Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE that ISU never play another game against an FCS school in my life, and I loved having spring football.  I agree that they got WAY more exposure, and that it would likely only grow.

I still don't see it happening.

Yeah, its going to end up being how much they can make if they switched, period.   The prospect of money has driven far stranger decisions

[Machinator 32,103]

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

5 minutes ago, Machinator said:

 

Don't forget that's the entirety of the Pac 12 and ACC's revenues, and doesn't include each Big 12 school's Tier III, which puts the Big 12 ahead of the Pac 12 and miles ahead of the ACC in per school payout.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Al_4_ISU

[notre dame joe 205]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Several didn't play who got drafted in both FCS and FBS this year, didn't really have a material impact on interest.   Interest drives exposure and exposure drives value.   

No FCS school is going to turn down more money because a handful of guys go pro or opt out.

Also, we had pandemic timing, which can be perfected, and the NFL could move to draft guys like the MLB.   All easily solvable things.

But did they really profit off of the move?  The payout an FCS school gets for 1 blue blood bodybag visit likely dwarfs their media money.

[ButtFumble 5,291]

41 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Don't forget that's the entirety of the Pac 12 and ACC's revenues, and doesn't include each Big 12 school's Tier III, which puts the Big 12 ahead of the Pac 12 and miles ahead of the ACC in per school payout.

well the Big 12 and ACC should have similar conference expenses

for them with 14 teams if you just ignore conference expenses it is $35.5 million per team and not including the cut for ND

for the Big 12 it is $40.9

for the PAC 12 their network last report had $90 million in expenses last reported

here is a different article that breaks it down a different way

https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-11-13/pac-12-revenues-spending-distribution-analysis

the PAC 12 sent about 75% of their total revenues to schools

the SEC SEC SEC about 90%

and the Big 12, ACC and Big 10 over 92%

if you say the PAC 12 did cost cutting and is sending 80% that is $35.6 million per school

the ACC if staying the same $32.64

the Big 12 $37.65

the AAC is less because I did not account for ND so probably $500,000 less for them or maybe even about $32 even because last reports were ND got $7.9 million

if you go to 74.5% for the PAC 12 like the article states that is $33.14

SEC SEC SEC $46.9

Big 10 $50.5

the last 2 look not good for the Big 12, but the ACC should really have some teams upset and the PAC 12 is not much better

so SEC SEC SEC $3.5 under the Big 10, Big 12 $13 under, PAC 12 $15 to 17 under and the ACC $18,5 under....and the ACC contract runs to 2032 so they are in a bad way

Edited May 20, 2021 by ButtFumble

[Thiefery 5,112]

wonder how much bigger the new contract will be for the Big 12 in a few years will be.. enough to close the gap ?

[ButtFumble 5,291]

7 minutes ago, Thiefery said:

wonder how much bigger the new contract will be for the Big 12 in a few years will be.. enough to close the gap ?

hard to say

being $13 million per school behind (excluding any 3rd tier which is decent for a few and very small for others) that is only $130 million in new money to make up, but that is an increase of 65%

plus the Big 10 has their contract come up again 2 years before the Big 12 so who knows how that goes

with the SEC SEC SEC there is the stupid new money they are suppose to get from ESPN $300 million for the content that CBS was paying $60 million for so an increase of $240 million

it looks like the SEC SEC SEC had an increase in total revenues of about $28 million so that new money is not there yet from ESPN so add potentially $17 million more per team to the SEC SEC SEC and the Big 12 will need about $240 million more per year to keep up

I am not sure that ESPN deal really pays $300 million for content CBS was paying $60 million for, but who knows.....either way to keep close the Big 12 will probably need to double their current TV deal

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

I think the current conference payouts will stay the same relative to each other going forward.  As in the Big 10 and SEC will probably switch back and forth over who is highest paid, the Pac 12 and ACC flip over who is lowest paid, and the Big 12 will be in the middle.

Big 10 and SEC:  Lots of major populations and high passion for college football (generally)

Big 12:  Lower population and high passion for college football

Pac 12 and ACC:  Lots of major populations and low passion for college football (generally)

It's a matrix of people in your footprint and how much they care.  Passion for the game is more important, but population (particularly having a large alumni and fanbase) matters too.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Notre Dame and Clemson are in the CFB playoff regularly. Why would either of them want to change their current situation?

[Thiefery 5,112]

12 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think the current conference payouts will stay the same relative to each other going forward.  As in the Big 10 and SEC will probably switch back and forth over who is highest paid, the Pac 12 and ACC flip over who is lowest paid, and the Big 12 will be in the middle.

Big 10 and SEC:  Lots of major populations and high passion for college football (generally)

Big 12:  Lower population and high passion for college football

Pac 12 and ACC:  Lots of major populations and low passion for college football (generally)

It's a matrix of people in your footprint and how much they care.  Passion for the game is more important, but population (particularly having a large alumni and fanbase) matters too.

I'm also guessing that UT wants to complete the LHN deal since the payouts keep getting larger.. Think the conference is safe til 2030

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

I don't think any of the power brokers in college football want to change their situation.

Especially when the playoffs expand.  OU ain't gonna give a shit about the imaginary prestige of another league when winning the Big 12 puts you in automatically.  Doubt Texas will want to leave either.

The only schools I see ever wanting to switch conferences down the road are the WVU's/Mizzou's/Nebraska's of the world who are in conferences that are poor fits with no historic opponents.

[chase25 2,048]

Texas should only look at two options any time conference realignment comes up.

1) Stay in the Big 12 and continue to be big fish with OU and look to start a conference network.

2) Head to the SEC

[closetohumping 17,830]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Don't forget that's the entirety of the Pac 12 and ACC's revenues, and doesn't include each Big 12 school's Tier III, which puts the Big 12 ahead of the Pac 12 and miles ahead of the ACC in per school payout.

And we have fewer schools

[Machinator 32,103]

 

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

So if Stew's tweet is right, Texas and OU are beating the SEC schools with Tier III.  Assuming they started at $40.5 mill.

[DCLonghorn 244]

So if Stew's tweet is right, Texas and OU are beating the SEC schools with Tier III.  Assuming they started at $40.5 mill.

I take back want I said about the ACC. All hail the Big 12!

[Thiefery 5,112]

1 hour ago, sportsbay said:

Travel costs are about to be a real concern.  Margins are tightening as we speak.

agreed which is why I feel it makes ZERO sense to join the BiG or PAC..  We shit on this conference, but it's not due because of the actual schools..it's the leadership who needs to address the officiating. (even tho every conference has the same issue).

There is a lot of support for each school in the Big 12, shitty trips? perhaps but outside Lawrence.. UT usually sells out on the rd.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

"the big 12 does relatively well relative to national perception", says the nationally published columnist who has an influence over the outcome of said perception

[notre dame joe 205]

If UT was located on one of the populated coastal corridors it couldn't be the University of Texas.

