Realignment talk not going away

[statsman 5456]

Except- English soccer promotion/relegation is a function of competitive success and failure. Here, it’s all about viewership. 
 
Let me ask a question- in 50 years, who will be in a better conference, TCU or UTSA? How about Oklahoma State or UTSA?

If I were making a case for UTSA, I would point to population and demographic trends. The case for TCU and OSU? Is there much beyond Davey O’Brien and Barry Sanders, and status quos?

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

16 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Man I'd love a promotion/relegation with like three levels of 24 (though it would most likely need to be 6 of 12, so everyone can play everyone else).   It would implode any notion of geography and travel would be horrendous, but it would be fun.  

The only way you could do it is pool ALL conference media rights into one group.   Then what likely would happen is you break it back out to regions with a champion pool.

• 1 - Champion's league of 12 with its own playoff at the end, bottom 3 drop back down.
• 6  - Regional Tier one 12 team geographic leagues.   (NE, SE, MW, SW, NW, SoCal?)  Each bracket sends their champ and their are 6 wildcards in a year end tourney.   Top three teams in the tourney are promoted.  
• You could also have relegation here too, but to smaller conferences.   So perhaps the MW relegates to the MAC, the SE to the Sunbelt, etc.

The logistics to manage the rising and falling teams over the massive geography of the US would be daunting.   But you could do it.   

It's fun to think about but also completely unworkable for college football.  Most athletic departments outside the top 20 are breakeven at best and many actually require subsidy from the university to be solvent.  Texas is far outside the norm here with the revenue we throw out of the AD.  Since football is the #1 revenue generator, if a more marginal school was relegated, their revenues would tank even further.  Imagine being an Iowa State or an Arizona St., or Purdue or Ole Miss and you string together a few bad years and relegate down one or two levels.  All of the sudden your conference schedule is what we know today as MAC, Sunbelt, and AAC teams at best.  Your TV revenues tank, your gate tanks, and now your whole AD is insolvent.  You have to cut a ton of headcount out of the AD and, probably, cut a bunch of other sports too.  Especially women's sports, and now you have a Title IX issue.  It's a death spiral.  In european soccer a rich owner plugs that gap and invests to move up.  In CFB, the "owens" are the donors, much more fickle.

Also worth pointing out: in this system how far down would Texas have relegated from 2010-now?  2 levels?  3?  Interesting to think about

[Hurtlocker 2212]

5 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

The big difference is that the ACC has numbers (14/15 w/ ND) and a bunch of options that are or have been in the Big6/P5 club. That’s something the PAC12 didn’t have which is why they are having to reach into Texas.

Say worse case scenario they lose FSU, Clemson, NCSU, VT to the SEC and Miami, GT, UNC, UVA and NDnonfb to the Big Ten they could still have the below teams that would be more respectable in the view of college administrators/fans

WVU, Cincy, UConn, Memphis, UCF, USF, Temple, Tulane and maybe even Army/Navy to go along with WF, Duke, Lville, Pitt, Syracuse, BC. That’s basically the old Big East sans Miami/VT plus Duke/WF and a few call ups and it would be enough to keep them afloat and likely keeps them in line with (or slightly behind) the Big 12 but well ahead of the PAC12.

Here's the bigger problem.   USC/UCLA and Texas/OU could move, because they were able to fund that move.   UVA/UNC isn't worth $100m.   FSU/Miami are not worth $75m.   If they were, they wouldn't be being paid $17m

The ACC exists as it is for a reason, and you can see very clearly on ESPN.   It is a basketball property, who also plays some football.   ESPNs top games are Duke/UNC, all the time, even when Duke/UNC suck.  They are constantly promoting those brands, like they're constantly promoting Alabama/Georgia.  And then, you get some football played and teams get ranked so that gives you a boost, but a lot die on the ACCN.   They're 75% basketball, 25% football.

• So the B1G/SEC are big, massive football brand conferences, who also play some basketball (75/25)= big football money
• The Big 12 has crazy basketball and also has fervent football fanbases, but not as brands (50/50)= hybrid money
• The ACC has basketball brands, who also play some football (25/75)= basketball money
• The Pac 12 had USC (football)/UCLA (basketball) with no other real defined marketing cache outside Olympic championships.  Yes Oregon is a known brand in football and Arizona is a T2 basketball brand, but, they're not USC/UCLA.

Napkin valuations on what's left would probably have me lay it out this way:

• 60+m = none
• 50+m = FSU, Oregon, UW, UNC
• 40+m = Arizona, ASU, Clemson
• 30+m = Colorado, Stanford, Cal, UVA, VTech, Miami
• 20+m = Utah, WSU, NCSt, Duke, etc etc

None of these schools bring enough value any more to the B1G/SEC.   You will start to water down the valuations because there aren't any more inventory slots left.   So you have FSU join the SEC, that pushes one current game back to the SEC Network.  The only way Oregon/UW/Stanford/Cal get to the Big Ten is if the Big Ten negotiates a new late night deal with ESPN and those schools go to it.  But it won't pay the Big Ten $400m, it may make $200m, so they'd come in at half and at the next contract everyone would make slightly less to catch them up.

The only real move left is either uneven sharing of post season revenues, or move to the Big 12.    If your conference is making $20, but you're worth $40, everyone is rising off that $20m difference.   But if you're worth $40 and they're worth $32, now you're rising more to your level, everyone makes more.   Oregon/FSU are paid like $20m in their current deal, but $35 in that move.   You make less than you're worth, but you're much closer.

