Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

3 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

yeah please don't do this.

Quote

In a recent acquisition, the architects of Project Rudy successfully recruited to join their team one of the most respected people within the college space: former Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick. It is a stunning move for someone who just six months ago sat on the College Football Playoff governing committee as one of the most powerful decision-makers in the industry.

 

[bullet 1,596]

15 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Your use of white space is fierce 

No quite sure how that happened.  Too late to edit.

But then it does represent the value of those games.  A lot of nothing.

['stache 21,795]

18 hours ago, Magus Ossis said:

It is a business deal. The permanent 8 would be the ones whose presence makes the deal worth what it is. 10 years of bad Michigan or bad Texas football draws more eyeballs than do 10 years of success at NMSU. If you want Notre Dame, Michigan, USC, and Texas to volunteer to be subject to relegation, you may not be 100% rational.

I said tv ratings would be involved so it’s essentially permanent but considers a full tank like Miami or Nebraska where people outside their own fan base eventually stop giving a shit. Also why 8? Why not 6? Or 10? The cutoff seems arbitrary especially when it says the difference between tiers is like $30-$40M. I think the formula should just straight up be largely based on tv ratings. Everyone gets a minimum annual payout, say $25% of the pot. The rest is paid out strictly on a formula of tv rating. Maybe carve out 10-15% playable based on W-L record but the primary driver should be tv ratings since that is where the money is made. Also avoids these really drastic tier differences. Miami didn’t lose prestige overnight, over time if the rating keep dropping, your payout drops accordingly over time, not all at once. The real bluebloods would never be in danger of not making a fortune.

Edited October 9 by 'stache

[Magus Ossis 2,797]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I said tv ratings would be involved so it’s essentially permanent but considers a full tank like Miami or Nebraska where people outside their own fan base eventually stop giving a shit. Also why 8? Why not 6? Or 10? The cutoff seems arbitrary especially when it says the difference between tiers is like $30-$40M. I think the formula should just straight up be largely based on tv ratings. Everyone gets a minimum annual payout, say $25% of the pot. The rest is paid out strictly on a formula of tv rating. Maybe carve out 10-15% playable based on W-L record but the primary driver should be tv ratings since that is where the money is made. Also avoids these really drastic tier differences. Miami didn’t lose prestige overnight, over time if the rating keep dropping, your payout drops accordingly over time, not all at once. The real bluebloods would never be in danger of not making a fortune.

Tying payouts to future ratings has a logic. Are you saying, though, that tier status would be ratings-based rather than on-the-field: i.e., would Tech for example have not only to be a dominant team but to average in the top 16 for viewership to get top 16 money? This is a deal that absolutely depends on the participation of a large percentage of the blue-bloods. It will work just fine without any given 10 of the "second 32." The 2nd 32 are in no danger of making less in the new agreement than they do now. The blue bloods could theoretically make less if relegated. Notre Dame is unlikely to sign onto an agreement that says UCF may be two tiers above them in prestige, exposure, and money based on how things turn out. If UCF doesn't like it, they can organize a league of teams that think the old-school big-draw teams are greedy. That league would pay out a tiny fraction of the third-tier shares for agreeing to pamper the guys whose current value creates the opportunity for the league. If this league happens, it will be because Texas, ND, Michigan, tOSU, USC, etc want it. They will then agree to terms that permit other teams to play along. The teams that want to play along will have the chance to move up and down. But the guys whose league it really is are not going to want to move down. Telling the senior partners of a newly forming enterprise that they should consider allowing themselves to become junior is not how the world works.

[Al_4_ISU 12,451]

5 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

yeah please don't do this.