[ButtFumble 5,291]

I ran these numbers for the PAC 12 and Big 12 and they were in the PAC 12 thread

I ran them for the AAC as well

these are for the 2018-19 fiscal year so pre-pandemic so that is not a factor

you can see from the numbers excluding subsidies from the academic side that FSU, Louisville and Clemson would be looking good in the Big 12 or even in a combined Big 12 PAC 12, but from there it is a pretty big drop of about $30 million to UNC and that would put them just below WVU and just above OkState then VA is below Texas Tech and VT, NCState, and GT are below KSU so they would be the lowest in the Big 12

but then you have to look at the annual deficits that were run this year as well (again pre-pandemic) Louisville, UNC, VA and GT all had a deficit even after their subsidies and it is known that GT has had this issue for a while now

clearly is Louisville got their shit together they should be able to make it on their budget without a subsidy and without an annual deficit, but they have just not felt the need to

the above unfortunately does not include Miami, Wake, Duke, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt (that gets away with the "state affiliated" to act like a private school for open records)

I am pretty sure Wake is not rolling on cash (no disrespect to them), it is known that Syracuse has a lot of debt especially redoing the Carrier Dome and the reality is they stepped out of the AAU because they simply did not want to pour money into nationally and internationally relevant research they wanted to go with more "localized" research (or whatever the dumb ass term they used was) so they are not exactly swimming in cash.....it is known that Miami athletics is not swimming in cash and they have a lot of dated facilities, BC athletics is not exactly swimming on cash, and Duke does well, but I am not sure they are as high as people would think, but the university is very well off and they are willing to invest in athletics at a higher level (unlike Miami, Syracuse, and BC)........I think Pitt is somewhere closer to VT and NCState than they are UNC or any of the others 

if you are a university president and AD you simply cannot ignore the financial situation of the conferences that you would remotely consider moving to and I think looking at the budget numbers it would not be smart to move to the PAC 12 barring some massive new TV deal for them (that is highly unlikely and seemingly less likely to be better than a 10 team Big 12 as currently configured could get) and well the ACC is locked into the house of mouse until 2032 and their conference network was "crammed" pretty well by ESPN/Disney, but they are still losing subscribers as all pay TV is and cable MSOs are starting to more aggressively push back on channel cramming.....and lets be honest we all know that any "contact look in" is total bullshit and will not result in some massive upside adjustment for a conference and Neil Pilsner the former head of CBS sports that has been commenting on this shit since 2009 has made that clear and was right in the past on that and he has been right on a hell of a lot of similar expansion talk revolving around "new money" and conference contract talk and conference network talk......so until I see proof he was finally wrong on something I will continue to take what he says with a lot of credibility

[Thiefery 5,112]

1 hour ago, ButtFumble said:

I ran these numbers for the PAC 12 and Big 12 and they were in the PAC 12 thread

I ran them for the AAC as well

these are for the 2018-19 fiscal year so pre-pandemic so that is not a factor

you can see from the numbers excluding subsidies from the academic side that FSU, Louisville and Clemson would be looking good in the Big 12 or even in a combined Big 12 PAC 12, but from there it is a pretty big drop of about $30 million to UNC and that would put them just below WVU and just above OkState then VA is below Texas Tech and VT, NCState, and GT are below KSU so they would be the lowest in the Big 12

but then you have to look at the annual deficits that were run this year as well (again pre-pandemic) Louisville, UNC, VA and GT all had a deficit even after their subsidies and it is known that GT has had this issue for a while now

clearly is Louisville got their shit together they should be able to make it on their budget without a subsidy and without an annual deficit, but they have just not felt the need to

the above unfortunately does not include Miami, Wake, Duke, BC, Syracuse, and Pitt (that gets away with the "state affiliated" to act like a private school for open records)

I am pretty sure Wake is not rolling on cash (no disrespect to them), it is known that Syracuse has a lot of debt especially redoing the Carrier Dome and the reality is they stepped out of the AAU because they simply did not want to pour money into nationally and internationally relevant research they wanted to go with more "localized" research (or whatever the dumb ass term they used was) so they are not exactly swimming in cash.....it is known that Miami athletics is not swimming in cash and they have a lot of dated facilities, BC athletics is not exactly swimming on cash, and Duke does well, but I am not sure they are as high as people would think, but the university is very well off and they are willing to invest in athletics at a higher level (unlike Miami, Syracuse, and BC)........I think Pitt is somewhere closer to VT and NCState than they are UNC or any of the others 

if you are a university president and AD you simply cannot ignore the financial situation of the conferences that you would remotely consider moving to and I think looking at the budget numbers it would not be smart to move to the PAC 12 barring some massive new TV deal for them (that is highly unlikely and seemingly less likely to be better than a 10 team Big 12 as currently configured could get) and well the ACC is locked into the house of mouse until 2032 and their conference network was "crammed" pretty well by ESPN/Disney, but they are still losing subscribers as all pay TV is and cable MSOs are starting to more aggressively push back on channel cramming.....and lets be honest we all know that any "contact look in" is total bullshit and will not result in some massive upside adjustment for a conference and Neil Pilsner the former head of CBS sports that has been commenting on this shit since 2009 has made that clear and was right in the past on that and he has been right on a hell of a lot of similar expansion talk revolving around "new money" and conference contract talk and conference network talk......so until I see proof he was finally wrong on something I will continue to take what he says with a lot of credibility

So what do you think realistically happens?  Any big changes coming up or will the PAC/Big12 just re up their deals and keep it moving?

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

On 5/19/2021 at 2:31 PM, DCLonghorn said:

More importantly to me, the ACC timezone is 53% of the US population and one hour later than DKR. PAC is 24% and mostly two hours earlier. The eyeballs and the interest are east, not west.

I’ve said before that if we merged with the PAC, our (and OU’s) home games would usually be the featured early game in the conference with a 2:30 kickoff. Whichever of OU or Texas is playing an away game out west would get the next time slot which is still not that late. Plus, we would likely avoid that gotdam 11a RRS kick off.  I don’t think we’d be playing late local time games, and few (if any) 11a home games.

The combined time zones of the PAC/B12 conference are still half of the eyeballs.

Edited May 21, 2021 by ImissWallyPryor
Might still suck for you, though.

[ButtFumble 5,291]

1 hour ago, Thiefery said:

So what do you think realistically happens?  Any big changes coming up or will the PAC/Big12 just re up their deals and keep it moving?

it is really hard to say I am not sure anyone knows

you have to look at the fact that pay TV subs are suppose to be 60 million in a few years which is down from 100 million a few years ago so a decrease of 40%

then there is the fact that comcast (and probably others soon) are cutting the BTN (and soon probably other conference networks) from the lower tiers and some from any tiers in states with no Big 10 team

so there is a chance that conference networks get hit hard and that makes a difference for what the Big 10 and SEC SEC SEC can do (potentially hurts ACC revenue growth too in a big way)

the SEC SEC SEC is now pretty much fully locked up until about 2032 by ESPN because they extended the tier 2 with the creation of the SEC SEC SEC network and now with ESPN taking over the CBS contract that locks them up fully......the ACC is in the same situation

so that leaves the Big 10 that has rights coming up in 2022-23 then the PAC 12 in 2023-24 then the Big 12 in 2024-25

who knows what kind of money the Big 10 will be offered they were offered pretty stupid money this last time and who knows what happens with the BTN if subscriber losses are bad enough and cable MSOs cut them from non-Big 10 states enough

the PAC 12 has all their content to offer for their TV deal so that helps them, but I just do not see them getting a massive new bump I can see them getting something that keeps them $8 or $10 million below the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10