At the end of the day, I think they all stay and we see some form of uneven sharing, a bonus structure if you get into the CFP playoff and/or generate a lot of shares in the NCAA tournament.   Because if they pay FSU for football, UVA/Duke/UNC will want the basketball.   

[Hurtlocker 2212]

5 minutes ago, statsman said:

Except- English soccer promotion/relegation is a function of competitive success and failure. Here, it’s all about viewership. 
 
Let me ask a question- in 50 years, who will be in a better conference, TCU or UTSA? How about Oklahoma State or UTSA?

If I were making a case for UTSA, I would point to population and demographic trends. The case for TCU and OSU? Is there much beyond Davey O’Brien and Barry Sanders, and status quos?

Its sort of six of one there.   By and large people do watch brands, but what they watch are good games, meaning they go down to the wire, against teams with something at stake.  If one of those teams is a brand, its multiplied.   If the brands suck and are getting blown out, they turn it off.

 

[statsman 5456]

CFB is an overtly professional game now, with no salary caps. Big brands get to buy players from smaller brands. 
 
TCU did great hiring a badass coach in Patterson and paying him as much as any blue blood school ever would, to keep him. That was a great formula under the old rules. Now, to make it work, they need to match NIL pay with Texas and the rest of the SEC. 
 
My point is- in 50 years, isn’t UTSA a great possibility to have a bigger brand and better NIL than TCU and OSU?

[TKthunder2 4985]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Here's the bigger problem.   USC/UCLA and Texas/OU could move, because they were able to fund that move.   UVA/UNC isn't worth $100m.   FSU/Miami are not worth $75m.   If they were, they wouldn't be being paid $17m

The ACC exists as it is for a reason, and you can see very clearly on ESPN.   It is a basketball property, who also plays some football.   ESPNs top games are Duke/UNC, all the time, even when Duke/UNC suck.  They are constantly promoting those brands, like they're constantly promoting Alabama/Georgia.  And then, you get some football played and teams get ranked so that gives you a boost, but a lot die on the ACCN.   They're 75% basketball, 25% football.

• So the B1G/SEC are big, massive football brand conferences, who also play some basketball (75/25)= big football money
• The Big 12 has crazy basketball and also has fervent football fanbases, but not as brands (50/50)= hybrid money
• The ACC has basketball brands, who also play some football (25/75)= basketball money
• The Pac 12 had USC (football)/UCLA (basketball) with no other real defined marketing cache outside Olympic championships.  Yes Oregon is a known brand in football and Arizona is a T2 basketball brand, but, they're not USC/UCLA.

Napkin valuations on what's left would probably have me lay it out this way:

• 60+m = none
• 50+m = FSU, Oregon, UW, UNC
• 40+m = Arizona, ASU, Clemson
• 30+m = Colorado, Stanford, Cal, UVA, VTech, Miami
• 20+m = Utah, WSU, NCSt, Duke, etc etc

None of these schools bring enough value any more to the B1G/SEC.   You will start to water down the valuations because there aren't any more inventory slots left.   So you have FSU join the SEC, that pushes one current game back to the SEC Network.  The only way Oregon/UW/Stanford/Cal get to the Big Ten is if the Big Ten negotiates a new late night deal with ESPN and those schools go to it.  But it won't pay the Big Ten $400m, it may make $200m, so they'd come in at half and at the next contract everyone would make slightly less to catch them up.

The only real move left is either uneven sharing of post season revenues, or move to the Big 12.    If your conference is making $20, but you're worth $40, everyone is rising off that $20m difference.   But if you're worth $40 and they're worth $32, now you're rising more to your level, everyone makes more.   Oregon/FSU are paid like $20m in their current deal, but $35 in that move.   You make less than you're worth, but you're much closer.

At the end of the day, I think they all stay and we see some form of uneven sharing, a bonus structure if you get into the CFP playoff and/or generate a lot of shares in the NCAA tournament.   Because if they pay FSU for football, UVA/Duke/UNC will want the basketball.   

You’re correct. No school outside of Notre Dame will drive higher payouts under the current system.

But I think you are missing a key point of expansion. It’s one part market protection. FSU/Miami/GT/Clemson mean far more to the Big Ten and their long term vision (especially when you review population demographic projections over the next few decades), than they do for the SEC. In 50 years having a long term investment in the Southern states will pay dividends, but it may not pay out immediately.

The SEC might expand simply to prevent the Big Ten from gaining a foothold. Even if it slightly lowered the payout.

Also, the long term vision for college sports will not stay as is. The more brands you can consolidate into the SEC/B1G the easier the transition to that long term plan will be. Leaving out major states like Washington/North Carolina or major brands like Oregon/Clemson also would go over well nationally.

The top basketball brands like Kansas and UNC will make it (maybe not Duke but that’s a discussion for another day), but secondary brands like UConn/Louisville might not. But knowing that the conference will eventually get bigger makes this almost like a game of chicken. The SEC and Big Ten both have an invested stake in the Southeast Atlantic states and that will play out before 2040 it’s just a matter of timing at this point because if you think that the CFP and NCAA tournament will still resemble their current setup after the SEC/B1G have 48 or so members in them then I don’t know what to tell you.

[BornAndRaised 12281]

definitely seems like more than just saber rattling at this point.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

8 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

You’re correct. No school outside of Notre Dame will drive higher payouts under the current system.

But I think you are missing a key point of expansion. It’s one part market protection. FSU/Miami/GT/Clemson mean far more to the Big Ten and their long term vision (especially when you review population demographic projections over the next few decades), than they do for the SEC. In 50 years having a long term investment in the Southern states will pay dividends, but it may not pay out immediately.

