Realignment talk not going away

[Sandbagging Steve 982]

1 hour ago, JFKFC said:

I think it is a safe assumption that the commissioner of the ACC had the authority to extend the agreement granted to him by the member institutions in advance.

Can you explain how something like that works? If the commissioner can extend the option, shouldn't it state that in the contract? This contract is worth billions of dollars. 

I also find it interesting that Texas/OU announced to the SEC the same year this option was extended by the commissioner.

 

[bullet 1630]

18 hours ago, JFKFC said:

I think it is a safe assumption that the commissioner of the ACC had the authority to extend the agreement granted to him by the member institutions in advance.

Well if its against the bylaws he doesn't have the authority.  Now, if you are saying ESPN had a legal right to rely on him, that is certainly possible.

[Herpa Derpa 6344]

I would like to congratulate the firm associates for whom the FSU/ACC fight will lead to an equity partnership.

 

On 12/24/2023 at 3:14 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

Danny Kanell wishcasting FSU into the SEC. “We already play Florida!”

I would so enjoy Dumb Dumb Danny's butthurt if FSU ends up in the B12.

[billfromlaketravis 11826]

1 minute ago, Herpa Derpa said:

I would like to congratulate the firm associates for whom the FSU/ACC fight will lead to an equity partnership.

 

I would so enjoy Dumb Dumb Danny's butthurt if FSU ends up in the B12.

Yeah Bud and Danny both scoffed at Chip Patterson when he asked them about the Big 12. Basically, why would FSU leave for the Big 12 when it's a worse league than the ACC?! Both seem unable to even consider the possibility that FSU is screwed. 

[Magus Ossis 3003]

Texas beats Bama, cornering the CFP committee into leaving undefeated ACC champion FSU on the sideline. The dissatisfaction of FSU mandates that they sue to leave the ACC. Ergo ACC is yet another conference Texas has destroyed, in two of which (ACC and PAC — by virtue of spoiling a potential merger by keeping the LHN), we were never members. People not only need to avoid being our conference-mates, they should give up playing sports in which we compete.

Edited December 26, 2023 by Magus Ossis

[Francisco 2.0 32603]

[BigHornedLurker 2178]

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Never fuck with a Karen with 2 right hands 

Edited December 26, 2023 by BigHornedLurker

[ButtFumble 5287]

Florida State needs to sue themselves for malfeasance....they are basically suing the ACC because their own administration is lazy, stupid, and incompetent

1. the GOR is a stand alone contract between the conference and the members.....ESPN is not a part of that

what that means is when the members signed it and it was going to 2036 they knew full well they did not have a media contract that was guaranteed to match that.....but they damn well signed it anyway.....that is not on the ACC that is on the members that signed it that are not happy now

2. if the ACC had a GOR that ended in 2027 it would not be possible for the ACC commissioner to "extend that" unilaterally....because the GOR is an agreement to assign media rights to the conference so the conference can negotiate them to networks......so it would not be possible for the ACC commissioner to just say "hey GOR extended" without any members signing that extension and actually agreeing to it.......if the ACC front office had the ability to extend the GOR without getting a new one signed.....well that means the one that was signed ended in 2027, but already had language in it that the ACC could extended it if needed was willingly signed by all of the members

3. next their is the (pretty tired) argument of "consideration"......well as a lawyer I am listening to right now said if Big Bad Texas and OU (sucks) decided not to challenge the GOR and were going to sit it out in the Big 12 for a full 4 or 5 years that tells you this is not an easy case to fight......and to me what that means is a team leaving the conference and no longer getting conference distributions (especially the ones for media rights) could easily make that "consideration" claim and if it was that simple it would be a very simple win......but Texas and OU did not even attempt to go to court even with that "consideration" argument that so many throw out.....many people want to get caught up in the idea that "consideration" is only money.....if the ACC is showing your home games still even if you are out of the conference.....well that exposure is "consideration"......if you are still getting 4 conference home games a year that is "consideration"

4. as to the argument that past 2027 of ESPN does not extend the media rights deal and the ACC GOR is sill in place then there is no "consideration" for those media rights.......but of ESPN does not pick up those rights past 2027 then the ACC has the chance to take them to market and get the highest bid......and get "consideration"......so basically the argument from FSU is "well we are not sure what might happen in 2027 and we might not (probably will not) be happy with it so let us out of all of this......tough shit

you agreed to a GOR that ended in 2036......or you agreed to a GOR that had an ending date of 2027 unless the ACC front office (at their discretion) decided to extend that until 2036 (because again the ACC cannot do this unilaterally)

5. the ACC had the chance to look at the ESPN contract.....it is IMPOSSIBLE they did not.....if they are so stupid they did not view it before the conference approved it that is on FSU.....so they knew there was an "option" in there and when those option years are.....and if FSU and the 14 members of the conference are so stupid the signed it and then just sat back and let the person that WORKS FOR THEM do whatever he wanted in regards to that contract and the extensions then that is their own malfeasance and they should sue themselves for being so stupid

 

as the lawyer I am watching just said FSU is acting like they are some little guy that has been taken advantage of by the big bad ACC or they are someone that can't read (you have to wonder now) and they are acting like they had no access to all types of top flight legal advice and top lawyers in house, as faculty, outside counsel. state lawyers, and on and on......their argument is they are a "big boy" and thus everyone else should have been looking out for them while they were dicking off and not even looking out for themselves and now they are upset and they are going to show everyone what a big boy they are by going to court and showing all of their fucking incompetence in looking out for themselves and asking to be let out of the contracts they willingly agreed to time and again 

[Hurtlocker 2219]

On 12/22/2023 at 6:09 PM, notre dame joe said:

Crimson?  That color is hard to describe.  