I could see the Big 12 getting something that keeps them $5 to $8 below the SEC SEC SEC and Big 10 which i suppose is acceptable to a degree.....that would probably be for 100% of the content less what UT has for the LHN and UT takes a lesser share because of that, but has the LHN money

then again if the economy is good, sports and sports networks are back rolling again the Big 12 might be able to work the fact that they are last to their advantage

another issue is right now it appears Fox and CBS and NBC are out of the college sports game.....then you look at ESPN they fully own the SEC SEC SEC and ACC so that is 28 teams playing 12 games per season with 8 being conference games

so you are looking at 28 X 2.5 for the ownership of OOC games (the SEC SEC SEC will have a lot of buy in games and the ACC a few) so that is 70 games a year there

then 28 X 4 for conference games (because those games have 2 conference teams) so that is another 112 games for a total of 182 games per year

you divide that by 14 weeks (if you count week zero) and that is 13 games per week they own

so you have ESPN, ESPN II, ABC, the SEC SEC SEC network, and the ACC network.....so 5 networks to show 13 games a week on that is 2.6 games per week or basically all day Saturday from 11 am to 9 pm central time to show football on all 5 channels to get that covered......how much more fucking football does ESPN need to own....and they are not going to have a full slate of games in week zero if any so more like 13 weeks to show all those games

then you have to look at if the economy is shitty and sports become less popular that could be a major issue

another one of the biggest issues that might help sort some of this out is legislatures, students, and academic administrations saying they simply cannot and will not subsidize college sports to the tune of $5 to $25 million per year for a P5 program.....all the more so if athletes start pushing to get paid....and for some programs still having a $2 to $10 million dollar deficit AFTER that subsidy in some years

some programs might simply decide to bow out on their own or they might be forced to by their students and legislatures and even if they think they will stay in D1-A they are going to find some of their conference mates and going to look elsewhere......that was really the point with the numbers above......it would be a horrible idea for UT or OU to start looking at the PAC 12 or ACC when you look at the financials of a very large % of their programs even some of the "better" programs and all the more so compared to the Big 12

other than the SEC SEC SEC or the Big 10 (and them getting more money to do so) there does not seem like there is any good jumping off place for UT or OU unless they feel they like having a couple of more "top programs" along with a hell of a lot more that have much lower budgets and many more issues

I think it is more likely that if the Big 10 gets some more money in a few years while the ACC is locked in until 2032 (barring any magical "look in") and making the same low number just escalating at a snails pace some of their teams will have to be thinking of looking around

and if the PAC 12 that will surely be trying to get the ball rolling at the same time to make sure the Big 10 does not eat all the money up is looking at a small increase then again I think some of their programs have to look around

I suppose the Big 12 will probably be talking at that same time and if things are going badly who knows.....the Big 12 has language in their 99 year contract for conference membership that makes it pretty much impossible for any "back door" much less overt discussions of moving conferences for anyone associated with any Big 12 university and ANYONE else....any discussion like that requires the conference to be notified in 12 hours and the party to get a written letter stating no interest in moving

it is pretty clear language and I believed to introduce torturous interference and enticement into the equation which is triple damages if proven and there is an exit fee of the prior two years distributions (so about $85 million at the end of the contract) and all that is APART from the GOR

the ACC of course has the much longer GOR so I am not sure how it would go if they wanted UVA and UNC or someone like that and those schools were looking at earning $25 to $30 million less per year

the PAC 12 and Big 12 of course will be wide open on GOR, but the contract for conference membership for the Big 12 is absolutely enforceable and is 99 years from 2012

I think the "movement" will start with some conferences (PAC 12 and ACC specifically) starting to make noise about their teams not being able to continue to have the subsidies and annual losses I know the SEC SEC SEC will respond with "don't give a fuck", but I am not sure what the Big 10 will say.....we know the Big 12 with Bowlsby will try and be a middle man (always a shitty position), but how that plays out will be important.....USC looks ok with spending the money......the AZ schools seem ok with their massive subsidies.....CU is hurting for money, WSU is worse, UW will not be a fan, Oregon is not a fan, and the UC schools are having the subsidies and annual deficits, but for how long

Edited May 21, 2021 by ButtFumble

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

14 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

"the big 12 does relatively well relative to national perception", says the nationally published columnist who has an influence over the outcome of said perception

The Big 12 perception does seem to be changing.  2 teams in the Top 6, 4 in the Top 25.  That's 40% of the league.

If any league will really benefit from the COVID year, it's the Big 12.  There were a crap ton of borderline NFL guys that came back for their super senior years.

[clapclapclap 9,000]

20 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Side note:  with the massive increase in exposure that the FCS got for its Spring run, due to not competing against any other football eyeballs, I'm going to be a little shocked if they don't move their seasons to the Spring indefinitely.    They saw increases is not only attendance, but in broadcast interest.   If they can make enough to avoid getting destroyed for money, its probably best for everyone.

Which also starts eliminating the FCS games off the rest of the schedules and provides incentive for lower tear FBS to move down.   That should increase FBS scheduling as well.

 

All in all, I hope that happens for both FBS and FCS

But was it really?  The only FCS game I watched this spring was half of the title game, because the entire FCS season I had forgotten that any of them were even playing spring football.

[Al_4_ISU 12,665]

3 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

But was it really?  The only FCS game I watched this spring was half of the title game, because the entire FCS season I had forgotten that any of them were even playing spring football.

A buddy of mine was hosting Northern Iowa watch parties every Saturday back in March.  We would be paying half as much attention to them if it were in the fall.  He'd have the game on (their starting middle LB used to work for my buddy), but everyone would be glued to the bigger games.

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

19 hours ago, Thiefery said:

wonder how much bigger the new contract will be for the Big 12 in a few years will be.. enough to close the gap ?

I don't think you'll see the jump to the Big Ten, but the Big 12 has been working with some old deals.   They got more competitive when they realigned their T2 packages a few years back and went to 9 conference games and, to get that, they had to add years to the contract.   The smart move was now everything is aligned to 2024-25 range unlike the past where they could only negotiate for 1/3rd at a time.   This jump in 2024-25 should be the big one.

Currently the T2 is basically market, but they have a severely undervalued T1 deal, like more than the SEC deal with CBS level of undervalued.    The bad news is they have 10 teams so they don't have as many T1 games as the BigTen or SEC, but they don't have to share as much either.   They should be able to see a per school level of jump as the SEC saw on their T1 deal, which was about a 3x increase.   E.g. if they're paid $3-4m per game now, they'll get $11-12m.   That $8m jump per team is enough to keep them just under the other two.   That being said, there is a big opportunity to here to give away cash for exposure.   The SEC did it with CBS for two decades.   Singular marketing, singular time slot.   It built consistent viewership over time.   CBS is still going to want to fill that spot, which opens up in 4 years, they just don't want to pay mouse money for it.   You could get a $4-5m jump and become a sole owner of a network/timeslot too.    Personally, I think that would be far more valuable to the Big12 than the extra cash to feed more mouths.

The other 2025 question is what they end up doing with T3 rights.   OU and Texas kept theirs for now, but the rest started selling them off to ESPN+ in a pseudo digital conference network.   That could lay the groundwork for something more in the future or they could keep the flexibility.     My guess is they keep the flexibility because non of the Big 12 schools are clamoring about not being paid.    At some point, you can't add any more TVs to lockers.

There is money out there and everyone wants content to sell streaming services.   Amazon just offered the NFL a billion dollars for one Thursday game a week.   The Big will set the market in 2023, followed by the Pac 12.   That should put the Big 12 in a good place to be the last deal before the 2035s when the SEC/ACC come up again

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

9 hours ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

I’ve said before that if we merged with the PAC, our (and OU’s) home games would usually be the featured early game in the conference with a 2:30 kickoff. Whichever of OU or Texas is playing an away game out west would get the next time slot which is still not that late. Plus, we would likely avoid that gotdam 11a RRS kick off.  I don’t think we’d be playing late local time games, and few (if any) 11a home games.

The combined time zones of the PAC/B12 conference are still half of the eyeballs.

I agree with this, but I don't think they have to merge.   The smarter play would be to just combine the media deal, operate separately.   And, if I'm the B12 with the central/eastern time zone, I make the agreement a 50/50 split so you make more per team.

