribute to whether we see more realignment or less.   Remember, the same amount of money split for 11 games than the Big Ten sold with 72 - e.g. this is 7x more valuable than the regular season.  Even more valuable if you consider that you're only jockying for 6 at large spots.   If they pay out evenly, expansion is over, why share with 16 what you can share with 12.   This would be a boon for the Pac 12.   If they pay out per share, look for the next round to begin as the Pac/B12 and maybe ACC position themselves to get as many in the final six as they can year in and year out.   My guess is the ACC/B12 could keep 2 of those at large births with the SEC/BigTen getting 3.5, with the Pac earning that rare second.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

If they paid out the same as the NCAA tournament, it would look something like this:

Equal Conference Fund = 10 shares a year (one per each conference in FBS) for 60 total

Performance Fund = 8 shares a year (for each win leading to the champ game) for 48 total

Total Shares = 128

Per Share Value = $2.2b/128 = ~$17m per share

Each share is paid out over 6 years, so the MWC just made $17m a year for 6 years, in year one, by year six they're earning $102m

So, if you assumed this yearly performance average out:

• SEC = 2.5
• Big Ten = 2
• ACC/B12 = 1.25
• Pac12 = .75
• Field = .25

That would net the following revenue in Year Six (if you keep the per share the same for simplicity):

• SEC = $357m
• Big Ten = $306m
• ACC/B12 = $230m
• Pac12 = $179m
• Field = $127m

 

[LTbear 4168]

3 hours ago, ermahgerdhorn said:

Exactly.  And if that doesn't change the SEC will have to relegate some members to make it fair to the producing schools.  Based on current and known future members I'd split them as:

Contributing:

Alabama
Texas
Oklahoma
Georgia
Florida

Marginal:
Tennessee 
LSU
Arkansas
Auburn
Kentucky (Basketball at least)
Ole Miss

Bottom Tier; Not-Contributing:
Missouri 
aggy
Miss St
South Carolina
Vandy

It's hard to argue that the bottom tier school shouldn't be downgraded to FCS or a non P5 conference.
 

You're retarded. 

[TKthunder2 4990]

36 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

If they paid out the same as the NCAA tournament, it would look something like this:

Equal Conference Fund = 10 shares a year (one per each conference in FBS) for 60 total

Performance Fund = 8 shares a year (for each win leading to the champ game) for 48 total

Total Shares = 128

Per Share Value = $2.2b/128 = ~$17m per share

Each share is paid out over 6 years, so the MWC just made $17m a year for 6 years, in year one, by year six they're earning $102m

So, if you assumed this yearly performance average out:

• SEC = 2.5
• Big Ten = 2
• ACC/B12 = 1.25
• Pac12 = .75
• Field = .25

That would net the following revenue in Year Six (if you keep the per share the same for simplicity):

• SEC = $357m
• Big Ten = $306m
• ACC/B12 = $230m
• Pac12 = $179m
• Field = $127m

 

Great post, but I don’t think it’s going to fall that way. Like you said “How it is paid out will directly contribute to whether we see more realignment or less”

The SEC and B1G were already looking at making changes to the tournament payout structure I don’t think they’ll design a system that gives their target expansion schools in the P12/ACC and ND a reason to keep the status quo. The only reason they might do that is to pause anymore expansion until the ACC’s GORs are up before starting on the next phase but even then I assume the terms will be just enough to get everyone on board but the deals will still be extremely favorable to the P2.

The equal conference fund, is great except that it’s not equal and with the smaller field the SEC/B1G won’t be able to make up the difference by simply getting more teams seeded like they can in bball.  Yes it will help, but they aren’t going just give up their advantage and overpay. Maybe they go on a per team basis to balance it out or maybe they pay different base rates, but an 8 team CUSA will not be pulling the same “equal fund” as a 16 team B1G.

The P5 gave up 20% of the CFP money previously to avoid antitrust lawsuits, with a bigger field and a guaranteed bid for 1 or  possibly 2 of the non P5/4 I could see that dropping dramatically. Their best argument was Utah, TCU, Boise, etc getting left out, well in this system that won’t happen.