Seems like a good deal for you guys 

['stache 21,795]

1 hour ago, Magus Ossis said:

Tying payouts to future ratings has a logic. Are you saying, though, that tier status would be ratings-based rather than on-the-field: i.e., would Tech for example have not only to be a dominant team but to average in the top 16 for viewership to get top 16 money? This is a deal that absolutely depends on the participation of a large percentage of the blue-bloods. It will work just fine without any given 10 of the "second 32." The 2nd 32 are in no danger of making less in the new agreement than they do now. The blue bloods could theoretically make less if relegated. Notre Dame is unlikely to sign onto an agreement that says UCF may be two tiers above them in prestige, exposure, and money based on how things turn out. If UCF doesn't like it, they can organize a league of teams that think the old-school big-draw teams are greedy. That league would pay out a tiny fraction of the third-tier shares for agreeing to pamper the guys whose current value creates the opportunity for the league. If this league happens, it will be because Texas, ND, Michigan, tOSU, USC, etc want it. They will then agree to terms that permit other teams to play along. The teams that want to play along will have the chance to move up and down. But the guys whose league it really is are not going to want to move down. Telling the senior partners of a newly forming enterprise that they should consider allowing themselves to become junior is not how the world works.

I wouldn’t do “tiers” for payout purposes. Maybe for scheduling. The money would be a straight formula every year. Base pay plus rating based distribution.

[thunderlounge 7,813]

[Horn of Gabriel 1,614]

Why would the SEC or B1G do this if they get 80% of it via a scheduling agreement, and don't have to give up 12.5%?

[Al_4_ISU 12,451]

15 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Why would the SEC or B1G do this if they get 80% of it via a scheduling agreement, and don't have to give up 12.5%?

The thing I read had the top tier schools making way more than they do now.

The league commissioners will fight it tooth and nail.  It renders Sankey gloriously irrelevant.  The whole current conference model, really, which is great.

The schools who would lose are the Big 10/SEC remoras who would be on a similar tier to the Big 12 and ACC.  The blue bloods make more than they do now and the 12/ACC ensure inclusion.

[Horn of Gabriel 1,614]

27 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The thing I read had the top tier schools making way more than they do now.

The league commissioners will fight it tooth and nail.  It renders Sankey gloriously irrelevant.  The whole current conference model, really, which is great.

The schools who would lose are the Big 10/SEC remoras who would be on a similar tier to the Big 12 and ACC.  The blue bloods make more than they do now and the 12/ACC ensure inclusion.

True but I'm not sure how much bigger the money would actually be vs. the SEC and B1G doing 80% of this on their own.  Because the other thing the conferences would have to give up may be as important as the money, which is control.  Letting the PE fox into the henhouse is the ultimate short term thinking move, especially granting them the level of control over the sport envisioned in the Rudy proposal.

[Magabro 171]

New proposal out there:
https://sports.yahoo.com/while-sec-and-big-ten-leaders-mull-major-changes-a-new-super-league-concept-looms-that-could-radically-alter-college-sports-130031534.html

"...As SEC and Big Ten leaders prepare to meet Wednesday and Thursday in Nashville for a historic summit of the industry’s two powers, there is an unreported undercurrent driving the discussion: Project Rudy.

Spearheaded by former Disney executives-turned-investment professionals, Project Rudy is a super league-esque concept — separate and more simplified than the one made public last week — that incorporates football programs of the four power conferences in a 70-team structure. The model preserves the four power conferences, expands the postseason, overhauls scheduling, tiers revenue distribution and, most importantly, infuses as much as $9 billion of private capital cash into the system.

The architects behind the model work for Smash Capital, a venture capital and private equity firm with offices in Los Angeles and New York. Representatives from Smash Capital declined to comment when reached last week, but their concepts are outlined in a 14-slide presentation obtained by Yahoo Sports.

Over the last four months, athletic directors at more than 25 power conference programs have seen the presentation, many of them in person during meetings with Smash Capital representatives....

 

Project Rudy is built on two somewhat simple concepts to increase revenue from television networks and corporate sponsors.

(1) Arrange more games between power conference programs by eliminating all games against Group of Five and FCS opponents; expanding the playoffs; and pitting blue-blood powers more often against one another.

(2) Consolidate the media rights of the 70 schools under one agreement, instead of the current structure of five different packages (one for each power league and Notre Dame)...."

Smash and Grab Capital LLC

[TexLonghorn 5,661]

These new proposals keep putting us back into league with the teams we spent a lot of effort to get away from.  Weakest of the proposed conferences?  We'd be saddled with Tech, Houston, Baylor, TCU, and SMU.  Little-to-no national interest in those "rivalries".