The SEC might expand simply to prevent the Big Ten from gaining a foothold. Even if it slightly lowered the payout.

Also, the long term vision for college sports will not stay as is. The more brands you can consolidate into the SEC/B1G the easier the transition to that long term plan will be. Leaving out major states like Washington/North Carolina or major brands like Oregon/Clemson also would go over well nationally.

The top basketball brands like Kansas and UNC will make it (maybe not Duke but that’s a discussion for another day), but secondary brands like UConn/Louisville might not. But knowing that the conference will eventually get bigger makes this almost like a game of chicken. The SEC and Big Ten both have an invested stake in the Southeast Atlantic states and that will play out before 2040 it’s just a matter of timing at this point because if you think that the CFP and NCAA tournament will still resemble their current setup after the SEC/B1G have 48 or so members in them then I don’t know what to tell you.

Yeah, I'm with you and I can see the possibility, but I just don't think the "all brands in one place" will play out.    That in its own right probably means it will happen.   I thought Florida was a good place for the B1G to start planting flags to reach a few years ago, before they secured LA.  SoCal is worth more to the B1G than any property in Florida, by a sizable margin.   They likely could get more in the next deal with Arizona/Colorado, than FSU/Clemson - primarily based off playing T1 games in every time zone all day.

And, if they were to go the other way and move to Florida, there isn't a need to rush to that either.   When the Big Ten picked up Maryland and Rutgers BTN was a massive part of their revenue.   In the new set up, its big, but a much smaller percentage of their overall revenues.  At this point it doesn't matter, to the Big Ten, where Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, or USC play...just that they play.   Also, contracts were aligned to do it on the cheap.   FSU does not have that advantage so its a decade out regardless.

Lastly, consolidation of brands does have a point of diminishing returns.   You want about 20-30% of your total to be big brands for maximum value.   If you have less than that, you cannot maximize your biggest games.   If you have more than that you start to lose the shine because you add more losses.   There is no world where a 4 loss Ohio State has the same value as a no-loss Ohio State.  Zero worlds.   Will they be better than a 4 loss Baylor?  Yup, but they're not getting the same buzz you need for top value.

 

 

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

1 hour ago, BornAndRaised said:

definitely seems like more than just saber rattling at this point.

Eh - it just seems like particularly loud saber-rattling to me.  For me, that video confirms the reason for going public like this, and that is to satiate the fanbase and make FSU and its administrators look like the good guys.  Every comment is something like "Hell yeah!  Tell them to call us Daddy!" or "We needed great leadership like this."  In a decade, when everything is mostly changed, it may be harder to pull off, but it will work for a few years at least.

[TKthunder2 4985]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Lastly, consolidation of brands does have a point of diminishing returns.   You want about 20-30% of your total to be big brands for maximum value.   If you have less than that, you cannot maximize your biggest games.   If you have more than that you start to lose the shine because you add more losses.   There is no world where a 4 loss Ohio State has the same value as a no-loss Ohio State.  Zero worlds.   Will they be better than a 4 loss Baylor?  Yup, but they're not getting the same buzz you need for top value.

Agree on diminishing brands which is why I think there will be a big fight over UNC. They bring basically every the SEC/Big Ten could ask for in a program except they are NOT a blueblood or even near blueblood in football (UVA too but not to the same level as UNC).

You need your powerhouse football teams to play each other enough to keep TV schedules and home football schedules interesting, but not SO much where (to use your example) Ohio State is over exposed to every major power in the conference every year. As much fun as it would be to see Ohio State’s schedule fill up with Michigan, MSU, Pedo, USC, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington, and Miami each year, it would be bad for the conference overall and long term.

That’s why, I see more realignment coming. Schools will take a hit on the money to invite Stanford or UVA because you need those opponents that can fill up your wins column in football but also contribute with their markets/fan base size, basketball, non fb/bb athletic programs, and yes even academics (presidents would rather give up some money to be in a club with UVA than they would with Louisville or Boise St).

That being said, the demographics of the South are booming and the Midwest not so much. Getting the Big Ten into Virginia, North Carolina, and major Big Ten alumni cities like Atlanta and Miami would be a giant win for a Rust Belt conference. This is the next big realignment fight.

The SEC made it clear that they have no real interest in the PAC12 or any Big 12 leftovers as a standalone addition (I could see a school like Kansas or West Virginia get added to round out the numbers like they did with South Carolina and Mizzou in the previous rounds) so they will be focused on the ACC almost exclusively.

The Big Ten knows it can take any PAC12 school now and basically any time. If they lose out on UVA/UNC then they grab Oregon/Washington/Cal/Stanford and maybe even some 4 corner schools to build up their numbers, but their is no reason to do it now.

Wait and see how the ACC schools shake out then make a move.

Edited February 27, 2023 by TKthunder2

[TrashMaster G 17551]

19 hours ago, statsman said:

Except- English soccer promotion/relegation is a function of competitive success and failure. Here, it’s all about viewership. 
 
Let me ask a question- in 50 years, who will be in a better conference, TCU or UTSA? How about Oklahoma State or UTSA?

If I were making a case for UTSA, I would point to population and demographic trends. The case for TCU and OSU? Is there much beyond Davey O’Brien and Barry Sanders, and status quos?

Do you think college football will exist in 50 years?  I don't.

Not that it matters to me.  I won't be around.

[ouflak 60]

19 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

It's fun to think about but also completely unworkable for college football.  Most athletic departments outside the top 20 are breakeven at best and many actually require subsidy from the university to be solvent. 