I see an equal fund paying the P5/4 per member a certain rate, and the G5 a lower rate and then boosting up the performance rate higher so the SEC/B1G can make more and the G5 teams that make the cut would get more than they would in a system similar to the basketball payouts. The AAC/MWC and maybe Sunbelt would do well in this system, CUSA/MAC not so much.

[bullet 1596]

18 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

FIFY

If you include UT/OU in the B12, and exclude USC/UCLA from the B1G, you still are down.  I’d have to take away Penn St/Wisconsin (next best 2) and the Illinois/Rutgers (worst 2) to make it somewhat balance out.

UT&OU/UM&tOSU
Okie St/Michigan St
Iowa St/Iowa
West Virginia/Nebraska
K State/Minnesota
TCU/Northwestern
Baylor/Maryland
Tech/Purdue
Kansas/Indiana

The current Big 12 is stronger in football than the current Big 10 even with Ohio St. in most years.  The bottom of the Big 10 is pretty weak.

[oSuJeff97 3435]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

 

Two things here:

1) Statsman is right in that you only get paid for your home games.   So if you play a home and home against anyone, that second year is on their contract.   A prime example is Iowa/Iowa State or Pitt/WVU, some of the few rivalries between conferences that actually rate consistently well.   Each conference only has it every other year, so the value is spaced out.   It would actually be worth more like Bedlum, where the network could value it yearly.  

2) Credit:   If you mean credit for scheduling stronger opponents for a bump in the post season, done.  That's how it works.   However, unless the networks can have guaranteed games, they're not worth anything.   Providing the networks with less risk increases what its worth.  That's why conference games are worth more.   It isn't that Texas is worth more than Kansas.   Its that both are worth more than our worst fear, that you schedule St Mary's Home for the Blind, and we get it every year.

The only way to increase the OOC value of a contract is to guarantee games to a network.   Per above, if the Big 12 went all in with ESPN, played 10 conference games and had a H/H with the ACC on ESPN, that ESPN could help facilitate, their value would jump 30% over going to market with 9 conference games and 3 OOC>

Ok I see what you're saying here.

In terms of "credit" what I'm meaning is the willingness to schedule attractive non-conference games. I get that only the home game counts on your media deal, but my point is that scheduling them very often *requires* the return road game, so that's just part of the deal. 

So I don't think it's fair to "ding" a particular Big 12 team in a given year (say Baylor in 2022) because they don't have an attractive home non-conference game just because they are playing their return game from a scheduled home-and-home.

Also - fuck Baylor.

 

Edited September 7, 2022 by oSuJeff97

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

In other news...

Expanded CFP Media Rights Could Double Current Deal

CFP could fetch $2.2 billion in annual media rights fees.

- Topping the entire Big Ten contract....with 11 games.

Look for a Fox vs. ESPN bidding war for CFP TV rights.

- If you see them dragging their feet until 2026, this is why they're doing it.   They'll make more segmenting and farming out the games NFL style, to multiple networks, than the Mouse can afford on its own.  

What they're not talking about - splitting the pie

- How do you split $2b annually?    Currently the P5 split about 70% between them, evenly.  The Big 12 earned more than the ACC/Pac12 because of this.   The Big Ten/SEC will want bigger shares, but it may be difficult to sell to 11 presidents on the council, who forced expansion on the commissioners to provide more access, especially when you go back and see how teams from across the spectrum would have been represented if they started with 12.    It would shock me if they kept the current system of splitting regardless.   It would not shock me if they implemented a version of "shares" like they use for the NCAA tournament, where each win pays out more over time

  Reveal hidden contents

The basketball tournament guarantees one share to each participating conference per year, then more shares can be earned through wins leading to the semis (where payouts stop).   This is then paid out on a 6 year cycle to blend the good and bad years.