Either way, you explode your media deal, give both conferences a shit ton more leverage, and you keep your own management.   

Want to blow it up more...put it all on a dual conference network.

 

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

1 hour ago, clapclapclap said:

But was it really?  The only FCS game I watched this spring was half of the title game, because the entire FCS season I had forgotten that any of them were even playing spring football.

Yes.   The fact that you even saw the game and it wasn't wedged in on championship weekend of the CFB with the NFL playing Thursdays and Sundays is how it works.

And those FCS teams make $500k-$2m for beat down games.   You could pay the FCS $12m per conference for a Spring league with all the games shown and they'd make up the money without the need of the FBS.

[Machinator 32,103]

Relevant:

The article:

Spoiler

There is no asterisk on Sam Houston’s spring 2021 Football Championship Subdivision national championship. I was there. I saw what the program’s first title meant to everyone involved after a thrilling last-minute win against South Dakota State.

But let’s not have a spring FCS season again.

The conclusion of the COVID-19-delayed season has led some around college football to call for a permanent spring FCS season, moving it from the fall. The argument is that the teams would get a brighter spotlight away from the Football Bowl Subdivision, and fans would get more football throughout the year.

As a fan, I’m always in favor of more football. But it’s not a realistic idea. Aside from the obvious NCAA hurdles, there are too many financial, competitive and logistical problems. I didn’t favor the idea last summer and I don’t favor it now after the season.

So how did those involved feel? With the spring season finished, I reached out to some people in the sport to ask the question: Should FCS football move to the spring on a permanent basis? Responses were almost uniformly opposed to the idea.

“I would be against it,” Wofford coach Josh Conklin said.

Some coaches understood the initial appeal of the idea. But having gone through a spring season now, they don’t want to do it again. Certainly, part of the frustration was due to the unique pandemic challenges, but the big-picture issues would be the same in any year.

“My old school says football must be played in fall,” Weber State coach Jay Hill said. “If had to vote, keep it in the fall. But this spring was a nice change.”

So what are the issues with spring? There are five major problems.

Recruiting and roster management would be a nightmare
The best player in the previous FCS season didn’t play this spring because it didn’t make sense to play. North Dakota State quarterback Trey Lance put together a remarkable redshirt freshman year in 2019, so much so that he worked himself into the NFL Draft conversation, which meant no spring season. The 49ers drafted him with the No. 3 pick.

A few other prominent FCS players skipped the spring season, including NDSU offensive lineman Dillon Radunz, who was drafted in the second round by the Titans. South Dakota State wide receiver Cade Johnson entered the transfer portal when SDSU’s fall season was canceled before eventually declaring for the NFL Draft. He went undrafted.

The FCS may not be loaded with draft prospects, but the timing created all sorts of problems. If this became the permanent schedule, the best of the best would follow in Lance’s steps. Even those only looking for an undrafted free agent deal could opt out of a spring season.

“I’m not a fan (of spring) because of the NFL,” said Florida A&M coach Willie Simmons, whose team didn’t play at all this season. “Logistically, football is its own beast.”

FCS coaches were also concerned this spring became an open showcase period for FBS teams to poach the best players for the following fall. Sam Houston wide receiver Jequez Ezzard will certainly field FBS interest after a strong spring season, and deservedly so. Those players should be presented with all the opportunities they can find, but the FCS would only be hurting itself from a talent standpoint as a subdivision with a spring season. Wofford lost two key offensive playmakers at the end of its season.

“We are taking six or seven transfers this year because of opt-outs and losing guys a year ago,” Conklin said. “We never do that. That is the environment we are in.”

There’s also recruiting. High school seniors couldn’t make fall game official visits before signing in December and February in a normal year.

“You don’t know what your numbers look like,” Simmons said. “If I don’t play in the fall, I don’t know what seniors will be there. You’d have to create two recruiting calendars. (Spring) was a great experiment because of COVID, but I would not be a fan of spring football at the FCS level.”

Teams lose coaches right before or during the season
November to March is the coaching carousel season. Coaches get fired in the fall and get replaced over the next few months, across all levels of the sport. Some go to the coaches convention in January to find a job. A spring season puts coaches in tough spots.

Several FCS teams lost a coach during this spring season, including coordinators. San Diego lost its wide receivers coach to Nevada after the first game. Missouri State hired a new offensive line coach days before its scheduled first game. Wofford lost its defensive coordinator and defensive line coach during spring training camp.

“It’s very difficult and you can’t blame coaches for leaving,” Conklin said.

Conklin himself was in the mix for the Illinois defensive coordinator job in January, and it highlights the other side of the issue, where it becomes harder for most FCS coaches, especially head coaches, to advance in their career without a fall season. You lose coaches, and the timing is difficult to find replacements.

“As an FCS coach, I missed the hiring cycle, and I don’t have anything for them to judge me off of,” Simmons said. “If I win a championship in spring and the hiring cycle is done, I have to wait for the next cycle, and then I didn’t play in the fall, so my name isn’t relevant anymore. I don’t see how it would be possible.”

Athletic departments would lose valuable money games
This is the biggest factor. FCS teams can receive $500,000 or more for playing at a Power 5 school in the fall. That kind of money keeps FCS athletic departments afloat and helps pay for other sports. Houston Baptist played four games, all in the fall, and received nearly $1 million total from three Power 5 opponents.

“When it comes to the economics of trying to make those things work, those departments would be hurting if they didn’t have those money games,” said Fresno State athletic director Terry Tumey, who served as UC Davis AD from 2012-15. “That’s a big deal.”

It’s needed both ways. Group of 5 teams need FCS opponents on the schedule in the fall as well. That’s not to mention a permanent spring season would prevent upsets like Appalachian State’s 2007 win at Michigan. Sure, they don’t happen often, but they mean a heck of a lot to those schools.

Some spring season advocates have argued that playing in the spring could lead to increased attendance and offset the need for those money games. First, there’s no proof of that. Second, in many places, the weather causes its own problem on the calendar. Several early-spring FCS games were canceled due to snow and ice storms.

“I liked how weather got better as spring went on, but January and February were nuts here,” said Hill, whose Weber State team sits in Utah. “Teams with cold climate and no indoor facility will not like it.”

Many schools do not have the resources to run football in the spring
This was a big reason many FCS teams opted against any football season in the 2020-21 academic year. These aren’t your Alabamas and Ohio States, or even your Rutgers. Most athletic departments do not have football-only operations when accounting for trainers, team doctors, strength coaches and other staff, and there are only so many bodies to go around.

Florida A&M opted out of football and other fall sports due to health concerns, but Simmons wasn’t sure if the Rattlers could have pulled it all off in the spring anyway.

“In the fall, it’s just football, volleyball and cross country, basically,” he said. “In the spring, it’s baseball, basketball, track, golf, tennis, softball, mostly Olympic sports. Then you add football to that — we don’t have enough trainers, enough equipment managers, strength and conditioning coaches. I commend all the teams that did it, but just talking to the ADs that I’m close to and some of the support staff that I’m close to, it was a nightmare.”

The TV spotlight may not increase all that much anyway
I was among the people who bought into the notion before the spring that we’d all keep watching football through February and into May. It didn’t happen. One main reason? Nearly every “televised” FCS spring game was actually on a pay streaming service like ESPN+, not linear TV.