 

I thought it was FSU who demanded a larger payout around 2011 for which they could only trade a long term contract.  @Hurtlocker am I wrong?

Not sure on 2011, I thought it was closer to 2016.   That's when there was a lot of Clemson/FSU to the Big12 talk and they got all hoity saying the ACC schools were a better academic fit or something.    What they wanted was the ACC Network because the SEC was getting a network and making more money.    However, building that network cost them 20 years.    I think they thought the ACC Network was the golden goose and it would pay out $20+ million a team or something, but, spoiler, it didn't.

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

On 12/26/2023 at 5:36 AM, ButtFumble said:

Florida State needs to sue themselves for malfeasance....they are basically suing the ACC because their own administration is lazy, stupid, and incompetent

1. the GOR is a stand alone contract between the conference and the members.....ESPN is not a part of that

what that means is when the members signed it and it was going to 2036 they knew full well they did not have a media contract that was guaranteed to match that.....but they damn well signed it anyway.....that is not on the ACC that is on the members that signed it that are not happy now

2. if the ACC had a GOR that ended in 2027 it would not be possible for the ACC commissioner to "extend that" unilaterally....because the GOR is an agreement to assign media rights to the conference so the conference can negotiate them to networks......so it would not be possible for the ACC commissioner to just say "hey GOR extended" without any members signing that extension and actually agreeing to it.......if the ACC front office had the ability to extend the GOR without getting a new one signed.....well that means the one that was signed ended in 2027, but already had language in it that the ACC could extended it if needed was willingly signed by all of the members

3. next their is the (pretty tired) argument of "consideration"......well as a lawyer I am listening to right now said if Big Bad Texas and OU (sucks) decided not to challenge the GOR and were going to sit it out in the Big 12 for a full 4 or 5 years that tells you this is not an easy case to fight......and to me what that means is a team leaving the conference and no longer getting conference distributions (especially the ones for media rights) could easily make that "consideration" claim and if it was that simple it would be a very simple win......but Texas and OU did not even attempt to go to court even with that "consideration" argument that so many throw out.....many people want to get caught up in the idea that "consideration" is only money.....if the ACC is showing your home games still even if you are out of the conference.....well that exposure is "consideration"......if you are still getting 4 conference home games a year that is "consideration"

4. as to the argument that past 2027 of ESPN does not extend the media rights deal and the ACC GOR is sill in place then there is no "consideration" for those media rights.......but of ESPN does not pick up those rights past 2027 then the ACC has the chance to take them to market and get the highest bid......and get "consideration"......so basically the argument from FSU is "well we are not sure what might happen in 2027 and we might not (probably will not) be happy with it so let us out of all of this......tough shit

you agreed to a GOR that ended in 2036......or you agreed to a GOR that had an ending date of 2027 unless the ACC front office (at their discretion) decided to extend that until 2036 (because again the ACC cannot do this unilaterally)

5. the ACC had the chance to look at the ESPN contract.....it is IMPOSSIBLE they did not.....if they are so stupid they did not view it before the conference approved it that is on FSU.....so they knew there was an "option" in there and when those option years are.....and if FSU and the 14 members of the conference are so stupid the signed it and then just sat back and let the person that WORKS FOR THEM do whatever he wanted in regards to that contract and the extensions then that is their own malfeasance and they should sue themselves for being so stupid

 

as the lawyer I am watching just said FSU is acting like they are some little guy that has been taken advantage of by the big bad ACC or they are someone that can't read (you have to wonder now) and they are acting like they had no access to all types of top flight legal advice and top lawyers in house, as faculty, outside counsel. state lawyers, and on and on......their argument is they are a "big boy" and thus everyone else should have been looking out for them while they were dicking off and not even looking out for themselves and now they are upset and they are going to show everyone what a big boy they are by going to court and showing all of their fucking incompetence in looking out for themselves and asking to be let out of the contracts they willingly agreed to time and again 

The lawyer you’re watching is extremely long-winded.  

[gatormarc 938]

9 hours ago, Liquor and Poker said:

The lawyer you’re watching is extremely long-winded.  

Charges by the word.

[Longboard Horn 41366]

 

[gatormarc 938]

Oops.

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-cfp-may-withhold-added-revenue-from-smu-despite-power-five-move-145230576.html

Sources: CFP may withhold added revenue from SMU despite Power Five move

Spoiler

Ross Dellenger
Senior College Football Reporter
Fri, Jan 5, 2024, 10:21 AM EST·5 min read

 

HOUSTON — Inside a hotel board room Monday, a few hours before Washington meets Michigan in the national championship game, leaders of the College Football Playoff will gather to rubber-stamp a few important items.