- How it is paid out will directly contribute to whether we see more realignment or less.   Remember, the same amount of money split for 11 games than the Big Ten sold with 72 - e.g. this is 7x more valuable than the regular season.  Even more valuable if you consider that you're only jockying for 6 at large spots.   If they pay out evenly, expansion is over, why share with 16 what you can share with 12.   This would be a boon for the Pac 12.   If they pay out per share, look for the next round to begin as the Pac/B12 and maybe ACC position themselves to get as many in the final six as they can year in and year out.   My guess is the ACC/B12 could keep 2 of those at large births with the SEC/BigTen getting 3.5, with the Pac earning that rare second.

I don't see any way they don't weight the split by number of conference members.  The Big 10 and SEC aren't going to allow the Pac 10 to get 60% more per member.

Now they may well split between the A5 evenly, but on a per member basis, not per conference.  More likely, there is some monetary incentive to get more members in the playoff.  I don't think it will be heavily weighted that way, but right now, its almost incidental.  I think its something like $4-6 million for the 2nd team.  I think it will be something like 75% of the A5 share going to the conferences equally (based on # of members) and 25% based on games played.

['stache 21805]

37 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Ok I see what you're saying here.

In terms of "credit" what I'm meaning is the willingness to schedule attractive non-conference games. I get that only the home game counts on your media deal, but my point is that scheduling them very often *requires* the return road game, so that's just part of the deal. 

So I don't think it's fair to "ding" a particular Big 12 team in a given year (say Baylor in 2022) because they don't have an attractive home non-conference game just because they are playing their return game from a scheduled home-and-home.

Also - fuck Baylor.

 

My first response on this was to a statsman post and I think he's on the "everyone else in the Big 12 is worthless" train, so I'm not sure I'm following the right conversation. I forgot that we scheduled Bama for 2028 and 2029. I think Saban signed for 10 more years so he'll be in his late 70s by then but probably still a menace. That's a pretty big time matchup. Also remember that many bluebloods don't like scheduling high end second tier teams out of the mindset that "if we win its expected if we lose its an upset." I know there was some of that sentiment when we scheduled the Boise State series. Bama is a program that seems open to everyone, which is definitely to their credit. UT is probably similar. On the contrary is Florida which I think I read hasn't (or hadn't) played a true non-conference road game outside the state of Florida although it does look like they'll play @Utah next year. Either way, my preference would be to stop scheduling FCS opponents, but it's not like it's something that only we do regularly. I think UT is one of the few programs that doesn't do that, (Notre Dame too?). But in general, I think most programs want at least one or two lesser talented teams on the schedule and I don't think a few extra bucks would change that idea, especially with the new conference tv money and expanded cfp money.

Edited September 7, 2022 by 'stache

[statsman 5457]

34 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Ok I see what you're saying here.

In terms of "credit" what I'm meaning is the willingness to schedule attractive non-conference games. I get that only the home game counts on your media deal, but my point is that scheduling them very often *requires* the return road game, so that's just part of the deal. 

So I don't think it's fair to "ding" a particular Big 12 team in a given year (say Baylor in 2022) because they don't have an attractive home non-conference game just because they are playing their return game from a scheduled home-and-home.

Also - fuck Baylor.

 

Sure. Let’s look at Baylor. Phil Steele is a handy guide, showing schedules back to 2017. In thatseven year period, Baylor has played a home and home with one P5 team- Duke. 

TCU, in that period, did play one P5 team. Good news- it was Ohio State. Bad news- it was a one off, at Jerryworld, to provide a recruiting showcase for the Buckeyes. 😂

KSU played Stanford last year in a similar Arlington one off. And they played a series against one P5 team- Vanderbilt. 
 
Kansas, of course, played Rutgers and Duke. 
 
The Big 12 has a real problem with free riders looking for someone else to raise the league profile, so they can take advantage with a good record in conference play (after scheduling three wins in non conference). 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

47 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Ok I see what you're saying here.