 

[statsman 5,450]

5 minutes ago, TexLonghorn said:

These new proposals keep putting us back into league with the teams we spent a lot of effort to get away from.  Weakest of the proposed conferences?  We'd be saddled with Tech, Houston, Baylor, TCU, and SMU.  Little-to-no national interest in those "rivalries".

 

We don’t want to play in the SWC anymore. The networks don’t want us playing in the SWC anymore. The only ones that want us playing Baylor, TCU, TT and UH are … Baylor, TCU, TT and UH. Their votes don’t count. 
 
There is too much money in having Texas play bigger programs. Make no mistake- Arkansas is a bigger program than anyone in the IR8. 

[billfromlaketravis 11,447]

Project Rudy sounds like a FSU fever dream to escape irrelevancy. 
 

Shocker, the biggest cheerleaders of it are Bud Elliott and Danny Kanell. 

Edited October 10 by billfromlaketravis

[jetsfan76 710]

The only way I'd be for this travishamfuckery is if we never had to play aggy again. They are so fucking insufferable already. 

[thunderlounge 7,813]

9 hours ago, TexLonghorn said:

These new proposals keep putting us back into league with the teams we spent a lot of effort to get away from.  Weakest of the proposed conferences?  We'd be saddled with Tech, Houston, Baylor, TCU, and SMU.  Little-to-no national interest in those "rivalries".

 

 

9 hours ago, statsman said:

We don’t want to play in the SWC anymore. The networks don’t want us playing in the SWC anymore. The only ones that want us playing Baylor, TCU, TT and UH are … Baylor, TCU, TT and UH. Their votes don’t count. 
 
There is too much money in having Texas play bigger programs. Make no mistake- Arkansas is a bigger program than anyone in the IR8. 

 

These right here. 
 

You know it’s a straw-grab proposal, conceived by complete morons that have been/will be left behind. As it’s laid out, it reeks of desperation. 

Just as stated in the quotes, nobody relevant wants to see that 1970’s bullshit lineup.

This is what the “pac” leadership would come up with, and we all know how that has went. 

[statsman 5,450]

As far as the private equity group proposing it: the B1G and SEC don’t need a private equity group in order to get more money. They can do that on their own. Their games are that desirable. 
 
It’s the Mid2 schools that are interested in private equity. They need more money, and now. 

[SurlyGator 865]

That scenario has varying degrees of good and bad situations for individual schools, but holy crap would Arkansas hate that.  They get Mizzou as the only school they have any history with.  No other SWC schools, no other SEC schools.  Ouch.

['stache 21,795]

12 hours ago, TexLonghorn said:

These new proposals keep putting us back into league with the teams we spent a lot of effort to get away from.  Weakest of the proposed conferences?  We'd be saddled with Tech, Houston, Baylor, TCU, and SMU.  Little-to-no national interest in those "rivalries".

 

I think this is just random fan fic, the Project Rudy article says that the conference structure would remain the same. 

[thunderlounge 7,813]

Still dumb as fuck, real graphic or not. 

['stache 21,795]

Just now, thunderlounge said:

Still dumb as fuck, real graphic or not. 

I agree, it's not happening, not even a conversation starter.

[Gordon Shumway 452]

If they name this after Rudy "Fucking" Ruettiger I am out.   That movie was shit and the dude is an asshole. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,451]

Just now, 'stache said:

I think this is just random fan fic, the Project Rudy article says that the conference structure would remain the same. 

Exactly.  Texas would still be in the SEC, and they would get more money than they do now.

What changes is that the Big 12 and ACC are guaranteed to still be included, and the mid-low tier Big 10/SEC schools no longer make the same as the blue bloods.

The only reason anyone here should be opposed to project Rudy is if they want the Big 12 and ACC schools to be kicked out of major college football.  The only schools that would stand to lose anything are the Purdues of the world, and even then they’d see no change from a fan perspective 

['stache 21,795]

20 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Why would the SEC or B1G do this if they get 80% of it via a scheduling agreement, and don't have to give up 12.5%?

 

19 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

True but I'm not sure how much bigger the money would actually be vs. the SEC and B1G doing 80% of this on their own.  Because the other thing the conferences would have to give up may be as important as the money, which is control.  Letting the PE fox into the henhouse is the ultimate short term thinking move, especially granting them the level of control over the sport envisioned in the Rudy proposal.