ESPN, where the vast majority of these games were streamed, already has plenty of spring weekend TV content, largely made up of NBA and college basketball games (and potentially the NHL moving forward). ESPN could have moved any number of FCS regular-season games onto its linear channels this spring if it needed the content, but it chose not to. It clearly didn’t see enough of an audience. Only a few Jackson State games were put on ESPN TV, due to the star power of Deion Sanders as head coach. The FCS playoffs were on TV, but they already are in the fall season as well.

It’s fun to think that a spring football season can work, but it just hasn’t. It has to attract more than die-hard fans. The Alliance of American Football folded before the end of its first season. The rebooted XFL fell apart in its first season due to the pandemic. Both had respectable TV audiences early, but viewership quickly declined throughout the season. When March hit with the NCAA men’s basketball tournament, numbers really dropped. Come March, very few sports fans care about football as everyone turns to March Madness. It just doesn’t work, and that’s OK.

Football is a fall sport. It has been for more than a century. Our minds are used to it. It owns the final five months of the year. Schedules and plans revolve around it. The different divisions are intertwined with high school as well. No other sport in this country creates that kind of environment.

It’s natural to want to see more of it. It’s also natural to want FCS (and the Group of 5, for that matter), to stake its claim somewhere before the Power 5 potentially pulls away from everyone else. But a spring season isn’t the answer. The logistical hurdles are too high, and what is lost would likely be more than what is gained.

Sam Houston’s championship win was a lot of fun, but what happened in this unique season showed precisely why it shouldn’t happen in the spring moving forward.

 

[ButtFumble 5,291]

42 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I don't think you'll see the jump to the Big Ten, but the Big 12 has been working with some old deals.   They got more competitive when they realigned their T2 packages a few years back and went to 9 conference games and, to get that, they had to add years to the contract.   The smart move was now everything is aligned to 2024-25 range unlike the past where they could only negotiate for 1/3rd at a time.   This jump in 2024-25 should be the big one.

Currently the T2 is basically market, but they have a severely undervalued T1 deal, like more than the SEC deal with CBS level of undervalued.    The bad news is they have 10 teams so they don't have as many T1 games as the BigTen or SEC, but they don't have to share as much either.   They should be able to see a per school level of jump as the SEC saw on their T1 deal, which was about a 3x increase.   E.g. if they're paid $3-4m per game now, they'll get $11-12m.   That $8m jump per team is enough to keep them just under the other two.   That being said, there is a big opportunity to here to give away cash for exposure.   The SEC did it with CBS for two decades.   Singular marketing, singular time slot.   It built consistent viewership over time.   CBS is still going to want to fill that spot, which opens up in 4 years, they just don't want to pay mouse money for it.   You could get a $4-5m jump and become a sole owner of a network/timeslot too.    Personally, I think that would be far more valuable to the Big12 than the extra cash to feed more mouths.

The other 2025 question is what they end up doing with T3 rights.   OU and Texas kept theirs for now, but the rest started selling them off to ESPN+ in a pseudo digital conference network.   That could lay the groundwork for something more in the future or they could keep the flexibility.     My guess is they keep the flexibility because non of the Big 12 schools are clamoring about not being paid.    At some point, you can't add any more TVs to lockers.

There is money out there and everyone wants content to sell streaming services.   Amazon just offered the NFL a billion dollars for one Thursday game a week.   The Big will set the market in 2023, followed by the Pac 12.   That should put the Big 12 in a good place to be the last deal before the 2035s when the SEC/ACC come up again

 

that is a good point on the tier 1 deal

the Big 12 had a deal with ESPN that was $480 million so $60 million per year for 8 years to expire in 2015-16 and included the CCG and 12 teams

after all the realignment was settled in Sept. 2012 (so the 2012-13 fiscal year) the Big 12 renegotiated that basically 3 years early

the new Fox deal was 13 years to expire in 2024-25 for $1,170,000,000

with the new ESPN deal to match that length the Big 12 deals were $2.6 billion total so ESPN was paying $1,430,000,000, but it was always said that Fox paid up a bit more money to get some better football slots from ESPN so both were paying about equal

so ESPN went from paying about $60 million a year to paying $100 million per year and Fox paying about the same and no CCG, but the provision to add one and of course the talked about "new TV money" for adding up to 4 teams......people always forget that was TV MONEY ONLY which when the latest numbers above are looked at is about $21 million per year per team for that year and scaling about $1 million per team per year to the end of the contract

that is why expansion does not work with G5 teams because no G5 team brings the extra money of about $16 million to go from $21 million in TV money to a full conference share of $37 million......there would NEVER be a way to give a full share that would not cost existing members in the future

when you look at the very small amount of content that ESPN is suppose to be paying $300 million for that CBS was paying $60 million for (14 or 15 games and the CCG) well shit even if the Big 12 got a bump of $200 for their total tier 1 content and no new money for tier 2 well the Big 12 would be at $400 million per year in TV money

$100 they make now, $200 in new money and $100 for tier 2 so $400 million per year in TV money ($40 million per team) and $16 million or so in other conference money and the Big 12 is making $46 million per year per team so competitive with the SEC SEC SEC (and where they are now) and that would be a slight bump from where the Big 12 contract should end at

that money would of course scale over the life of the deal so less that $400 per year to start and more to end, but of the Big 12 does shorter deals that helps that......if you add in $50 to $100 more in tier 2 money (so $450 to $500 million in TV money) which would be $51 to $56 million per year on average with the other conference money then the Big 12 is competitive with the SEC SEC SEC even after ESPN money for taking over CBS and probably competitive with the Big 10 after their new deal

but still looking at a jump from $200 million to $450 to $500 million is quite a jump, but when you look at the ridiculous jump for 14-15 games and a CCG that ESPN just paid from $60 million to now $300 million well the argument for the Big 12 and their much larger amount of available content does not seem to be such a stretch

one other thing....I never thought the  Big 12 was serious about expansion that was just man touching drool cup boren being a fucking idiot and needing attention and no one on the Big 12 having what it took to tell him to sit down and shut the fuck up

but it was made clear that even if the Big 12 was dump enough to expand and lose money per member to do it the TV partners had ZERO interest in paying that new money.....it was said the Big 12 got a little bit more money to not expand, but I would hope with the new negotiations the Big 12 can make it clear they did the networks a "solid" and did not make them pay $40 to $80 million more per year......and now is a good time to pay the Big 12 some of that cash

Edited May 21, 2021 by ButtFumble

[closetohumping 17,830]

I'm against taking anyone back in fact my first choice is still for leaving the Big 12.

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

20 hours ago, sportsbay said:

Yes, and dropping at least one conference home and away series for a home OOC cupcake each year pads the wallet even more.

It may for ticket sales, but does not for broadcast rights.   OOC games, unless they are made for TV events (which add extra money anyway), don't contribute much at all to the bottom line.   When they value deals they look at the course of the entire contract.   While it may not feel like Texas vs Kansas is worth more than a Texas vs UCLA game, it is because they know they'll play every year and can count on it being whatever crap it is.   The OOCs can be worse or better, but you don't always know even what they'll be in advance.   When they made the current contract they likely didn't know who Oklahoma State is playing in September of 2023.   Due to that, shit value.

This is why the Big 12 was able to survive with 10 when the exodus happened.   Moving to 9 conference games gave them 9 more games of defined value:

Prior: 12 x 4 = 48 conference games

10 x 4  = 40 conference games = lose lots of cash

10 x 4.5 = 45 conference games = able to stay the same with.