If that's true, then so be it, and your points stand. But I really wonder if that's true. The top 60 - 70 programs that are supposedly 'losing money' are able to somehow consistently give their coaching staffs and administrator staffs 5, 6 and 7 digit annual raises. Every. Single. Year. Big names get hired making < insert double digits > percentage higher salary than the previous coach. That's been going on for decades. And yet they aren't generating profits to pay for all of that? I've got a feeling that some of those actual accounting books are a lot more entertaining than what is being presented to the public. You can only take so much money from the General Fund. And for the private universities, we don't actually know at all what's really happening behind the scenes.

Edited February 27, 2023 by ouflak

[TKthunder2 4985]

7 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Do you think college football will exist in 50 years?  I don't.

Not that it matters to me.  I won't be around.

Will cigarettes, alcohol, porn exist in 50 years? The answer is clearly yes.

The NFL is the most watched content in the US that will take significant time to diminish. We have 100k+ seat stadiums In college and major high school stadiums that are bigger than some colleges. This is a cash cow for the NFL/P5 programs and they won’t let it go quietly into the night.

The rules will change. The game might look a bit different but CTE isn’t going to kill the game. The lack of kids participating is the real threat and in high school football that doesn’t seem to be a problem currently.

If you start seeing a bunch of highly populated high schools canceling their football program and associated programs like marching band/drill team and switching homecoming to basketball games then I’d be worried.

For now they’ve just started 2 additional professional football leagues again so I don’t think it’s at risk currently.

[Gaffords 755]

21 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

No, the GoR basically means you gave your rights to someone at a price you agreed to.   This is FSU's self created mess.   If they didn't like it, they shouldn't have signed.

I wonder if a school could force a court ordered settlement if they paid their 120 million exit fee and offered to pay say 17 million a year, the established value the conference has assigned them, so they could go make 60 Million plus in another conference, banking on the real difference in money will be from the number of schools the other conference will average getting into the playoffs and National championships those teams will win. 

It isn't idea, but it will keep them closer in the money than riding out the next 13 years in their current situation, and it puts them in preferred seating now instead of playing musical death match chairs a decade plus plus from now. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

29 minutes ago, Gaffords said:

I wonder if a school could force a court ordered settlement if they paid their 120 million exit fee and offered to pay say 17 million a year, the established value the conference has assigned them, so they could go make 60 Million plus in another conference, banking on the real difference in money will be from the number of schools the other conference will average getting into the playoffs and National championships those teams will win. 

It isn't idea, but it will keep them closer in the money than riding out the next 13 years in their current situation, and it puts them in preferred seating now instead of playing musical death match chairs a decade plus plus from now. 

I don't see the forcing a settlement thing, but they could offer it as an option.  Its a financial contract, you're ceding the rights to something for someone else to monetize on your behalf.   So making the deal whole is a financial remedy.   The ACC, nor ESPN as their partner, doesn't have to accept, but that's how to get out of a GoR.   

That being said, if FSU is being paid $17m now.   Either they are not worth enough to make a lot more OR the ACC is worth so little that they lose a lot with FSU leaving.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

27 minutes ago, Gaffords said:

I wonder if a school could force a court ordered settlement if they paid their 120 million exit fee and offered to pay say 17 million a year, the established value the conference has assigned them, so they could go make 60 Million plus in another conference, banking on the real difference in money will be from the number of schools the other conference will average getting into the playoffs and National championships those teams will win. 

It isn't idea, but it will keep them closer in the money than riding out the next 13 years in their current situation, and it puts them in preferred seating now instead of playing musical death match chairs a decade plus plus from now. 

I do not think FSU could "force" a court ordered settlement, but they could certainly try to offer the ACC enough to let them leave.  I doubt $17 million would do it, but they could offer the value they say they are worth to the ACC, which is 15% of the ACC contract.  If they offered that, they might be able to get out of it.

['stache 21800]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Will cigarettes, alcohol, porn exist in 50 years? The answer is clearly yes.

Legal weed and Real Dolls will lead to diminishing demand.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

21 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I do not think FSU could "force" a court ordered settlement, but they could certainly try to offer the ACC enough to let them leave.  I doubt $17 million would do it, but they could offer the value they say they are worth to the ACC, which is 15% of the ACC contract.  If they offered that, they might be able to get out of it.

And for conversation sake, 15% of the current ACC contract is around $470m, or FSU is valued at about $36m a year - according to them.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

Realistically Big 12 should be the first conference to expand to 20, that could create the allure....

The current 12 teams + Arizona/Arizona State/Utah/Colorado + some combo of FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami/Duke(basketball)/Virginia Tech

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

22 minutes ago, BurntOrange&amp;White said:

Realistically Big 12 should be the first conference to expand to 20, that could create the allure....

The current 12 teams + Arizona/Arizona State/Utah/Colorado + some combo of FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami/Duke(basketball)/Virginia Tech

I do not see any way that any of those ACC schools are going to be motivated enough to even try to get out of their GOR for Big 12 money, even if it is a decent amount higher than ACC money.  Personally, I doubt any of them are getting out of that GOR for at least a decade, but for them to even attempt it, it is going to have to be for a LOT more money (i.e., at least current SEC/Big Ten money).

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

51 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I do not see any way that any of those ACC schools are going to be motivated enough to even try to get out of their GOR for Big 12 money, even if it is a decent amount higher than ACC money.  Personally, I doubt any of them are getting out of that GOR for at least a decade, but for them to even attempt it, it is going to have to be for a LOT more money (i.e., at least current SEC/Big Ten money).