Is it your expectation that the BIG and SEC will go to unequal distributions? Because if so, there is some logic here, but not if Purdue continues making $80M same as Michigan. The money their talking about at the top is absurdly more than any plausible possibility under the current structure. I also don't see how PE would have much control over anything, the networks will still be in charge of pretty much everything, because their the ones paying. PE would just be getting their share. I do agree that the proposal seems plausible without PE money but I'm no expert on private equity. 

Edited October 10 by 'stache

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

23 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Exactly.  Texas would still be in the SEC, and they would get more money than they do now.

What changes is that the Big 12 and ACC are guaranteed to still be included, and the mid-low tier Big 10/SEC schools no longer make the same as the blue bloods.

The only reason anyone here should be opposed to project Rudy is if they want the Big 12 and ACC schools to be kicked out of major college football.  The only schools that would stand to lose anything are the Purdues of the world, and even then they’d see no change from a fan perspective 

well I think where it will fail is what you mention.   Texas will remain in the SEC and will make more money.   But Ole Miss will also remain in the SEC and will not make the same as Texas, Alabama, and Georgia.   Same in the Big Ten where Ohio State, Michigan and USC will make more than Oregon, Penn State and Nebraska..

The ACC/B12 already know they aren't top tier, the secondary schools of the B1G/SEC haven't had this heart to heart yet.   At some point its the next step, even if its not this step.   

That's why Sankey is so brazen, they'll try and fix this first by saying "Well the SEC will just play the Big Ten more!"   But they still can't do it unless the Big Ten and the SEC combine their media contracts AND schedule games together that features a higher match up of top tier programs AND eliminates all but P4 games.    That's how you make the next jump in money.  Its always been how you make the next jump in money.    The PE investment is just how you buy out contracts and games today.   For less investment you start this in 5 - 10 years and do it yourself, but you still have to merge all of the contracts of all of the schools AND control the scheduling for all of them, there isn't a way of getting around that.

[Horn of Gabriel 1,614]

31 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

well I think where it will fail is what you mention.   Texas will remain in the SEC and will make more money.   But Ole Miss will also remain in the SEC and will not make the same as Texas, Alabama, and Georgia.   Same in the Big Ten where Ohio State, Michigan and USC will make more than Oregon, Penn State and Nebraska..

The ACC/B12 already know they aren't top tier, the secondary schools of the B1G/SEC haven't had this heart to heart yet.   At some point its the next step, even if its not this step.   

That's why Sankey is so brazen, they'll try and fix this first by saying "Well the SEC will just play the Big Ten more!"   But they still can't do it unless the Big Ten and the SEC combine their media contracts AND schedule games together that features a higher match up of top tier programs AND eliminates all but P4 games.    That's how you make the next jump in money.  Its always been how you make the next jump in money.    The PE investment is just how you buy out contracts and games today.   For less investment you start this in 5 - 10 years and do it yourself, but you still have to merge all of the contracts of all of the schools AND control the scheduling for all of them, there isn't a way of getting around that.

Agree, I just think that they'll opt to go slower and retain control while slowly easing out the Miss St. and Purdue's of the world to a lower rev tier vs a big bang w/ PE where they invite the fox into the henhouse.

[Horn of Gabriel 1,614]

50 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 

Is it your expectation that the BIG and SEC will go to unequal distributions? Because if so, there is some logic here, but not if Purdue continues making $80M same as Michigan. The money their talking about at the top is absurdly more than any plausible possibility under the current structure. I also don't see how PE would have much control over anything, the networks will still be in charge of pretty much everything, because their the ones paying. PE would just be getting their share. I do agree that the proposal seems plausible without PE money but I'm no expert on private equity. 

Eventually, yes.  But probably I think the first step will be to continue to grow the pie before they change the size of the slices.  The "grow the pie" strategy will first be via the B1G/SEC scheduling arrangement to create more TV-friendly matchups.  Because no one cares about Indiana vs. Vandy, that scheduling alliance will focus on the big brands.  

The 2nd step will be the B1G+SEC either combining, or more likely co-negotiating their next TV deal.  I don't think they'll merge in the next 15 years because they want to control their own destinies, but I could see them getting together to double their negotiating power, and cutting a deal similar to what the NFL did recently where they spread rights across everyone including streaming services like Amazon for a few games.