This is part of the difference you see with the Big Ten and SEC too, who should be relatively even:

Big Ten - 14 x 4.5 = 63 conference games

SEC - 14 x 4 = 56

[ButtFumble 5,291]

I disagree on the conference games vs OOC games I understand the argument, but I think it can be overcome with proper "salesmanship"

look at some of the major games out there past and present....Texas OU was always a huge game even in the OOC

UGA GT is a big game even though GT is usually not very good

Florida FSU and Florida Miami

Clemson SC

if OU for NU back on the schedule in a regular basis that would be huge

now true all of the above are games played year in and year out or at least played most years, but look at the biggest games for Texas recently....Texas ND and Texas LSU

the OU UCLA games were not "huge" but they were big just like Texas UCLA has been in the past....the OU Tennessee games were pretty big and Tennessee was not good (but they could have been back!)

when you play an OOC game against decent opponents you capture the fans of those two teams and you capture the causal fans of both conferences because those games can have some meaning for the overall conference strength

the PAC 12 study that showed the mathematical advantage to playing 8 conference games instead of 9 actually replaced random conference games with teams equal to the WORST team on the schedule of each member and ran that simulation over and over....and there was a significant strength of schedule gain for all but the two worst teams in the conference.....again that was replacing a conference game with team equal to the absolute weakest team in a member's schedule

I am not advocating for the Big 12 wholesale moving to scheduling more total shit as I have said I am advocating for the big 12 to have their ADs get off  their asses and earn their money by crafting a schedule that meets the needs of each team and that still captures eyeballs and contributes to the conference as a whole

I understand that "strength of schedule" on paper or on a computer spread sheet does not mean fans tune in, but it is a long term process to build the entire conference and I believe over the long term it would pay off both for the conference and the media partners

if ISU was more competitive each year like they have been the last few seasons then the ISU, Iowa game has a lot more meaning

if Texas Tech can replace random conference games with teams like AU, ASU, Arkansas, or WSU and Tech is having winning seasons again and going to bowl games then those games have value

get KSU or KU more competitive and playing Missouri and those games have some value

the entire reason people shit in the Big 12 right now (in spite of the fact that the Big 12 has always earned more than the ACC and PAC 12 since the new TV contracts were in place) is because people think the Big 12 consist of Texas and OU and teams that bow down to Texas and OU

that shit is not healthy for the conference and it is really IMO the least healthy for Texas and OU because if it comes down to making the playoffs people can argue "beat KU in conference who gives a shit" or replace whatever Big 12 team has been shitty for the last 2 or 3 years

yes there might be a time when Texas and OU and probably TCU and OkState might need to carry some weight on OOC games, but if ADs would earn their fucking money and adjust schedules frequently then as soon as KSU and Tech and Baylor (that has been wildly up and down) and a team like ISU can stay being competitive well you keep improving the schedules and getting better OOC games and then the Big 12 matters.....playing Big 12 teams matters.....and then you have WVU that has not been shy at all about having two P5 OOC games on their schedule.....get them rolling and get them kicking the shit out of Pitt, Miami, VT and the list goes on and that helps them massively in recruiting and that helps the Big 12 a ton.....and people want to see WVU play those old Big East teams that would draw fans......but WVU needs to be able to do that without also having to play 9 big 12 games

it would be a conference wide effort with firm commitments by Big 12 ADs to do all they can to craft schedules that help their team AND the conference....perhaps even put some money on the line with extra payments of P5 OOC games in the schedule......you do not get at least 2 P5 OOC games in the schedule (to replace the two you dropped from conference games) and you get a bit less conference money if you have 3 P5 OOCs in the schedule perhaps you get a bit of a bonus 

OOC games can have value if set up right and if past history plays a part.....and winning OOC games that have not much value can still have value to the conference overall as you diminish the amount of total shit at the bottom of the conference and instead have a conference with a hell of a lot of winning records and bowl games and hopefully bowl wins....that makes every conference game better 

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

23 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

I disagree on the conference games vs OOC games I understand the argument, but I think it can be overcome with proper "salesmanship"

...

I agree, but that's not how it is valued today.   Unknowns are high risk, therefor low value.   The lower the risk for the networks the higher the value.  (this is why made for TV games make more and are one offs...guaranteed for broadcasters, ignore them for overall contracts)

Iowa State may have the most consistent high rated OOC game in the Big 12 contract playing Iowa every year, but...its every other year as the Big Ten gets the games in Iowa City and, unlike conference games, could not be scheduled at a moment's notice by Iowa who isn't beholden to any agreement with the Big 12 or its media partners.   So, at a maximum, even the most valuable/consistent OOC game in the Big 12, its only half as valuable as any conference game, due to being played in the Big 12 every other year.  Home and homes are more valuable when you own both homes.   Home games against cupcakes aren't even worth a reach around in comparison.

Now, can you fix this?   Sure.   But to add value you need guaranteed consistency.   I mentioned earlier doing a joint media deal with the Pac 12.    That deal could have 100 conference games a year (22 x 4.5 = 99 then round up) Which blows the Big and SEC out of the water.   But that's only for 9 of the games.   If you also added a scheduling agreement where you played two of your 3 OOC games against each other you're now basically saying that 11 of the games on all of the 22 team schedules are played within the Big 12 and Pac 12.   That is goddamn huge.   That's like saying you're selling 120 conference games a year, twice as many as the current Big Ten deal.

It doesn't matter at that point if it is Texas vs USC or Texas vs Washington State, what matters is it is a Big 12 or Pac 12 or Big12vPac12 and you own both homes.   

The money would be ridiculous.

[ButtFumble 5,291]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

I agree, but that's not how it is valued today.   Unknowns are high risk, therefor low value.   The lower the risk for the networks the higher the value.  (this is why made for TV games make more and are one offs...guaranteed for broadcasters, ignore them for overall contracts)

Iowa State may have the most consistent high rated OOC game in the Big 12 contract playing Iowa every year, but...its every other year as the Big Ten gets the games in Iowa City and, unlike conference games, could not be scheduled at a moment's notice by Iowa who isn't beholden to any agreement with the Big 12 or its media partners.   So, at a maximum, even the most valuable/consistent OOC game in the Big 12, its only half as valuable as any conference game, due to being played in the Big 12 every other year.  Home and homes are more valuable when you own both homes.   Home games against cupcakes aren't even worth a reach around in comparison.

Now, can you fix this?   Sure.   But to add value you need guaranteed consistency.   I mentioned earlier doing a joint media deal with the Pac 12.    That deal could have 100 conference games a year (22 x 4.5 = 99 then round up) Which blows the Big and SEC out of the water.   But that's only for 9 of the games.   If you also added a scheduling agreement where you played two of your 3 OOC games against each other you're now basically saying that 11 of the games on all of the 22 team schedules are played within the Big 12 and Pac 12.   That is goddamn huge.   That's like saying you're selling 120 conference games a year, twice as many as the current Big Ten deal.

It doesn't matter at that point if it is Texas vs USC or Texas vs Washington State, what matters is it is a Big 12 or Pac 12 or Big12vPac12 and you own both homes.   

The money would be ridiculous.