They are expected to formally approve format changes to the expanded playoff in light of the Pac-12's disbanding, moving to what’s termed a “5+7” format that features five automatic qualifying spots for conference champions and seven at-large spots for the next highest-ranked teams (the previous format was a 6+6). And they are also expected to adopt a policy requiring a league to have at least eight members to be eligible to earn an automatic qualifying spot in the playoff.

But there is something else on the docket. It involves a school located just 250 miles from Houston.

SMU, the latest Group of Five program to elevate to the Power Five next year with its jump to the ACC, is at the heart of a CFP money fight.

In the past, schools making the jump from Group of Five to Power Five also saw a leap in their distribution from the College Football Playoff. The difference in annual payout between G5 teams ($1 million) and P5 teams ($6 million) is substantial.

However, after a discussion among CFP commissioners on Nov. 9, SMU did not garner the necessary support for additional revenue distribution. The issue has now been shifted to the commissioners’ corresponding presidents on the CFP Board of Managers, the playoff’s highest governing body made up of a school president from each FBS conference and Notre Dame.

Multiple conference commissioners declined comment on the matter as well as CFP executive director Bill Hancock. In a brief interview with Yahoo Sports, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips expressed disappointment on the issue but declined to elaborate on the details. SMU athletic director Rick Hart declined comment when reached this week.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey pointed toward the CFP’s long-standing rules around modifications to revenue policies.

“You have to have a unanimous vote to alter revenue distribution and diminish somebody else’s revenue,” Sankey said. “That’s it.”

A formal vote is possible Monday among the 11-member CFP Board of Managers following a scheduled gathering of the commissioners. CFP leaders could push the topic to another time or, possibly, reach a compromise by agreeing to grant SMU a portion of the Power Five revenue.

In many ways, this fight over revenue is a precursor to the looming money battle among the 10 FBS conferences after the current CFP contract expires following the 2025 playoff. The CFP’s television contract with ESPN is what binds the leagues together under a previously agreed upon revenue distribution model.

The CFP is in the midst of negotiating a new television deal, and a new revenue distribution model is expected to start in 2026, at which point, presumably, SMU will be granted a full Power Five payout.

For the next two years, however, the school could be out $6 million that officials expected to receive. That includes the $1 million CFP share from the Group of Five as that, too, is at stake.

During negotiations to join the ACC, the school committed to the conference under the impression that it would receive the full CFP funds, according to comments made by SMU officials in August. There was recent precedent of such a guarantee. In 2022, the CFP voted to distribute full Power Five payouts to new Big 12 schools UCF, Cincinnati, Houston and BYU — all of them elevating from G5 to P5.

Making the situation especially painful is the unique arrangement that SMU made with the ACC. Heavily motivated to be in the Power Five and backed by a plethora of mega-boosters, SMU agreed to accept no television revenue from the ACC in its first nine years in the conference. That said, school officials expected to receive non-television ACC payouts that total at least $10-12 million annually — roughly half of which, it thought, would come from the CFP.

Without the CFP, SMU’s first nine years in the ACC may generate annually roughly half of what it earned in distribution while in the American Athletic Conference (about $9 million).

Currently, the CFP distributes $460 million annually. About 80% goes to the Power Five and 20% to the Group of Five.

The Big Ten and SEC, swelling to 18 and 16 members, respectively, with arguably eight of the top-10 most valuable brands in the sport, may urge for the distribution model to further skew toward them as a new “Power 2,” a term widely used to describe college football’s behemoth leagues.

The revenue battle is likely to be a hotly contested showdown and one that could come soon. The CFP, expanding to 12 teams starting next season, is working towards a new, lucrative television deal that may necessitate a modified revenue distribution model as soon as this year.

CFP leaders are expected to get an update on TV negotiations next week. Multiple potential suitors have presented before commissioners, including ESPN, Fox, NBC, Turner and Amazon. ESPN owns the rights for the championship game, semifinals and quarterfinals through the 2025 playoff and gets first right to match in first-round games.

If the CFP does deny SMU’s Power Five funding, the association sets a moratorium on additional revenue for those schools elevating from Group of Five to Power Five — a policy likely to even span into a new CFP contract starting in 2026. The move is yet another sign that college leaders are attempting to restrict Division I’s highest body from further expansion.

That goes for those moving from FCS to FBS. For instance, the Division I Board of Directors increased the FBS entrance from $5,000 to $5 million last year.

 

[BurntOrange&White 41930]

Just now, gatormarc said:

Oops.

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-cfp-may-withhold-added-revenue-from-smu-despite-power-five-move-145230576.html

Sources: CFP may withhold added revenue from SMU despite Power Five move

  Reveal hidden contents

Ross Dellenger
Senior College Football Reporter
Fri, Jan 5, 2024, 10:21 AM EST·5 min read

 

HOUSTON — Inside a hotel board room Monday, a few hours before Washington meets Michigan in the national championship game, leaders of the College Football Playoff will gather to rubber-stamp a few important items.

They are expected to formally approve format changes to the expanded playoff in light of the Pac-12's disbanding, moving to what’s termed a “5+7” format that features five automatic qualifying spots for conference champions and seven at-large spots for the next highest-ranked teams (the previous format was a 6+6). And they are also expected to adopt a policy requiring a league to have at least eight members to be eligible to earn an automatic qualifying spot in the playoff.

