Realignment talk not going away

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

25 minutes ago, hook me said:

So your understanding is that games like UT vs. Bama, which have legitimate playoff ramifications at the moment, are MORE likely to be played when they don't mean anything other than potential for injury? That sounds exactly backwards to me. They would be treated like NFL preseason games with starters playing limited reps in preparation for the "real" season that has actual ramifications. I'm also not sure what joy fans from schools like SMU, Vandy, Purdue, etc. would take from a season that has little to no chance of being meaningful other than potentially upsetting the big dog in their division on their way to a perennial 4-10 season. I know we make fun of all the stupid bowls around here, but I'm assuming fan bases for schools like yours & KU are actually pretty happy when they go 6-6 or 7-5 or even 8-4 and make one of those bowls more years than not. What incentive does Northwestern ever have for investing in their football program if there's little to no chance of ever making the playoffs with UM & OSU in their division, no bowl game to celebrate on the few years they're not complete dogshit, & no chance of being left out because they suck?

If it's a GAIN for ALMOST every school in the country, what schools is it NOT a gain for? I'm going to guess it's BEST for all the lower & mid-level schools that see the writing on the wall & will soon be begging to be inside the bunker when the door gets closed & the nuke goes off. This is in no way a gain for the schools that are already fed up with having to support their little brothers & cousins because they happen to be in close proximity to them geographically speaking & shared a conference 40 years ago.

This is exactly where those schools are now.  They have no chance at being competitive going forward.  All they have is being able to brag about being in the Big 10 or SEC.  They will live vicariously off the wins of the blue bloods and act like they contributed something.  It's a super Aggy existence.  In this new model, they'd actually have a chance to win the division in a good year and get to the playoffs, because the blue bloods have been spread around and a blue blood can slip up from time to time.

But they are also the EXACT schools who stand to lose financially in this arrangement.  Right now they get paid for their association with the blue bloods.  That wouldn't happen here.  The blue bloods would make more money than they do currently, because they aren't sharing equally with schools that generate so much less.  The schools in the Big 12 and ACC probably go sideways financially, but we get rid of these stupid fucking nationwide conferences and have road games you can mostly drive to against schools who's fans you interact with daily.  The G5 probably aren't making much more money either.  But they have guaranteed access, which is the most important thing to them.  They at least have an objective path towards having a shot.

I get it.  You like being able to say "get the fuck out of my treehouse".  This definitely eliminates that aspect of college sports, and truthfully, that's probably the biggest hang up.  No one really acknowledges it, but that's a huge motivator for a lot of the people making these decisions.  But if this was structured properly you could achieve giving the blue bloods the money they crave (and truthfully generate), you can give the middle programs sensible geography for their scheduling, and you can give the lower programs access.

[gatormarc 937]

19 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/college-football-super-league-pitch-deck-1234775652/amp/
 

This is just stupid. I have no interest in joining the ACC.

[thunderlounge 8415]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

Although, I do understand why the M2 teams want revenue sharing with the P2 and salary caps. 

Of course, it’s easy to see. They can’t make money themselves, and need to tag along with those who can and do.

Those outside wondering why other bottom feeders could potentially stay, who knows? Maybe it isn’t just a conference merger. Maybe teams leave their conference and join the new league. At that point, absolutely pick off the really bad b1g/sec teams and pick up some better names/numbers. Either way, the big dogs still need some bottom feeders to pad their records. All to satisfy the plebs with more wins at the top.  “Better” records, better ratings,  etc. 

['stache 22145]

2 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

From the link above RE: Super League:

NIL

The deck proposes a national broadcast NIL (BNIL) construct whereby players receive pro rata shares of a collectively bargained “FB Player Pool,” which would come from the Super League’s TV money. That money would be distributed as follows: 5% to all rostered freshmen, 15% to all rostered sophomores, 30% for all rostered juniors and 50% for all rostered seniors and graduate students. 