 

to the ownership of the games specifically that is not an issue if the conference does what they need to

if you have Texas and OkState and they play at Texas in year one and at OkState in year two that is 2 games for the media partners....one game each year

if instead Texas played UNC at home in year one and OkState played Arizona State on the road in year one.....that is 1 game for the media partners of the Big 12.....then in year two Texas plays at UNC and OkState plays ASU at home......that is one game for the Big 12 media partners......over the two year period the same net of two games total for the Big 12 media partners

would Texas vs UNC and OkState vs ASU for those two Big 12 home games draw the same or more TV viewers as two years in a row of Texas vs OkState.....I don't know, but at this point I am willing to take the chance because I think the long term benefit of the Big 12 having a chance to get 4 wins over 2 years without guaranteed losses is better for the Big 12 than Texas vs OkState resulting in 1-1 for the conference two years in a row

I think even if Texas and OkState were 3-1 in those games over 2 years if results like that repeat themselves over several years that is much better than Texas vs OkState every one of those years resulting in 1-1 for the conference as a whole

I think at this point it is an absolute proven fact that "errywon play errbodie" and "won truu champion" is worth jack shit to the Big 12 and in fact it has been made a mockery of and adding a CCG that is a guaranteed repeat has only added to that

it is time to try something different and to me that is going out and getting wins against teams in other conferences or at least the chance for those wins without the guaranteed loss that a conference game brings and getting the Big 12 in front of other viewers on a regular basis.....I think there is not really such a thing as a "good loss" relative to a win, but I do think the Big 12 at least being out there playing other conferences more frequently stops the "yea but one of those wins was against Kansas" bullshit and the teams that suffer from that more than anyone are Texas and OU or whatever other team is having a really good season that year....but always Texas and OU

having Texas and OU with 2 or even 3 P5 games in the OOC stops that completely even if some of those games are against P5 dregs

with "9 P5 conference games" and at least 1 that Texas and OU (and at this point almost all the other members of the Big 12 play) that is 10 P5 games

so playing 7 conference P5 games and 3 OOC P5 games is the same number of P5 games.....but when people say "yea but one of those was against Oregon State or Wake Forest".......well yea but that shit is in your conference so own that for yourself you are trashing your own conference

all the more so if you can now look at Kansas with a 4-1 OOC record against mostly dog shit and maybe a couple of conference wins to get a bowl game, but still a shit load better than Kansas with a 1-2 OOC and one Big 12 win and another 2-10 season.....and over time Kansas schedules less dog shit in the OOC and then people can complain about that even less

[Royale with cheese 1,494]

Long live this thread! I find it immensely heartening that perhaps as many as a half-dozen Surls repeatedly get off on logorrheic screeds.  

[LTbear 4,219]

1 hour ago, sportsbay said:

You do understand how the SEC uses cupcake scheduling to their benefit?  They are widely considered the best conference in CFB.  They have that perception because they use statistics and media to their advantage.  They are killing us.  They get the best players by showing them the stats and the obvious exposure.  We can toot our horn by saying, "but but but we play the Pac 12 in non conference".  Everyone outside our conferences won't care.  We need to affect the statistical rating programs by adjusting our scheduling to our favor.  Fewer losses always trumps a more difficult schedule with losses in every stat model.  We are losing the battle.

The cupcakes don't help the SEC, the 8 conference games with 14 teams so many of the top teams miss each other until the CCG is what really helps the SEC. 

[notre dame joe 205]

1 hour ago, sportsbay said:

You do understand how the SEC uses cupcake scheduling to their benefit?  They are widely considered the best conference in CFB.  They have that perception because they use statistics and media to their advantage.  They are killing us.  They get the best players by showing them the stats and the obvious exposure.  We can toot our horn by saying, "but but but we play the Pac 12 in non conference".  Everyone outside our conferences won't care.  We need to affect the statistical rating programs by adjusting our scheduling to our favor.  Fewer losses always trumps a more difficult schedule with losses in every stat model.  We are losing the battle.

Two conferences play only 8 conf games and they both have dominated in playoff appearances and national titles.  Unrelated: their media $ is commensurate with their fanbases.  It's not that complicated.  

[ButtFumble 5,291]

2 minutes ago, sportsbay said:

Idk, some schools do rather well in the SEC and B1G with no fan support.  It's really a mystery to me.  They have to try to be as bad as they are and someone might accuse them of being paid to be a doormat.

I think the Big 10 has their fair share of this and that is part of why it was so easy to go to 9 conference games

the Big 10 has already said (I think right after the first year) that 9 conference games might be a mistake

their whole reason for doing so was not more money it was because all of their fan bases in the leaders (or is it legends the western half) missed playing the good teams in the eastern half

Nebraska was pissed off and pretending that not getting their asses kicked by tOSU, Michigan, MSU, Penn State, and Wisconsin hurt their ability to recruit and the rest of that half of the conference was just glad to take an ass kicking from the better half and their top teams

but as the Big 10 found out when you spread 7 more losses guaranteed to the weakest teams in the conference then your conference looks shittier

having 14 teams and teams missing each other helps for sure and there are plenty of Big 10 teams that would keep 9 conference games to take the ass whippings from the eastern half top teams, but the top teams in the conference and the conference office has figured out that makes you look like shit fast

and the SEC SEC SEC absolutely benefits from the D1-AA games because they make sure to schedule them late in the season when every other conference is playing conference games and beating each other up and having teams move down in the rankings......while the SEC SEC SEC rest up all their teams and gets pretty much automatic wins and gets second teamers some late season reps......and of course they have a week or two of most all their teams getting a win to stay even or move up in the rankings

it would be much harder to make that schedule with 9 conference games and of course with the 9 conference game you get a week where half the conference gets a win and half gets a loss instead of a late season week where pretty much all the conference gets a win

there is next to no advantage to Alabama beating a 4 win Vanderbilt late in the season vs beating a D1-AA team all the more so when that loss for Vanderbilt might cost them a win against a D1-AA team

[DCLonghorn 244]

... and the SEC SEC SEC absolutely benefits from the D1-AA games because they make sure to schedule them late in the season when every other conference is playing conference games...

This was also an ESPN and SEC play to get their earlier better conference games on the E networks instead of the slim pickings of everyone's cupcake games. While it most definitely has the perception and rankings benefits you mentioned, this was an ESPN driven move. A lot of the coaches and schools complained about it intially as they wanted the "pre-season scrimmage" instead an ass whooping from Alabama, but Slive saw the benefit and made it happen.

[ButtFumble 5,291]

3 minutes ago, DCLonghorn said:

 

 

This was also an ESPN and SEC play to get their earlier better conference games on the E networks instead of the slim pickings of everyone's cupcake games. While it most definitely has the perception and rankings benefits you mentioned, this was an ESPN driven move. A lot of the coaches and schools complained about it intially as they wanted the "pre-season scrimmage" instead an ass whooping from Alabama, but Slive saw the benefit and made it happen.
 

 

I think there is a benefit especially with an early season loss to a top team like Alabama of that loss being somewhat "forgotten" later in the season or brushed off as getting off to a slow start......as an example see all the dumb shit that is said about tOSU every year when they take an early season loss to some conference tomato can.....que late season herbie talking about "how a team is playing now" and "who are the best teams now" and "momentum going into the playoffs" and shit like that

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

7 hours ago, sportsbay said:

You do understand how the SEC uses cupcake scheduling to their benefit?  They are widely considered the best conference in CFB.  They have that perception because they use statistics and media to their advantage.  They are killing us.  They get the best players by showing them the stats and the obvious exposure.  We can toot our horn by saying, "but but but we play the Pac 12 in non conference".  Everyone outside our conferences won't care.  We need to affect the statistical rating programs by adjusting our scheduling to our favor.  Fewer losses always trumps a more difficult schedule with losses in every stat model.  We are losing the battle.

I do, but you're not comparing like subjects in this case.   You can't drop valuable games and and add crap and gain both money and success.   The SEC did it better and maintained the edge as they exploded their exposure with multiple schools having natties in the 2000-2020s.   THEN they cashed in on the media deal.

So, yes, the Big 12 could drop to 8, play less, and have more wins at the end of the year, elevating natty chances, and, thus, netting a higher image.    No argument there.   The math on more success at 8 conference games vs 9 is a no brainer.