But there is something else on the docket. It involves a school located just 250 miles from Houston.

SMU, the latest Group of Five program to elevate to the Power Five next year with its jump to the ACC, is at the heart of a CFP money fight.

In the past, schools making the jump from Group of Five to Power Five also saw a leap in their distribution from the College Football Playoff. The difference in annual payout between G5 teams ($1 million) and P5 teams ($6 million) is substantial.

However, after a discussion among CFP commissioners on Nov. 9, SMU did not garner the necessary support for additional revenue distribution. The issue has now been shifted to the commissioners’ corresponding presidents on the CFP Board of Managers, the playoff’s highest governing body made up of a school president from each FBS conference and Notre Dame.

Multiple conference commissioners declined comment on the matter as well as CFP executive director Bill Hancock. In a brief interview with Yahoo Sports, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips expressed disappointment on the issue but declined to elaborate on the details. SMU athletic director Rick Hart declined comment when reached this week.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey pointed toward the CFP’s long-standing rules around modifications to revenue policies.

“You have to have a unanimous vote to alter revenue distribution and diminish somebody else’s revenue,” Sankey said. “That’s it.”

A formal vote is possible Monday among the 11-member CFP Board of Managers following a scheduled gathering of the commissioners. CFP leaders could push the topic to another time or, possibly, reach a compromise by agreeing to grant SMU a portion of the Power Five revenue.

In many ways, this fight over revenue is a precursor to the looming money battle among the 10 FBS conferences after the current CFP contract expires following the 2025 playoff. The CFP’s television contract with ESPN is what binds the leagues together under a previously agreed upon revenue distribution model.

The CFP is in the midst of negotiating a new television deal, and a new revenue distribution model is expected to start in 2026, at which point, presumably, SMU will be granted a full Power Five payout.

For the next two years, however, the school could be out $6 million that officials expected to receive. That includes the $1 million CFP share from the Group of Five as that, too, is at stake.

During negotiations to join the ACC, the school committed to the conference under the impression that it would receive the full CFP funds, according to comments made by SMU officials in August. There was recent precedent of such a guarantee. In 2022, the CFP voted to distribute full Power Five payouts to new Big 12 schools UCF, Cincinnati, Houston and BYU — all of them elevating from G5 to P5.

Making the situation especially painful is the unique arrangement that SMU made with the ACC. Heavily motivated to be in the Power Five and backed by a plethora of mega-boosters, SMU agreed to accept no television revenue from the ACC in its first nine years in the conference. That said, school officials expected to receive non-television ACC payouts that total at least $10-12 million annually — roughly half of which, it thought, would come from the CFP.

Without the CFP, SMU’s first nine years in the ACC may generate annually roughly half of what it earned in distribution while in the American Athletic Conference (about $9 million).

Currently, the CFP distributes $460 million annually. About 80% goes to the Power Five and 20% to the Group of Five.

The Big Ten and SEC, swelling to 18 and 16 members, respectively, with arguably eight of the top-10 most valuable brands in the sport, may urge for the distribution model to further skew toward them as a new “Power 2,” a term widely used to describe college football’s behemoth leagues.

The revenue battle is likely to be a hotly contested showdown and one that could come soon. The CFP, expanding to 12 teams starting next season, is working towards a new, lucrative television deal that may necessitate a modified revenue distribution model as soon as this year.

CFP leaders are expected to get an update on TV negotiations next week. Multiple potential suitors have presented before commissioners, including ESPN, Fox, NBC, Turner and Amazon. ESPN owns the rights for the championship game, semifinals and quarterfinals through the 2025 playoff and gets first right to match in first-round games.

If the CFP does deny SMU’s Power Five funding, the association sets a moratorium on additional revenue for those schools elevating from Group of Five to Power Five — a policy likely to even span into a new CFP contract starting in 2026. The move is yet another sign that college leaders are attempting to restrict Division I’s highest body from further expansion.

That goes for those moving from FCS to FBS. For instance, the Division I Board of Directors increased the FBS entrance from $5,000 to $5 million last year.

 

lol fuck em

[SimkinsMan 4555]

This would be too delicious. It's bullshit, certainly.

 

['stache 22145]

Greg Swaim = Neg.

[closetohumping 17819]

1 hour ago, SimkinsMan said:

This would be too delicious. It's bullshit, certainly.

 

Not only is swaim full of shit I think that’s a fake swaim account 

[Deej 77851]

1 hour ago, SimkinsMan said:

This would be too delicious. It's bullshit, certainly.

 

 

[gatormarc 938]

33 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Not only is swaim full of shit I think that’s a fake swaim account 

Yes about the former, but are you sure about the latter? When I search for him, @gswaim is the account that comes up.

[Deej 77851]

Like the Big 10 wouldn't immediately jettison aggy for the chance of gaining UT.

"You're right, we did say we would only have one Texas school in our conference."

[BigHornedLurker 2178]

2 hours ago, SimkinsMan said:

This would be too delicious. It's bullshit, certainly.

 

If they want to speed run getting Nebraskad more power to them. 

They'd be an outcast from the moment they joined like everywhere else , no natural rivailries.

what could go right? 

[TrashMaster G 18114]

5 hours ago, gatormarc said:

Oops.