The 3rd step will be tiering the revenue distributions.  This will separate the Miss St., Vanderbilt, Indiana, and Purdue tier from the Texas, OU, Alabama, Ohio St. Michigan tier.  They'll still be in the same conference but they'll be paid differently and justified on viewership.  

The B1G and SEC eventually turn into a AFC/NFC arrangement, and that holds up through other realignment moves like FSU and North Carolina because those brands aren't big enough to trigger the nuclear option of blowing up everything and creating a mega league like the Rudy proposal.  This is the most likely outcome over the next 15-20 years because it's the lowest risk option.  Maybe 20+ years down the road of being the AFC/NFC do the B1G and SEC eventually formally unify, but not before.

What the sports media is missing in the reporting of the Rudy and other PE-backed proposals today is the risk component, they're only factoring in the increased revenue.  Risk and control matters, a lot.  Here is a list of why the Rudy proposal and those like it to create a unified mini-NFL won't happen:

• It's directly against the interest of TV rights holders by getting them to pay more for the same thing.  Therefore they will work hard against it and pull whatever levers they have, just like ESPN sunk the PAC-16 by offering Texas up $300MM for the LHN knowing it was a poison pill for PAC-16.  We'll see more of that.
• It's directly against the interest of the SEC and B1G administrators, who would be out of a job if a PE-backed structure gets put into place.  No one at the SEC or B1G office is going to fight for this, in fact they'll work against it.
• As a result, if you're the PE group, you have to bypass the conferences and go straight to the university presidents.  This is a notoriously fickle, risk-averse, and SLOW decision making group who doesn't really know about the business of college football.  If you're a lifelong academic university president, do you trust the AD you hired and the conference commissioner you've known for some time, or do you trust this new PE suit who is showing up promising big bucks if only you change everything?  Past evidence suggests strongly they'll choose the former path.

[statsman 5,450]

What does the PE bring to the table? Access to capital? It’s like they don’t know what university presidents do for a living (it’s certainly not tending to academic standards. It’s fund raising). 
 
Ideas? Universities have sharp people all over the place (along with a bunch of educated idiots, granted)

[gatormarc 911]

 

3 hours ago, Gordon Shumway said:

If they name this after Rudy "Fucking" Ruettiger I am out.   That movie was shit and the dude is an asshole. 

But the name is appropriate.

They're going to come in, contribute nothing, and then profit off of it for decades.

[Vertigo 20,276]

15 hours ago, TexLonghorn said:

These new proposals keep putting us back into league with the teams we spent a lot of effort to get away from.  Weakest of the proposed conferences?  We'd be saddled with Tech, Houston, Baylor, TCU, and SMU.  Little-to-no national interest in those "rivalries".

 

This is DOA, why do supposedly smart people with lots of money waste efforts on this stuff while being completely unhinged from reality? 

[Huckleberry 32,848]

Why do you think that JayhawkFocus and EMAWCaleb have lots of money? Or are supposedly smart? These are just two fans of Kansas football teams who have access to MS Paint.

[Magus Ossis 2,797]

SEC and B1G don't need to rush into project Rudy. They don't need to give up equity for whatever startup capital they need for a new enterprise. Prestige Worldwide is already here in its infantile form, and there will almost certainly be at least one more significant development. There is a 12-team playoff that every serious expert  expects to be at least 50% populated by just 2 conferences going forward. If those two conferences don't work out a deal that reasonably maximizes outcomes for their combined "big boys," expect the informal and off-the-record conversations among said big boys to heat up. Notre Dame is a great master of the cabal because it has no football conference meeting rules and virtually no reporting requirements of conversations. 

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

4 hours ago, statsman said:

What does the PE bring to the table? Access to capital? It’s like they don’t know what university presidents do for a living (it’s certainly not tending to academic standards. It’s fund raising). 
 
Ideas? Universities have sharp people all over the place (along with a bunch of educated idiots, granted)

What the PE was bringing to the table in this regard was the financing to even the table over a period of time.   They mentioned, specifically, $5.3b in financing so the 70 teams could buy out all the games they need to buy out, including canceling G4/FCS games on the books and media contracts, then they make that back from a cut of the new deal they foster.