Big 12 can renogotiate 6 years befor the ACC can

 

2031 is the next window for Big 12 in 2-4 years I'd bet if Big 12 can add some of those schools ESPN/Fox would move up the timeline to restructure/extend their current deal. 

 

ACC is stuck with their deal until 2036 or something like that

[Hurtlocker 2212]

31 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I do not see any way that any of those ACC schools are going to be motivated enough to even try to get out of their GOR for Big 12 money, even if it is a decent amount higher than ACC money.  Personally, I doubt any of them are getting out of that GOR for at least a decade, but for them to even attempt it, it is going to have to be for a LOT more money (i.e., at least current SEC/Big Ten money).

Yeah, i don't even think B1G money is enough.   Florida will make about $450m more than FSU over 13 years.   FSU is looking at $470m in a GoR PLUS $120m buyout.  There just isn't a number big enough to make it make sense until 2036.

[BachelorTrek 2967]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&amp;White said:

Realistically Big 12 should be the first conference to expand to 20, that could create the allure....

The current 12 teams + Arizona/Arizona State/Utah/Colorado + some combo of FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami/Duke(basketball)/Virginia Tech

IF they had 20 teams then they could actually have a truthful and marketable name as the Big Score.  Lulz.

[bullet 1596]

On 2/26/2023 at 11:25 AM, Gaffords said:

I'm curious why FSU decided to do this during l a public venue. These things are disgusted behind closed doors to avoid beating your fan base into a frenzy. Even if it were directed at the conference, it would have been handled behind closed doors...

The only time these things have been done publicly before is when schools were on their way out.  Corn, aggy, Mizzou, even OU when it tried to bolt to the PAC.

Im not saying FSU has a foot out already, but there is something going on and this was a deliberate move by FSU to galvanize it's fan base for something. 

Well if you've been around long enough you would remember FSU and Clemson both did it during the FSUCU to Big 12 rumors a decade back.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

I love the internet...

 

 

[bullet 1596]

On 2/26/2023 at 1:45 PM, statsman said:

Except- English soccer promotion/relegation is a function of competitive success and failure. Here, it’s all about viewership. 
 
Let me ask a question- in 50 years, who will be in a better conference, TCU or UTSA? How about Oklahoma State or UTSA?

If I were making a case for UTSA, I would point to population and demographic trends. The case for TCU and OSU? Is there much beyond Davey O’Brien and Barry Sanders, and status quos?

TCU and OSU aren't commuter schools.  And their alumni have money.  TCU and OSU have actually done something in football, both finishing in the top 2 at least once in the last dozen years.  OSU has an NCAA title in basketball.  Georgia State has 50,000 students.  Do you think they will ever be in the top tier?

[bullet 1596]

On 2/26/2023 at 1:50 PM, Horn of Gabriel said:

It's fun to think about but also completely unworkable for college football.  Most athletic departments outside the top 20 are breakeven at best and many actually require subsidy from the university to be solvent.  Texas is far outside the norm here with the revenue we throw out of the AD.  Since football is the #1 revenue generator, if a more marginal school was relegated, their revenues would tank even further.  Imagine being an Iowa State or an Arizona St., or Purdue or Ole Miss and you string together a few bad years and relegate down one or two levels.  All of the sudden your conference schedule is what we know today as MAC, Sunbelt, and AAC teams at best.  Your TV revenues tank, your gate tanks, and now your whole AD is insolvent.  You have to cut a ton of headcount out of the AD and, probably, cut a bunch of other sports too.  Especially women's sports, and now you have a Title IX issue.  It's a death spiral.  In european soccer a rich owner plugs that gap and invests to move up.  In CFB, the "owens" are the donors, much more fickle.

Also worth pointing out: in this system how far down would Texas have relegated from 2010-now?  2 levels?  3?  Interesting to think about

Everybody in the P5 except 1 or 2 is making money now.  What you are saying would have been true a dozen years ago when the TV numbers were more like $7-$10 million.

Below the P5 they are all losing boatloads.

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

3 minutes ago, bullet said:

Everybody in the P5 except 1 or 2 is making money now.  What you are saying would have been true a dozen years ago when the TV numbers were more like $7-$10 million.

Below the P5 they are all losing boatloads.

OK but even assuming that's true and yes as noted above there is plenty of "creative" accounting in many AD's to show breakeven or a loss every year...promotion/relegation only works if everyone agrees to do it.  It's pretty obvious why SMU, UTSA, or UH would sign up for that.  What motivation does Georgia, Texas, Ohio State or Bama have to sign up for a system where they could get relegated?  I can't think of any.

[bullet 1596]

14 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah, I'm with you and I can see the possibility, but I just don't think the "all brands in one place" will play out.    That in its own right probably means it will happen.   I thought Florida was a good place for the B1G to start planting flags to reach a few years ago, before they secured LA.  SoCal is worth more to the B1G than any property in Florida, by a sizable margin.   They likely could get more in the next deal with Arizona/Colorado, than FSU/Clemson - primarily based off playing T1 games in every time zone all day.

And, if they were to go the other way and move to Florida, there isn't a need to rush to that either.   When the Big Ten picked up Maryland and Rutgers BTN was a massive part of their revenue.   In the new set up, its big, but a much smaller percentage of their overall revenues.  At this point it doesn't matter, to the Big Ten, where Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, or USC play...just that they play.   Also, contracts were aligned to do it on the cheap.   FSU does not have that advantage so its a decade out regardless.