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-cfp-may-withhold-added-revenue-from-smu-despite-power-five-move-145230576.html

Sources: CFP may withhold added revenue from SMU despite Power Five move

  Hide contents

Ross Dellenger
Senior College Football Reporter
Fri, Jan 5, 2024, 10:21 AM EST·5 min read

 

HOUSTON — Inside a hotel board room Monday, a few hours before Washington meets Michigan in the national championship game, leaders of the College Football Playoff will gather to rubber-stamp a few important items.

They are expected to formally approve format changes to the expanded playoff in light of the Pac-12's disbanding, moving to what’s termed a “5+7” format that features five automatic qualifying spots for conference champions and seven at-large spots for the next highest-ranked teams (the previous format was a 6+6). And they are also expected to adopt a policy requiring a league to have at least eight members to be eligible to earn an automatic qualifying spot in the playoff.

But there is something else on the docket. It involves a school located just 250 miles from Houston.

SMU, the latest Group of Five program to elevate to the Power Five next year with its jump to the ACC, is at the heart of a CFP money fight.

In the past, schools making the jump from Group of Five to Power Five also saw a leap in their distribution from the College Football Playoff. The difference in annual payout between G5 teams ($1 million) and P5 teams ($6 million) is substantial.

However, after a discussion among CFP commissioners on Nov. 9, SMU did not garner the necessary support for additional revenue distribution. The issue has now been shifted to the commissioners’ corresponding presidents on the CFP Board of Managers, the playoff’s highest governing body made up of a school president from each FBS conference and Notre Dame.

Multiple conference commissioners declined comment on the matter as well as CFP executive director Bill Hancock. In a brief interview with Yahoo Sports, ACC commissioner Jim Phillips expressed disappointment on the issue but declined to elaborate on the details. SMU athletic director Rick Hart declined comment when reached this week.

SEC commissioner Greg Sankey pointed toward the CFP’s long-standing rules around modifications to revenue policies.

“You have to have a unanimous vote to alter revenue distribution and diminish somebody else’s revenue,” Sankey said. “That’s it.”

A formal vote is possible Monday among the 11-member CFP Board of Managers following a scheduled gathering of the commissioners. CFP leaders could push the topic to another time or, possibly, reach a compromise by agreeing to grant SMU a portion of the Power Five revenue.

In many ways, this fight over revenue is a precursor to the looming money battle among the 10 FBS conferences after the current CFP contract expires following the 2025 playoff. The CFP’s television contract with ESPN is what binds the leagues together under a previously agreed upon revenue distribution model.

The CFP is in the midst of negotiating a new television deal, and a new revenue distribution model is expected to start in 2026, at which point, presumably, SMU will be granted a full Power Five payout.

For the next two years, however, the school could be out $6 million that officials expected to receive. That includes the $1 million CFP share from the Group of Five as that, too, is at stake.

During negotiations to join the ACC, the school committed to the conference under the impression that it would receive the full CFP funds, according to comments made by SMU officials in August. There was recent precedent of such a guarantee. In 2022, the CFP voted to distribute full Power Five payouts to new Big 12 schools UCF, Cincinnati, Houston and BYU — all of them elevating from G5 to P5.

Making the situation especially painful is the unique arrangement that SMU made with the ACC. Heavily motivated to be in the Power Five and backed by a plethora of mega-boosters, SMU agreed to accept no television revenue from the ACC in its first nine years in the conference. That said, school officials expected to receive non-television ACC payouts that total at least $10-12 million annually — roughly half of which, it thought, would come from the CFP.

Without the CFP, SMU’s first nine years in the ACC may generate annually roughly half of what it earned in distribution while in the American Athletic Conference (about $9 million).

Currently, the CFP distributes $460 million annually. About 80% goes to the Power Five and 20% to the Group of Five.

The Big Ten and SEC, swelling to 18 and 16 members, respectively, with arguably eight of the top-10 most valuable brands in the sport, may urge for the distribution model to further skew toward them as a new “Power 2,” a term widely used to describe college football’s behemoth leagues.

The revenue battle is likely to be a hotly contested showdown and one that could come soon. The CFP, expanding to 12 teams starting next season, is working towards a new, lucrative television deal that may necessitate a modified revenue distribution model as soon as this year.

CFP leaders are expected to get an update on TV negotiations next week. Multiple potential suitors have presented before commissioners, including ESPN, Fox, NBC, Turner and Amazon. ESPN owns the rights for the championship game, semifinals and quarterfinals through the 2025 playoff and gets first right to match in first-round games.

If the CFP does deny SMU’s Power Five funding, the association sets a moratorium on additional revenue for those schools elevating from Group of Five to Power Five — a policy likely to even span into a new CFP contract starting in 2026. The move is yet another sign that college leaders are attempting to restrict Division I’s highest body from further expansion.

That goes for those moving from FCS to FBS. For instance, the Division I Board of Directors increased the FBS entrance from $5,000 to $5 million last year.

 

That's some bullshit.

[HornsOverIthaca 2339]

Best not antagonize SMU.  You'll end up with five dead hookers in your potting shed, at best.

[notre dame joe 205]

20 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

That's some bullshit.