To add a sweetener, much like the next NFL deal, they were also discussing bringing in the networks as equity partners in the entire operation, likely at a 30% stake.   That would pay back some of the investment too, but that's kind of what they do, provide the capital to make it move, not have to wait until some point in time when 2-3-5-whatever contracts align.

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

3 hours ago, Vertigo said:

This is DOA, why do supposedly smart people with lots of money waste efforts on this stuff while being completely unhinged from reality? 

I don't think this was actually their proposal, because they said keep the conferences.   What they wanted to do was take over the media rights and scheduling so that with the 3-4 games outside of conference they could put Alabama against USC, FSU, and Michigan and crap like that.

[Deej 76,754]

4 hours ago, gatormarc said:

 

But the name is appropriate.

They're going to come in, contribute nothing, and then profit off of it for decades.

[Michael Knight 12,976]

 

Quote

It was an important united front from two of the most powerful people in college sports, as any drastic changes that would include private equity are unlikely to garner national support without the backing of the SEC and Big Ten.

"I have yet to see a single thing in any plan that I've learned details about that contains things that we couldn't do ourselves and our A4 colleagues as well," Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti said. "At the end of the day, there's a strong commitment that you have the ability to do all of this ourselves.

"... The notion that college football is broken -- what we do is broken -- is just not right."

 

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/41723519/sec-big-ten-meet-show-united-front-private-equity

[TXpride 546]

10 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I don't think this was actually their proposal, because they said keep the conferences.   What they wanted to do was take over the media rights and scheduling so that with the 3-4 games outside of conference they could put Alabama against USC, FSU, and Michigan and crap like that.

Which is also a stupid idea. Blue bloods are blue bloods because of how they stack up against "everyone else." Take "everyone else" out of the equation and there are no blue bloods, and pretty soon all those matchups become boring and meaningless.

(and before anyone gets upset, I'm using the term "blue blood" to refer to historically winning programs)

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

5 hours ago, TXpride said:

Which is also a stupid idea. Blue bloods are blue bloods because of how they stack up against "everyone else." Take "everyone else" out of the equation and there are no blue bloods, and pretty soon all those matchups become boring and meaningless.

(and before anyone gets upset, I'm using the term "blue blood" to refer to historically winning programs)

Right, but, to maximize money, you need more of those match ups.   That's what the networks want and will pay for.   That's the entire reason for realignment in the first place, they've just been doing it in little moves.   Where CFB leaves the most money on the table is having like 5 negotiated TV contracts over 60-70 teams and not pairing those teams together more.    This is why you're really only paid for a conference slate, because its the only part of the schedule that networks know is reliable year in and year out.   OOC games, even the good ones, are still hit and miss based on if an AD schedules them or not.   WHen the contract is signed the network may not even know, so it doesn't factor in.   If you put all 70 teams under one global media and scheduling contract and say all 12 of those games will be against each other, now you're going to market with 420 (gnarly) defined games that the networks can bank on.

On top of that, if you own the schedule, you can lay out featured match ups all through the season and through time slots at various times of the day, instead of competing with yourself for eyeballs.

And lastly, you can go full out NFL and start windowing.   National window games in various slots.   Regional windows to maximize across the board on lower channels.   If you want to watch outside your window, pay for the all in package.    Oh, you just like the excitement, did you know we offer a redzone package now?

Those are things the NFL can do that CFB can't that would likely double the amount of money CFB could make for literally doing nothing else.   Its the only no-brainer chess move left on the board.

And you're right, that's why you need the 70 teams.   Blue bloods drive more interest at the end of the year, when games mean more, if they have no losses.

[deter 314]

Just for grins.

Rudy Division: Tulane, TCU, SMU, BU, Vandy, WF, Duke, GT, Miami

West Division: UW, Wa. St, Oregon, OSU, Cal, Stam, USC, UCLA, Boise

Central Division: AZ, ASU, UT, BYU, Neb, Kan, KSU, ISU, Iowa

SW Division: TT, UT, TAMu, UH, OU, OSU, LSU, Ark, UTSA or TxST

South Division: Miss, Miss St, UA, Tide, Georgia, Fl St, Fla, UCF, MIssouri

Mid East Division: Cinn, Tenn, NC, NC St, S Car, Clem, Louisville, UK, WV, 

Mid West Division: Wisc, NW, Ill, UM, Mich St, OSU, ND, Ind, Purdue

East Division: Pedo, Pitt, Syc, BC, Rut, Mary, UVA, VT, UConn

Division Champs get auto bid and home field first round.