Lastly, consolidation of brands does have a point of diminishing returns.   You want about 20-30% of your total to be big brands for maximum value.   If you have less than that, you cannot maximize your biggest games.   If you have more than that you start to lose the shine because you add more losses.   There is no world where a 4 loss Ohio State has the same value as a no-loss Ohio State.  Zero worlds.   Will they be better than a 4 loss Baylor?  Yup, but they're not getting the same buzz you need for top value.

 

 

Well if you add FSU/Clemson/UW/Oregon/Notre Dame and Miami to the P2, you have all but 3 AP titles going back to 1960 (Colorado, BYU, Pitt) being the exceptions).  It only takes the P2 to go to 20 to almost totally dominate football.

[Crockett 490]

39 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah, i don't even think B1G money is enough.   Florida will make about $450m more than FSU over 13 years.   FSU is looking at $470m in a GoR PLUS $120m buyout.  There just isn't a number big enough to make it make sense until 2036.

When you sum the differences over a period of time the difference in money between these schools is incredible. 

BTW, one of the reasons I'm on this board is because of intelligent, enlightening posts that you (and some others) post here.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

54 minutes ago, Crockett said:

When you sum the differences over a period of time the difference in money between these schools is incredible. 

BTW, one of the reasons I'm on this board is because of intelligent, enlightening posts that you (and some others) post here.

Well, you'll be happy to learn then that BYU will make about $100m more than FSU for regular season media rights during the duration of the new B12 deal.   

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

16 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Well, you'll be happy to learn then that BYU will make about $100m more than FSU for regular season media rights during the duration of the new B12 deal.   

How so?

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&amp;White said:

How so?

Six years times $14.5 mil /year = $87 mil, but I assume he was just rounding it.

[statsman 5456]

2 hours ago, bullet said:

TCU and OSU aren't commuter schools.  And their alumni have money.  TCU and OSU have actually done something in football, both finishing in the top 2 at least once in the last dozen years.  OSU has an NCAA title in basketball.  Georgia State has 50,000 students.  Do you think they will ever be in the top tier?

TCU and OSU have alums willing to pay coaches competitive salaries. CFB is no longer an amateur game. Are they ready to pay players a competitive salary? Say, about $100k per year to 50 roster guys?

It’s a different game now. UT sells out a 100k stadium, and it costs well over $100 per seat to get in (including foundation donations). I used to have TCU season tickets, and for a non-Texas game you could regularly get in for $50. TCU and OSU just don’t have the popular support and popular support means more than ever, now. 

[Laga4 1270]

6 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

Do you think college football will exist in 50 years?  I don't.

Not that it matters to me.  I won't be around.

College football will be around in 50 years,  it just won't look like it does today.

1972 college football wasn't anything like 2022 football and 2072 football won't look like 2022 football.  

[Hurtlocker 2212]

15 minutes ago, statsman said:

TCU and OSU have alums willing to pay coaches competitive salaries. CFB is no longer an amateur game. Are they ready to pay players a competitive salary? Say, about $100k per year to 50 roster guys?

It’s a different game now. UT sells out a 100k stadium, and it costs well over $100 per seat to get in (including foundation donations). I used to have TCU season tickets, and for a non-Texas game you could regularly get in for $50. TCU and OSU just don’t have the popular support and popular support means more than ever, now. 

Should it turn the corner and athletes are classified as employees a lot will change.

First, no need to provide full scholarships, so some will come directly from that.   Since most schools are over $20k in state, let alone out of state, its just a wash.

Second, should the employee situation occur, it will likely be followed very closely by a player's association/unionization.   It wouldn't be a stretch to see salary caps and minimums worked into that deal, like nearly every professional league.    There will still be a benefit to the Yankees of the world, but the wild wild west days will be over.

Unregulated NIL favors the big brands far, far more than player reclassification into employees would.   That helps the smaller programs.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Hurtlocker
spelz bad

[oSuJeff97 3435]

15 minutes ago, statsman said:

TCU and OSU have alums willing to pay coaches competitive salaries. CFB is no longer an amateur game. Are they ready to pay players a competitive salary? Say, about $100k per year to 50 roster guys?

It’s a different game now. UT sells out a 100k stadium, and it costs well over $100 per seat to get in (including foundation donations). I used to have TCU season tickets, and for a non-Texas game you could regularly get in for $50. TCU and OSU just don’t have the popular support and popular support means more than ever, now. 

When was the last time CFB was an "amateur" game exactly?

OSU has put nearly a billion dollars into athletic facilities over the past 15 years in order to put ourselves in position to be successful in this "amateur" game.

There's no reason to think that we can't or won't be competitive in the new landscape. And I'm not concerned if we won't have the money to get the level of recruits that Texas or other blue bloods have. We haven't been recruiting on that level in the past 15 years and have been plenty competitive. 

NILs and collectives aren't changing where the top recruits are going; they're just getting paid over the table instead of under the table so I don't really see what the difference is.

[statsman 5456]

5 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

When was the last time CFB was an "amateur" game exactly?

OSU has put nearly a billion dollars into athletic facilities over the past 15 years in order to put ourselves in position to be successful in this "amateur" game.

There's no reason to think that we can't or won't be competitive in the new landscape. And I'm not concerned if we won't have the money to get the level of recruits that Texas or other blue bloods have. We haven't been recruiting on that level in the past 15 years and have been plenty competitive. 

NILs and collectives aren't changing where the top recruits are going; they're just getting paid over the table instead of under the table so I don't really see what the difference is.

You’re whistling past the graveyard. 