Yes that would mean the other conferences are conspiring to destroy the ACC.   Because the ACC's only real option would be to leave the CFP.

[bullet 1630]

On 1/5/2024 at 7:21 PM, 'stache said:

Greg Swaim = Neg.

Exception if its done for humor

[thunderlounge 8425]

[bullet 1630]

On 1/5/2024 at 9:36 PM, TrashMaster G said:

That's some bullshit.

Yeah.  I have zero sympathy for SMU, but its a piece of shit move by Sankey (and probably Pettiti).

[ButtFumble 5287]

5 hours ago, bullet said:

Yeah.  I have zero sympathy for SMU, but its a piece of shit move by Sankey (and probably Pettiti).

the ACC was always an ass kisser to the SEC SEC SEC and the Big 10 fucked them on the CCG rules change that helped the Big 12 more than any conference....and the SEC SEC SEC sat back and did not give a shit or say a thing

then the ACC still joined in with the PAC 12 and the Big 10 in "the alliance" and they all laughed about leaving the Big 12 out......then the Big 10 just shitted all over the PAC 12 and tore it apart......all while letting everyone know they wanted ND and UNC at least and probably a couple of others from the ACC too

now the ACC is looking around and the Big 10 would fuck them over in a heartbeat and the SEC SEC SEC is still not doing a damn thing to help them after the decade or more of the ACC being the SEC SEC SEC lapdog on NCAA business

the ACC is clueless what to do or who to turn to in an attempt to get NCAA business votes in their favor and the Big 12 of course is not going to do shit to help them and the PAC 12 is fucking gone

[Gaffords 778]

On 11/28/2023 at 2:00 PM, bullet said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-oregon-state-washington-state-finalizing-scheduling-alliance-with-mountain-west-conference-180632163.html

Pac 2 not going away just yet.  OSU/WSU about to finalize a scheduling alliance with the MWC, paying them $14 million to drop to 7 conference games and schedule one with OSU/WSU.  Because they keep existing ooc games, Washington St. will play 8 MWC games next year while MWC members will only play 7!

Seems like a lot of trouble to go through just to pretend to be in a power conference.  They should have been talking to people instead of suing.  Don't think anyone would begrudge them power CFP money for 2 years.  And at least from public statements, it seems like the dispute with the 10 Pac is current year revenues, which the WSU president previously said HAD to be distributed ratably.

 

Don't bang the ugly chic publicly, then claim you banged a solid 8 ir you're just get butt hurt and cry when everyone tells you a borderline 3 is being way generous...ND banging the ACC is not the same as banging the MAC (on paper at least). 

Everyone pays the MAC to bang them, including ND.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1314]

On 1/5/2024 at 5:33 PM, SimkinsMan said:

This would be too delicious. It's bullshit, certainly.

 

I wish that were real. Talk about a win for the SEC.

[bullet 1630]

https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-sports-at-a-critical-juncture-is-project-di-the-answer-everything-is-on-the-table-161809460.html

P5 commissioners (guess Kliavcoff hasn't been excommunicated yet) meeting with NCAA president Baker.  SEC and Big 10 don't like Baker's proposal.

Good stuff in article.  But this is a big takeaway:

 

"...In no secret, the two commissioners of the behemoths, SEC’s Greg Sankey and Big Ten’s Tony Petitti, have developed a close relationship, communicate regularly and hold the power to steer college football’s future.

Its direction is quite clear. Both Sankey and Petitti have expressed an intent to both accelerate NCAA governance and condense the amount of schools operating under a single umbrella. “How do you take larger groups and make them smaller to drive forward?” Petitti asked in an interview last year with Yahoo Sports...."

 

 

[bullet 1630]

I don't see how the P4/5 stay in a 364 school Division I basketball tourney with the NCAA keeping the bulk of the revenue.  Some sort of breakaway seems inevitable.  But is it a P4/5?, FBS?, or FBS + BE?, or FBS + BE + 3-5 other conferences?  Its not going to be all 31 Division I conferences (not counting Pac 12).  If 10 conferences dropped to Division II, nobody would notice.

[royiv 9801]

18 hours ago, bullet said:

I don't see how the P4/5 stay in a 364 school Division I basketball tourney with the NCAA keeping the bulk of the revenue.  Some sort of breakaway seems inevitable.  But is it a P4/5?, FBS?, or FBS + BE?, or FBS + BE + 3-5 other conferences?  Its not going to be all 31 Division I conferences (not counting Pac 12).  If 10 conferences dropped to Division II, nobody would notice.

That would suuuuuck. One of the best parts of college basketball is the fact that it's a sport that smaller schools can compete and win on a big time stage. Having teams like Gonzaga, Butler, FGCU, Loyola Chicago, etc being in the mix is what makes the NCAA tournament great.

Edited January 25 by royiv

[TKthunder2 5059]

9 hours ago, royiv said:

That would suuuuuck. One of the best parts of college basketball is the fact that it's a sport that smaller schools can compete and win on a big time stage. Having teams like Gonzaga, Butler, FGCU, Loyola Chicago, etc being in the mix is what makes the NCAA tournament great.

The problem is that nobody watches. People talk about loving Cinderella but nobody watches those games until the last minutes if it’s close and despite those upsets being memorable moments, they are NOT profitable. Low ranked schools lead to low viewership. When you had FAU, UConn, and San Diego State in the final four, nobody watched and it was the lowest rated final four in many years.