Next eight highest rated get bids.

Semi-geographical except for Rudy. Rudy probably only gets one bid.

Potential problem with Pedo skating.

 

[thunderlounge 7,813]

 

[TXpride 546]

11 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Right, but, to maximize money, you need more of those match ups.   That's what the networks want and will pay for.   That's the entire reason for realignment in the first place, they've just been doing it in little moves.   Where CFB leaves the most money on the table is having like 5 negotiated TV contracts over 60-70 teams and not pairing those teams together more.    This is why you're really only paid for a conference slate, because its the only part of the schedule that networks know is reliable year in and year out.   OOC games, even the good ones, are still hit and miss based on if an AD schedules them or not.   WHen the contract is signed the network may not even know, so it doesn't factor in.   If you put all 70 teams under one global media and scheduling contract and say all 12 of those games will be against each other, now you're going to market with 420 (gnarly) defined games that the networks can bank on.

On top of that, if you own the schedule, you can lay out featured match ups all through the season and through time slots at various times of the day, instead of competing with yourself for eyeballs.

And lastly, you can go full out NFL and start windowing.   National window games in various slots.   Regional windows to maximize across the board on lower channels.   If you want to watch outside your window, pay for the all in package.    Oh, you just like the excitement, did you know we offer a redzone package now?

Those are things the NFL can do that CFB can't that would likely double the amount of money CFB could make for literally doing nothing else.   Its the only no-brainer chess move left on the board.

And you're right, that's why you need the 70 teams.   Blue bloods drive more interest at the end of the year, when games mean more, if they have no losses.

How I could see it playing out:

The B12/ACC (plus Oregon St/WSU and maybe Boise) get divided between the SEC/B1G to create 2 ~36 team divisions (South and North/West). Each team has 3 cross-divisional (OOC) games, 6 divisional, and 3 permanent rivals.

The OOC/divisional schedules would rotate to maintain competitive balance and allow every team to eventually play each other. The top 8 from each division (chosen either by committee or some series of tiebreakers) goes to the playoff, culminating in the SEC v B1G "Super Bowl."

[statsman 5,450]

7 hours ago, TXpride said:

How I could see it playing out:

The B12/ACC (plus Oregon St/WSU and maybe Boise) get divided between the SEC/B1G to create 2 ~36 team divisions (South and North/West). Each team has 3 cross-divisional (OOC) games, 6 divisional, and 3 permanent rivals.

The OOC/divisional schedules would rotate to maintain competitive balance and allow every team to eventually play each other. The top 8 from each division (chosen either by committee or some series of tiebreakers) goes to the playoff, culminating in the SEC v B1G "Super Bowl."

But, why? What problem does this plan solve other than “How do schools like Baylor get high profile games of national interest and stay in the big time?”

It doesn’t solve Texas’ problem of “How to turn its blue blood status into competitive advantage and more revenue?” Or “How to get high profile games of great stakeholder interest?”

 
It doesn’t solve the broadcaster problem of “How to get games with greater appeal (and advertiser revenue)?”. They would rather broadcast Texas-Arkansas than Texas-Baylor. 
 
This plan just re-established a status quo that Texas wanted to break. 

Edited October 12 by statsman

[TXpride 546]

10 minutes ago, statsman said:

But, why? What problem does this plan solve other than “How do schools like Baylor get high profile games of national interest and stay in the big time?”

It doesn’t solve Texas’ problem of “How to turn its blue blood status into competitive advantage and more revenue?” Or “How to get high profile games of great stakeholder interest?”

 
It doesn’t solve the broadcaster problem of “How to get games with greater appeal (and advertiser revenue)?”. They would rather broadcast Texas-Arkansas than Texas-Baylor. 
 
This plan just re-established a status quo that Texas wanted to break. 