However, you cannot do that AND inflate your media rights deal at the same time.  There is a trade off.

EDIT:  a good example would be look at the ACC.   There is 8 conference games in valuation.   They get a shit ton of teams into the bowls, but the contract is lackluster.

Edited May 22, 2021 by Hurtlocker

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

6 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

 

to the ownership of the games specifically that is not an issue if the conference does what they need to

 

It is.  

1) you need to own the home game, zero value for the away

2) unless the home is guaranteed in the contract it is high risk, therefore low value.

That's why it has to be a contractual scheduling agreement or it doesn't matter jack shit for the valuation.

Totally get your point though that if everyone played 10 Power 5 games the waters rise together.  But you don't get the high valuation on a 10 year media deal for 20 games you don't have scheduled.   That's not really a thing.  Conference games have teams bound to a contract, as you saw with Nebraska this year, OOC are not.

[ButtFumble 5,291]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

It is.  

1) you need to own the home game, zero value for the away

2) unless the home is guaranteed in the contract it is high risk, therefore low value.

That's why it has to be a contractual scheduling agreement or it doesn't matter jack shit for the valuation.

Totally get your point though that if everyone played 10 Power 5 games the waters rise together.  But you don't get the high valuation on a 10 year media deal for 20 games you don't have scheduled.   That's not really a thing.  Conference games have teams bound to a contract, as you saw with Nebraska this year, OOC are not.

 

if need be the Big 12 could offer guarantees and payment incentives to the media partners

the Big 12 with 10 teams and 9 conference games that is 45 games a season for the media partners guaranteed if you say that is worth 90% of the value of a $200 million per year TV contract then those are worth $180 million of the contract or $4 million per conference game

give up TWO conference games each (really giving up one does not make much difference for the Big 12 with 10 teams it needs to be TWO) well you tell the media partners that each school will have a have at least a home P5 game on the schedule each year or there is a cut in the contract and you tell the teams that cut comes out of their ass

so going to 7 conference games that is 35 games for the media partners and then each member playing a P5 home game that is 45 P5 games for the media partners

and again because each member is giving up TWO conference games that means they have room on the schedule to have a new OOC P5 game at home and one on the road

you can slide the scale a bit as well make sure that BYU and ND count as P5 and then perhaps a top level G5 is worth $2.5 million if a team decided for some reason they want to give up $1.5 million out of their cut to get a home game without a road game or if it is a lower level G5 maybe only $1.5 million

doing the math on that if a team went with a 2-1 with UCF then they would get $5 million over 3 years instead of $8, but perhaps for that school they feel like the extra home game is worth $3 million in ticket sales

you could have a bonus for additional P5 games if a school went with having 10 P5 games 2 years in a row they would get a bonus for that one extra game out of the two seasons.....and right now the Big 12 is playing 10 P5 games for most teams and sometimes 11 for Texas, OU, and WVU.......but if you are trying to argue that all the media partners care about is "guaranteed P5 games because of conference play and 9 conference games" then you are placing a low value on those P5 OOC games that big 12 members deliver every year a portion of which are home games and owned by the Big 12 media partners

I think the bigger reality is the Big 12 needs to sell the media partners on the idea that no one really gives a shit about ISU vs KU (no offense ISU) even when ISU is good because KU is probably still awful and that will draw fans of those schools and casual fans of "The Big 12" and that is about it and less than that if a better Big 12 game is on at that time or coming on earlier or later

and they need to sell media partners on the idea that people will give a shit more about WVU vs KSU if both of those teams are 5-0 in OOC games or one is 4-1 and the other is 5-0 and more viewers will watch more of their OOC P5 games or upper level G5 games if those Big 12 teams have good records for the last few years plus you are getting the viewers from the other conference

the Big 12 needs to be a NATIONAL product not a product that foolishly believes they can "lock down their market" especially when they are trying to do so with teams that have a lot of losses and that no one cares about when they play each other....all the more so when the Big 12 "market" is not really that large overall 

it goes back to why OU, Texas, Nebraska and others have so many Tshirt fans......because back when there were a lot more limits on TV those teams won a lot and got on TV a bit more and got a lot more media converge.....because THEY WON A LOT....and when they played each other the games mattered even more because they had won a lot of other games prior to that meeting

the Big 12 is doing the same exact shit that killed the SWC and that is believing "locking down a market" that is filled with your own teams and your own teams playing and beating each other draws viewers "because"......when the reality is the SWC finally figured out that they were too insular, teams only cared about "beating Texas" or beating whatever team happened to be good that year and then the SWC got the shit kicked out of them in bowl games mostly

and recruits left to Miami, FSU, tOSU, USC, UCLA, Michigan, the Big 8 in fucking DROVES

it really should not be that hard for the Big 12 ADs at every program to get a home and away P5 game every fucking year to make a guarantee like the one above work.....and for a number of programs it should not be that hard to make it 3 P5 OOC games to collect an extra $4 million every other year.....and for others it should not be hard to get the 2 P5 games and a better than average G5 to collect some type of bonus every other year

[notre dame joe 205]

10 hours ago, sportsbay said:

Idk, some schools do rather well in the SEC and B1G with no fan support.  It's really a mystery to me.  They have to try to be s bad as they are and someone might accuse them of being paid to be a doormat.

Not all doormats are created equal.  Compare stadium attendance of Miss State to Hoosiers to Boston Oliver College.  

While I don't want ND to join them, I like how the ACC games the system.  They have filled the economy lot with mid size academics-first schools and have them field roughly .500 football teams.  This ensures everyone gets a bare P5 media deal while the top dog will be in position for a playoff berth.

[hiphopfroggy 121]

4 hours ago, sportsbay said:

Aside from the above conference stuff.  I think that the Pac 12/B12 deal is pretty much dead.  The P12 is actually looking to poach OU.  Pretty funny actually.

Death throes.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2021 by hiphopfroggy

[Hurtlocker 2,219]

15 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

 

if need be the Big 12 could offer guarantees and payment incentives to the media partners

...

Its not a scheduling thing, its a guarantee'ing thing.   The conference games are bound by a grant of rights.   OOC games are not.   Unless the media partners are picking the games, they're not going to be valued high.   Also, its far les than 20%.   Most are unwanted.   I counted about 5 games for this upcoming year that have any value, out of 30.  So its probably closer to 3-5%

I agree that 8 conference games provides higher chances for wins, see the ACCs bowl season fiasco, clearly it works.   But, you're not pulling it off AND having a higher valuation.  Two completely different avenues.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,908]

40 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Its not a scheduling thing, its a guarantee'ing thing.   The conference games are bound by a grant of rights.   OOC games are not.   Unless the media partners are picking the games, they're not going to be valued high.   Also, its far les than 20%.   Most are unwanted.   I counted about 5 games for this upcoming year that have any value, out of 30.  So its probably closer to 3-5%

I agree that 8 conference games provides higher chances for wins, see the ACCs bowl season fiasco, clearly it works.   But, you're not pulling it off AND having a higher valuation.  Two completely different avenues.

Yeah the ACC agreed to less money to keep the 8 game conference schedule

[Houtexjhawk 7]

On 5/20/2021 at 3:34 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

So if Stew's tweet is right, Texas and OU are beating the SEC schools with Tier III.  Assuming they started at $40.5 mill.

You realize that the other eight school not named UT or OU gave up its Tier 3 rights for next to nothing when the conference agreed to its deal with ESPN and ESPN+ a few years ago to broadcast Big 12 conference championship games.