Having a only P5 teams would increase the total watch time for the early round games and would purposefully exclude the lesser brands from their bigger games that attract bigger audiences.

Writers and casual fans love to romanticize Cinderella, but most real fans want to watch Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Indiana, Ohio St, Florida, LSU, Arizona, Texas, and so on…in the S16/E8/F4 and that is what sells ads which is what drives the market rate for the entire tournament.

It’s not a popular idea, but it’s factual. The P5 schools don’t want to be upset/embarrassed by the Ivy League or MAAC teams, and to rub salt in the wound, most of the times when that happens it tanks the ratings as well which takes even more money out of the pocket of the P5.

While the loss of big brackets and Cinderella will likely hurt in the short terms, but in the long term it would be more profitable.

You can argue that this shouldn’t be about profitability, but then you likely haven’t been paying attention to the last 30 years.

[royiv 9801]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

The problem is that nobody watches. People talk about loving Cinderella but nobody watches those games until the last minutes if it’s close and despite those upsets being memorable moments, they are NOT profitable. Low ranked schools lead to low viewership. When you had FAU, UConn, and San Diego State in the final four, nobody watched and it was the lowest rated final four in many years.

Having a only P5 teams would increase the total watch time for the early round games and would purposefully exclude the lesser brands from their bigger games that attract bigger audiences.

Writers and casual fans love to romanticize Cinderella, but most real fans want to watch Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Indiana, Ohio St, Florida, LSU, Arizona, Texas, and so on…in the S16/E8/F4 and that is what sells ads which is what drives the market rate for the entire tournament.

It’s not a popular idea, but it’s factual. The P5 schools don’t want to be upset/embarrassed by the Ivy League or MAAC teams, and to rub salt in the wound, most of the times when that happens it tanks the ratings as well which takes even more money out of the pocket of the P5.

While the loss of big brackets and Cinderella will likely hurt in the short terms, but in the long term it would be more profitable.

You can argue that this shouldn’t be about profitability, but then you likely haven’t been paying attention to the last 30 years.

This particular discussion should move to the basketball board, but  curious here. Is your thesis that only including P5 (no longer exists) or P4/3/2 teams in a 68 team tournament will increase ratings?

[TKthunder2 5059]

6 hours ago, royiv said:

This particular discussion should move to the basketball board, but  curious here. Is your thesis that only including P5 (no longer exists) or P4/3/2 teams in a 68 team tournament will increase ratings?

Point me to the thread, happy to join in the talk but I think in the basketball tournament is applicable in the realignment thread, we commonly talk about the Big 12 adding Gonzaga in here…

Again, to reiterate, I love the current tournament setup, but the data shows it’s not as profitable as a P4/5 only tournaments see recent changes to NIT and the new FOX tournament (https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Articles/2023/09/11/college-basketball-las-vegas-fox-postseason-tournament-replacing-nit.aspx)

IIRC only about 1/3rd of the tournament revenue goes to the men’s DI basketball programs, much more of it goes to pay for non revenue sports and championships for DII and DIII.

If you exclude all except the P4, G5, Big East (or whatever combo they decide) and remove it from under the NCAA, while the overall tournament may be less profitable, the shares of profit going to the schools would increase since they would keep more of the money (100% of $500mil > 30% of $1bil). Again, I’m not advocating for this change, but logically see this as the next step. Once major fb realignment is settled and the CFP has been renegotiated, I can easily imagine the SEC/B1G/B12/ACC looking deciding a bigger split should be in the works.

The NCAA itself has already laid out a plan for larger schools to pay players and breakaway from the fringe DI schools that are barely funding their athletic departments.

I think the P4 schools see the tournament as a money maker and great advertising that they can run. An easy miscount solution is breakaway from the NCAA and run it themselves and allow any conference that wants to participate with them to do so with an entry fee of (making up a number here) $20 million a year. Each round of participation gets the conference a return of $8 million. Meaning you either need 3 bids to the tournament to not lose money without winning a game, or a single bid and 2 wins. Something like that would make some of the fringe one bid league drop out and allow more participation from P4 teams on the bubble.

[Al_4_ISU 12640]

11 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

The problem is that nobody watches. People talk about loving Cinderella but nobody watches those games until the last minutes if it’s close and despite those upsets being memorable moments, they are NOT profitable. Low ranked schools lead to low viewership. When you had FAU, UConn, and San Diego State in the final four, nobody watched and it was the lowest rated final four in many years.

Having a only P5 teams would increase the total watch time for the early round games and would purposefully exclude the lesser brands from their bigger games that attract bigger audiences.

Writers and casual fans love to romanticize Cinderella, but most real fans want to watch Kansas, Kentucky, UNC, Duke, UCLA, Indiana, Ohio St, Florida, LSU, Arizona, Texas, and so on…in the S16/E8/F4 and that is what sells ads which is what drives the market rate for the entire tournament.

It’s not a popular idea, but it’s factual. The P5 schools don’t want to be upset/embarrassed by the Ivy League or MAAC teams, and to rub salt in the wound, most of the times when that happens it tanks the ratings as well which takes even more money out of the pocket of the P5.