Texas would still play Arkansas (and OU/aggy) every year. Should the rest of the schedule be made up of Bama, UGA, USC, and Ohio State? You think those matchups will have the same appeal when it's two 6-4 teams? And how is that a competitive advantage wrt the playoff?

If the 70+ team "super league" happens, everybody has to play everybody, or it's not an actual league. I won't pretend to be an expert on revenue, but I wouldn't expect it to be equal across the board. If all that matters is high profile games and advertiser revenue, we might as well form a ~20 team "blue blood league" and call it a day.

[RoyalBevo21 763]

On 10/11/2024 at 4:56 AM, TXpride said:

Which is also a stupid idea. Blue bloods are blue bloods because of how they stack up against "everyone else." Take "everyone else" out of the equation and there are no blue bloods, and pretty soon all those matchups become boring and meaningless.

(and before anyone gets upset, I'm using the term "blue blood" to refer to historically winning programs)

I disagree, the NFL is a behemoth because any team can win on any Sunday. The networks are tired of shelling out millions and the first week of the season is filled with games like Ohio St vs Akron and Oregon vs Idaho. The fans don’t want it, TV networks don’t want it, we might finally get rid of those shitty games.

[TXpride 546]

1 minute ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

I disagree, the NFL is a behemoth because any team can win on any Sunday. The networks are tired of shelling out millions and the first week of the season is filled with games like Ohio St vs Akron and Oregon vs Idaho. The fans don’t want it, TV networks don’t want it, we might finally get rid of those shitty games.

I'm fine with getting rid of those games. I'm talking about non blue blood (for lack of a better term) P4 teams.

[RoyalBevo21 763]

19 minutes ago, TXpride said:

I'm fine with getting rid of those games. I'm talking about non blue blood (for lack of a better term) P4 teams.

I don’t think we’ll ever get to USC vs Texas games weekly. I see your point, but there are some schools that don’t belong at the highest level of competition and it’s blatantly obvious they’re happy cashing a check with minimal effort (Wake Forest, Purdue, Vandy, etc.) 

[DFW Horn 6,123]

2 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

I don’t think we’ll ever get to USC vs Texas games weekly. I see your point, but there are some schools that don’t belong at the highest level of competition and it’s blatantly obvious they’re happy cashing a check with minimal effort (Wake Forest, Purdue, Vandy, etc.) 

Does TV want a bunch of .500 teams like the NFL? I hope not, bc that will suck.

The cannon fodder serves a purpose.

[RoyalBevo21 763]

1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

Does TV want a bunch of .500 teams like the NFL? I hope not, bc that will suck.

The cannon fodder serves a purpose.

Personally I would like to see more competitive football than beating up on pipsqueaks. Idk why college fans have this mindset of “undefeated beating up midgets is impressive.” Yes, I would prefer a 9-3 team with a hard schedule over 11-1 but I slapped midgets. Again, Oklahoma St, Tech, Kansas St, Iowa can all stay. Baylor, get fucked in a conference with North Texas and UTSA.

[Huckleberry 32,848]

32 minutes ago, RoyalBevo21 said:

Personally I would like to see more competitive football than beating up on pipsqueaks. Idk why college fans have this mindset of “undefeated beating up midgets is impressive.” Yes, I would prefer a 9-3 team with a hard schedule over 11-1 but I slapped midgets. Again, Oklahoma St, Tech, Kansas St, Iowa can all stay. Baylor, get fucked in a conference with North Texas and UTSA.

Because some people don't want to watch two NFLs. We already have one. Lots of those smaller schools have great traditions, great alumni and fans, awesome towns, and are fun to watch because they'll try anything. I don't want to watch 36 teams who all run the same offense and defense and call the same plays and coverages. That's boring.

And I'm not getting any of the money so I really have no clue why some of you care about athletic administrators and sponsor companies making more of it. 

Edited October 12 by Huckleberry

[Richard Kimball 1,494]

3 hours ago, DFW Horn said:

Does TV want a bunch of .500 teams like the NFL? I hope not, bc that will suck.

The cannon fodder serves a purpose.

You're right.

If everyone is a blue blood...

Then no one is. 

The thing is, you need some Larry Krogers (need the dues)

without a bunch of Flounders

and new rule, if you're not a blue blood, your cheerleaders MUST be hot.