In terms of "credit" what I'm meaning is the willingness to schedule attractive non-conference games. I get that only the home game counts on your media deal, but my point is that scheduling them very often *requires* the return road game, so that's just part of the deal. 

So I don't think it's fair to "ding" a particular Big 12 team in a given year (say Baylor in 2022) because they don't have an attractive home non-conference game just because they are playing their return game from a scheduled home-and-home.

Also - fuck Baylor.

 

Mediawise, they're not "dinged", its just part of the valuation.   The OOC is so neglectable you could kind of just assume only 45 of the 60 odd home games in a year are paid for.   The only way to fix that is give the networks guaranteed games for all members.

[bullet 1596]

If the split is 80% A5, 20% other and 75/25 performance, it will be worth about 42 million a year for Notre Dame if they get in the playoff every other year.  If you assume 3.75 bids on average for the SEC and Big 10 (and assume equal performance after the first round), it will be about $466 million a year for each of those two conferences, or about $30 million per school.  The amount before the performance bonus will be about $19 million per school for the A5.

[bullet 1596]

1 minute ago, bullet said:

If the split is 80% A5, 20% other and 75/25 performance, it will be worth about 42 million a year for Notre Dame if they get in the playoff every other year.  If you assume 3.75 bids on average for the SEC and Big 10 (and assume equal performance after the first round), it will be about $466 million a year for each of those two conferences, or about $30 million per school.  The amount before the performance bonus will be about $19 million per school for the A5.

by 75/25, I am assuming 25% is paid based on performance, 1 share for each game played by one of your schools.  There would be 22 total shares (11 teams eliminated leading to one champion, 8 for the 4 first round games, 8 for the quarterfinals, 4 for semifinals, 2 for finals).

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Great post, but I don’t think it’s going to fall that way. Like you said “How it is paid out will directly contribute to whether we see more realignment or less”

The SEC and B1G were already looking at making changes to the tournament payout structure I don’t think they’ll design a system that gives their target expansion schools in the P12/ACC and ND a reason to keep the status quo. The only reason they might do that is to pause anymore expansion until the ACC’s GORs are up before starting on the next phase but even then I assume the terms will be just enough to get everyone on board but the deals will still be extremely favorable to the P2.

The equal conference fund, is great except that it’s not equal and with the smaller field the SEC/B1G won’t be able to make up the difference by simply getting more teams seeded like they can in bball.  Yes it will help, but they aren’t going just give up their advantage and overpay. Maybe they go on a per team basis to balance it out or maybe they pay different base rates, but an 8 team CUSA will not be pulling the same “equal fund” as a 16 team B1G.

The P5 gave up 20% of the CFP money previously to avoid antitrust lawsuits, with a bigger field and a guaranteed bid for 1 or  possibly 2 of the non P5/4 I could see that dropping dramatically. Their best argument was Utah, TCU, Boise, etc getting left out, well in this system that won’t happen.

I see an equal fund paying the P5/4 per member a certain rate, and the G5 a lower rate and then boosting up the performance rate higher so the SEC/B1G can make more and the G5 teams that make the cut would get more than they would in a system similar to the basketball payouts. The AAC/MWC and maybe Sunbelt would do well in this system, CUSA/MAC not so much.

Yeah I don't disagree, but the rabbit hole of how to do it was so vast that I just picked the one they already have in place as an example.

And one reason why they want to keep status quo is they've maxed their regular season revenue.   The moment they realize they've done that and positioned themselves to get the lion's share of the post season, paying more to add Oregon and FSU doesn't make a lot of sense.   Even providing the Pac or ACC a win in the post season wouldn't offset the amount of money the SEC would lose in bringing them in.

At some point, your numbers stop indicating you're a conference and start indicating you're a league.    I don't think any of the lawyers at the Big 12 or SEC want to be considered a league and lose all the protection being a conference provides them.

[bullet 1596]

https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2017/9/20/revenue-distribution.aspx

 the current payout.  I imagine the academic nonsense will go away.