While the loss of big brackets and Cinderella will likely hurt in the short terms, but in the long term it would be more profitable.

You can argue that this shouldn’t be about profitability, but then you likely haven’t been paying attention to the last 30 years.

Those ratings are shit when they're the Final 4.  When you have a St Peter's vs Purdue in the Sweet 16 I feel like people are fucking glued to it.

I don't see any world where removing the Cinderellas makes the tournament more compelling and profitable.

The ideal tournament ratings wise would be a situation where you have some major upsets, but the bulk of the Final Four are name programs.

Edited January 26 by Al_4_ISU

[Underdog 29199]

Don’t follow ratings but do wonder if they’d move the title game up from 9:15 to 7:15 or even 8pm?  The UW/UM title game started at 7:30 est, there’s no reason why the basketball game can’t do the same. 

[ChickenSandwich 9960]

The employee model for college football seems most likely to me. No way schools could deal with title 9 if paid football players remain “students”. 
 

They need collective bargaining and revenue sharing between the B2+3 to create their best product for sale. 
 

*Do feel this will decimate  non revenue sports, but many will return in club form. 
 

Pro sports will need to chip in for their feeder schools to survive. 

Edited January 26 by ChickenSandwich

[TKthunder2 5059]

53 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Those ratings are shit when they're the Final 4.  When you have a St Peter's vs Purdue in the Sweet 16 I feel like people are fucking glued to it.

I don't see any world where removing the Cinderellas makes the tournament more compelling and profitable.

The ideal tournament ratings wise would be a situation where you have some major upsets, but the bulk of the Final Four are name programs.

Cinderella can get some attention when they make a deep run from casual fans but the opening round of 64 and round of 32 games are trash for broadcasters/advertisers outside of the final minutes if it’s close. Even the slightly elevated ratings that Cinderella gets when on a great run, doesn’t offset the potential revenue loss for all the rest of the blow out games. There is a reason the 8/9 games are on CBS while the 16/1 games are on Tru TV. I’m going to go try and find the article about this where I saw the analysis but I’m having no luck at the moment in between work calls.

[Al_4_ISU 12640]

7 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Cinderella can get some attention when they make a deep run from casual fans but the opening round of 64 and round of 32 games are trash for broadcasters/advertisers outside of the final minutes if it’s close. Even the slightly elevated ratings that Cinderella gets when on a great run, doesn’t offset the potential revenue loss for all the rest of the blow out games. There is a reason the 8/9 games are on CBS while the 16/1 games are on Tru TV. I’m going to go try and find the article about this where I saw the analysis but I’m having no luck at the moment in between work calls.

That's because of the volume of games in the first couple rounds.  I never lock on to ANY first round game other than ISU, or if it's the only one going at the moment or if there's an upset brewing.  There are just too many games going on at any one time.

If the 16/1 games were just shitty high major teams against the elite ones, I'd bet ratings would be even worse.

Edited January 26 by Al_4_ISU

[bullet 1630]

On 1/26/2024 at 11:17 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

That's because of the volume of games in the first couple rounds.  I never lock on to ANY first round game other than ISU, or if it's the only one going at the moment or if there's an upset brewing.  There are just too many games going on at any one time.

If the 16/1 games were just shitty high major teams against the elite ones, I'd bet ratings would be even worse.

No, more people would probably watch.  I don't watch 16/1, 15/2 games.  Most often they are ugly, even in the rare occasions when its close.

Cinderellas are relative.  NCSU was a Cinderella in 1983.  10 conferences could disappear from Division I and nobody would notice.  Probably 15.  The tourney was a big deal when there were 250 Division I teams instead of 364 and it was a 48 team tourney.

Now if you were to take gambling out, then that hurts viewership!  64 does make for nice brackets.

 

[General Specific 3508]

Don’t worry folks, the PE firm got this!
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39394344/future-ncaa-college-athletics-money-private-equity

[tbone_ 14455]

Yea PE won’t fuck it up at all. Not that it’s not already fucked up.

[Guest]

The NCAA...

[bullet 1630]

https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-seminoles/news/fsu-takes-aim-at-former-acc-commissioner-john-swofford-in-amended-complaint/

FSU amends their lawsuit.

"In a 59-page amended complaint for declaratory judgment — 21 pages longer than the original complaint Florida State filed in December — the university took sharp aim at former ACC Commissioner John Swofford for a number of allegedly self-serving actions it says cost member schools millions upon millions of dollars. FSU’s attorneys also rebutted several claims from, and questioned the legality of, the ACC’s complaint...."

[bullet 1630]

The meat of the FSU argument seems to be on pages 25-31 of their 59 page document linked in the article.

[bullet 1630]

Swaim's tweet, for all we made fun of what he posted, did start the endless Shaggy realignment thread, so it is with sadness to share this tweet.  He is going into Hospice.

 

[BurntOrange&White 41930]

7 hours ago, bullet said:

Swaim's tweet, for all we made fun of what he posted, did start the endless Shaggy realignment thread, so it is with sadness to share this tweet.  He is going into Hospice.

 

Are we sure he's even a real guy? Maybe he's just tired of keeping up the schtick and wants to kill off his character?

['stache 22145]

Don’t tease me.