[oSuJeff97 3435]

14 minutes ago, statsman said:

You’re whistling past the graveyard. 

OK explain it to me like I'm 5 then.

• How many programs are there that will be paying $100k/player for a full roster of players?
• What are those schools' average recruiting rankings over the past 15 years and how do we expect them to materially change going forward?
• Starting with your $100k/player figure, how far down do you have to go to see material change in competitiveness? $75k? $50k? 
• If OSU can spend nearly a billion $ in facilities upgrades over the past 15 years or so, why is it hard to believe that we would have the resources to be successful going forward?

College football has NEVER been a level playing field and never will be. I don't see how this new era is any different in that regard.

 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

6 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

 

• What are those schools' average recruiting rankings over the past 15 years and how do we expect them to materially change going forward?

 

This is the part that I think is not only spot on but also the most ironic.   The blue chips are still going to go where they are going now, it's just going to cost more to get them.  Programs that develop 3 stars are still going to be programs who develop 3 stars.   Its not like they had a bunch of 5s and now they can't get them any more.

In a sense, the biggest brands are able to cash in now, but will also end up paying more to trade paint with historic peers on the recruiting front.

[hook me 2092]

35 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

When was the last time CFB was an "amateur" game exactly?

OSU has put nearly a billion dollars into athletic facilities over the past 15 years in order to put ourselves in position to be successful in this "amateur" game.

There's no reason to think that we can't or won't be competitive in the new landscape. And I'm not concerned if we won't have the money to get the level of recruits that Texas or other blue bloods have. We haven't been recruiting on that level in the past 15 years and have been plenty competitive. 

NILs and collectives aren't changing where the top recruits are going; they're just getting paid over the table instead of under the table so I don't really see what the difference is.

 

15 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

OK explain it to me like I'm 5 then.

• How many programs are there that will be paying $100k/player for a full roster of players?
• What are those schools' average recruiting rankings over the past 15 years and how do we expect them to materially change going forward?
• Starting with your $100k/player figure, how far down do you have to go to see material change in competitiveness? $75k? $50k? 
• If OSU can spend nearly a billion $ in facilities upgrades over the past 15 years or so, why is it hard to believe that we would have the resources to be successful going forward?

College football has NEVER been a level playing field and never will be. I don't see how this new era is any different in that regard.

 

Did they raise T. Boone from the dead or is there another oil tycoon that we haven't been introduced to yet that is ready, willing, & able to fund the facility &, now, NIL arms races? 

['stache 21800]

20 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

This is the part that I think is not only spot on but also the most ironic.   The blue chips are still going to go where they are going now, it's just going to cost more to get them.  Programs that develop 3 stars are still going to be programs who develop 3 stars.   Its not like they had a bunch of 5s and now they can't get them any more.

In a sense, the biggest brands are able to cash in now, but will also end up paying more to trade paint with historic peers on the recruiting front.

Agree entirely. NIL isn't meant to change the landscape, it just allows kids to cash in for some of the value they are contributing. The bluebloods will pay a lot more than the rest, just as they bring in more than the others, and have more to offer.

13 minutes ago, hook me said:

 

Did they raise T. Boone from the dead or is there another oil tycoon that we haven't been introduced to yet that is ready, willing, & able to fund the facility &, now, NIL arms races? 

Other donors have contributed immensely to our construction boom and their names are on the buildings. Sherman Smith indoor practice facility. Mike and Ann Greenwood tennis facility (their name is also on the new music school attached to the new McKnight performing arts center). Cecil O'Brate baseball stadium. Neal Patterson soccer stadium. Our lowly little ag school has produced plenty of richers to fund this stuff.

Edited February 27, 2023 by 'stache

[closetohumping 17435]

19 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

Agree entirely. NIL isn't meant to change the landscape, it just allows kids to cash in for some of the value they are contributing. The bluebloods will pay a lot more than the rest, just as they bring in more than the others, and have more to offer.

Other donors have contributed immensely to our construction boom and their names are on the buildings. Sherman Smith indoor practice facility. Mike and Ann Greenwood tennis facility (their name is also on the new music school attached to the new McKnight performing arts center). Cecil O'Brate baseball stadium. Neal Patterson soccer stadium. Our lowly little ag school has produced plenty of richers to fund this stuff.

[hook me 2092]

21 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

Agree entirely. NIL isn't meant to change the landscape, it just allows kids to cash in for some of the value they are contributing. The bluebloods will pay a lot more than the rest, just as they bring in more than the others, and have more to offer.

Other donors have contributed immensely to our construction boom and their names are on the buildings. Sherman Smith indoor practice facility. Mike and Ann Greenwood tennis facility (their name is also on the new music school attached to the new McKnight performing arts center). Cecil O'Brate baseball stadium. Neal Patterson soccer stadium. Our lowly little ag school has produced plenty of richers to fund this stuff.

Those aren't a pimple on T Boone's ass when it comes to donations & with the ever-widening gap in TV revenue your school is going to need a LOT more than $20mm gifts here & there. Personally, I'd suggest y'all start a powerball group with a written agreement to give 3/4 to OSU athletics. That could help if you hit one of the big ones.

[statsman 5456]

Recruiting out of HS is only half of the task. 
 
How is the portal working out for OSU?

[Gaffords 755]

5 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah, i don't even think B1G money is enough.   Florida will make about $450m more than FSU over 13 years.   FSU is looking at $470m in a GoR PLUS $120m buyout.  There just isn't a number big enough to make it make sense until 2036.