 

• For the 2022-23 academic year:
  1. Each conference will receive $300,000 for each of its schools when the school’s football team meets the NCAA’s APR for participation in a postseason football game. Each independent institution will also receive $300,000 when its football team meets that standard.
     
  2. A conference will receive $6 million for each team that is selected for a Playoff Semifinal. There will be no additional distribution to conferences whose teams qualify for the national championship game. A conference will receive $4 million for each team that plays in a non-playoff bowl under the arrangement.
     
  3. Each conference whose team participates in a Playoff Semifinal, Cotton, Fiesta, or Peach bowls, or in the national championship game will receive $2.74 million to cover expenses for each game.
  
  
• Based on calculations from the 2021-22 season, the following distributions were made in the spring of 2022 (Estimates for the 2022-23 season will be finalized following the 2023 CFP National Championship.):
  1. Each of the 10 conferences received a base amount. For conferences that have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose, or Sugar bowls, the base combined with the full academic performance pool was approximately $74 million for each conference. The five conferences that do not have contracts for their champions to participate in the Orange, Rose or Sugar bowls received approximately $95 million in aggregate (full academic pool plus base). The conferences distribute these funds as they choose. Notre Dame received a payment of $3.55 million by meeting the APR standard; the other six independents shared $1.88 million.
     
  2. Certain conferences in the Football Championship Subdivision received approximately $2.96 million in aggregate.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

32 minutes ago, bullet said:

If the split is 80% A5, 20% other and 75/25 performance, it will be worth about 42 million a year for Notre Dame if they get in the playoff every other year.  If you assume 3.75 bids on average for the SEC and Big 10 (and assume equal performance after the first round), it will be about $466 million a year for each of those two conferences, or about $30 million per school.  The amount before the performance bonus will be about $19 million per school for the A5.

I'm with you, to a certain degree, but using the "share" model the NCAA uses, you get one share for free.   Now, could you modify the shares so that the P5 gets 1 share and the G5 share one share or some other fractural design?   Yes, but per the earlier point on rabbit holes, you could spend all week tweaking that bullshit.   And they will, for the next three years.  

The point was more, this is how a share program would work.    And the key piece of it is you get one share for existing (Automatic qualifiers in the NCAA tournament) and another share PER WIN.   You don't get a participation share if you don't win.

So here's another way to do it:

6 Equal shares a year = Paid to the top six conference champs.   The "Auto" in the NCAA tourney analogy, as opposed to just getting one to be a conference in the FBS.   I used 10 before, so this funnels more to the P5.    This increases the per share from $17m to $26m (or a 52% increase)

1 share per win, not including champ game.   A 12 team format provides 8 win shares per year.

Using the same numbers from above AND assuming a P5 champ makes it in every year AND ignoring fucking ND for a moment because they're kind of a statistical anomaly:

• SEC = 3.5 average shares per year for a yearly take home once vested of $546m
• Big Ten = 3 avg, vested yearly at $468m
• ACC/B12 = 2.25, $351m
• Pac = $273m

So out of $2.2m you get:

• SEC = 25% of all revenue
• Big Ten = 21% of all revenue
• ACC/B12 = 16% of all revenue (each)
• Pac12 = 12% of all revenue
• The field = 10% of all revenue.

With meager assumptions they make more than an 80/20 split, the P5 makes 90%.   And, those assumptions are kind of conservative.  If the SEC averages 4 wins a year for 6 years, even if they never won a championship again, they'd make a whopping $780m/year or 35.5% of all of the revenue. (which is about the same amount the entire NCAA tourney brings in a year)

The reason why this would allow them to consolidate money is because you are allowing everyone to earn it.   And while the Big Ten and SEC gobble up 45-50% of the proceeds for themselves, there will be enough stories of Boise or App State or Navy getting their fluke win every contract, for a $156m total windfall for their conference.  (Over six years.   Meanwhile the SEC/Big Ten would have netted $5.9 billion combined over that same time frame.)

Edited September 7, 2022 by Hurtlocker