They are making noise for something, and it isn't to try and bully the ACC into more money.  The ACC schools are well aware FSU is tied to them for 13 years, if they like it not not.  Just like they are aware that FSU will bolt after if there is an opening somewhere for them, no matter how unequal the revenue they get.  So why give them more of the pie now when they are leaving anyways.  The ACC can't give Clemson and FSU (and UNC.. ECT) enough money to get them within the same universe as the power two, and those schools aren't wanting Big 12 money either. 

I feel there's more to the story  than just noise..  

[Trojan Man 429]

17 minutes ago, Gaffords said:

They are making noise for something, and it isn't to try and bully the ACC into more money.  The ACC schools are well aware FSU is tied to them for 13 years, if they like it not not.  Just like they are aware that FSU will bolt after if there is an opening somewhere for them, no matter how unequal the revenue they get.  So why give them more of the pie now when they are leaving anyways.  The ACC can't give Clemson and FSU (and UNC.. ECT) enough money to get them within the same universe as the power two, and those schools aren't wanting Big 12 money either. 

I feel there's more to the story  than just noise..  

There is one way for Clemson and FSU to get more money in a way that might be palatable to enough ACC members to get it approved.  It involves the way postseason money (CFP bids, bowl bids, March Madness units) is distributed.  I don't know the exact breakdown for the ACC but if they're anything like the conferences I know more about, and they probably are, a small amount goes to the school that earned the postseason berth while most of that money goes to the conference and is redistributed among all members.

If the ACC changed it to winner takes all of the postseason bid money that could satisfy Clemson and FSU.  CFP berths are about to get a lot more valuable when the next CFP media contract goes through in a few years.  With 12 bids this proposal would get support from the next tier of schools who could realistically see themselves getting an at large berth even if Clemson or FSU wins the ACC autobid.  Apply the same idea to March Madness and you'll get the basketball schools on board.  They could also argue this is the fair way to do things.  Why should the nutswinger schools that can't be fucked to field good football or basketball teams get to leech even more off the successful teams than they already do just from being in the same conference?  If they don't like it they can get better and then they too can benefit from this setup.

As for why the ACC schools should try to appease two schools that are obviously gone ASAP, it's a hedge against them fighting the GOR or getting enough schools to simultaneously accept B1G/Big 12/SEC bids to dissolve the ACC.  If they pull that off the nutswinger schools are fucked a lot sooner than 2034.

[Deej 76755]

3 hours ago, Laga4 said:

College football will be around in 50 years,  it just won't look like it does today.

1972 college football wasn't anything like 2022 football and 2072 football won't look like 2022 football.  

 

[Not a Sock 2311]

46 minutes ago, Gaffords said:

They are making noise for something, and it isn't to try and bully the ACC into more money.  The ACC schools are well aware FSU is tied to them for 13 years, if they like it not not.  Just like they are aware that FSU will bolt after if there is an opening somewhere for them, no matter how unequal the revenue they get.  So why give them more of the pie now when they are leaving anyways.  The ACC can't give Clemson and FSU (and UNC.. ECT) enough money to get them within the same universe as the power two, and those schools aren't wanting Big 12 money either. 

I feel there's more to the story  than just noise..  

You don’t make noise if you have the leverage. Remember how the Big 12 and Bowlsby howled to the media and anyone who would listen while Texas/OU/SEC sat silently.

[Texas Wahoo 3391]

2 minutes ago, Trojan Man said:

There is one way for Clemson and FSU to get more money in a way that might be palatable to enough ACC members to get it approved.  It involves the way postseason money (CFP bids, bowl bids, March Madness units) is distributed.  I don't know the exact breakdown for the ACC but if they're anything like the conferences I know more about, and they probably are, a small amount goes to the school that earned the postseason berth while most of that money goes to the conference and is redistributed among all members.

If the ACC changed it to winner takes all of the postseason bid money that could satisfy Clemson and FSU.  CFP berths are about to get a lot more valuable when the next CFP media contract goes through in a few years.  With 12 bids this proposal would get support from the next tier of schools who could realistically see themselves getting an at large berth even if Clemson or FSU wins the ACC autobid.  Apply the same idea to March Madness and you'll get the basketball schools on board.  They could also argue this is the fair way to do things.  Why should the nutswinger schools that can't be fucked to field good football or basketball teams get to leech even more off the successful teams than they already do just from being in the same conference?  If they don't like it they can get better and then they too can benefit from this setup.

As for why the ACC schools should try to appease two schools that are obviously gone ASAP, it's a hedge against them fighting the GOR or getting enough schools to simultaneously accept B1G/Big 12/SEC bids to dissolve the ACC.  If they pull that off the nutswinger schools are fucked a lot sooner than 2034.

People always mention the idea of dissolving conferences, but they generally have a disinterested party clause that means that the other schools can declare another school disinterested if they are trying to leave and then they do not get to vote on whether to dissolve the conference.  Even if you somehow got eight teams to want to dissolve the conference (and that alone seems pretty far-fetched), you'd somehow need to make sure the other schools did not suspect any of them were trying to leave, which would be difficult to do if they are calling for a vote on dissolution.

Just for fun, let's say they can do it (or the ACC doesn't have a disinterested parties clause), who are the eight schools?  Obviously (1) Clemson and (2) FSU.  Then (3) UNC and (4) UVA seem like the most talked about.  I guess after that it would be (5) Miami?  Although that seems like it would only happen if FSU goes to the SEC and the Big Ten desperately wants into Florida.  For the last three, maybe (6) VaTech, (7) NCState, and (8) Pitt?