As another means of maintaining competitive equity, the pitch deck proposes a cap that would constrain how much a program’s athletes could cumulatively earn via NIL. The suggested “NIL Roster Cap” would mandate that individual NIL payments for football players at a single school not exceed those earned via group licensing and broadcast NIL (BNIL) deals.

If a school exceeds the cap for a season, then it would be punished by losing transfer slots, and possibly scholarship slots. If, on the other hand, a school were to fall below 80% of a pre-established “NIL Roster Floor” for two consecutive seasons, it would be relegated to the Under League until it could sustain a full season above the floor.

=====

So lemme get this straight...after YEARS of Texas competing with one arm tied behind our back watching Bama, Auburn, and the rest of the SEC and other big programs drop bags and pay players under the table, we are now supposed to accept a "NIL cap" just when we're ramping up what should be our biggest (now fully legal) advantage?  I don't think so...besides this will just re-introduce the illegal bag game and circumvent the rules again so the cheaters prosper.  No thanks, status quo is actually in our favor for once.

 

2 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Disregarding that, there is no way that putting a cap on someone's ability to earn money off of their own name, image and likeness would stand up in court. The NCAA already tried this and the Supreme Court took a giant shit on them.

The model makes sense solely on how to share TV revenues, essentially a collective bargaining agreement. But if State Farm wants to pay Caitlin Clark $1 million to be in a commercial with Peyton Manning while she's still in college, there is no real legal basis to cut that off (same for anyone else). Of course it will result in abuses like Big Red Sports and Imports paying OU's next overhyped QB $1 million to record a 10 second radio ad solely because the owner wants the team to have the best players. On some level though, it's still a fair market deal (i.e., a 10 second commercial recording is worth what someone is willing to pay for whatever reason). 

[statsman 5693]

Yeah, this super league divisions plan is loved by the M2 schools, because they want things to be like they used to be- no pay for players and barriers to player movement. Any team could be as good as its coaching hire. They got to be on TV, playing name programs. 
 
They don’t like how things are. They want them to be like they used to be. It’s reminiscent of the Texas legislature hearings, when the reps from Waco, Lubbock, Fort Worth and Houston pitched hissy fits. “Somebody make Texas do what we want!”

[John80 160]

1. Switch Florida and Georgia Tech.

2. Virgina and North Carolina have the South's oldest rivalry so they have to be in the same conference.

3. The Big Ten snobs will have a fainting spell if they're in the same conference as Louisville.

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

I don't give a fuck about playing name schools.  There really aren't any in the division proposed for ISU.  But it's loaded with local teams.  Teams my school has history with.  Teams whose fans I interact with.  I don't give a shit if Ohio State and Texas have unlimited NIL.  I don't care if they get a better TV slot.

I want two things:  opponents that makes sense, and a theoretical shot to play for a championship.  That's it, and this gives us that.

[ChickenSandwich 9959]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The NFL didn't force those moves, the owners did.

I don't think the NFL is a good model for CFB, but blowing up the conferences as we know them, making geographic playing arrangements, and distributing revenue on an earned basis is a far more logical path than the one we're on.

What you have in CFB right now is the potential of the actual haves bringing a bunch of subsidized schools with them into another division.  If you're going to do that, it might as well be more inclusive in terms of who actually gets to compete, and end the subsidization.  I think in a Super League with merit based revenue, you'd see the Texases of the world make more, and the Purdues make less.  And that makes complete sense.

The Texas conference would absolutely lead to lower attendance, excitement etc. 

This isn’t the 70s, regional ties are meaningless as is travel for football. 
 

SMH at the mids trying to bring back the SWC 

 

It’s dead Jim, prime names bring prime matchups and exponentially more viewers. 

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

6 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

The Texas conference would absolutely lead to lower attendance, excitement etc. 

This isn’t the 70s, regional ties are meaningless as is travel for football. 
 

SMH at the mids trying to bring back the SWC 

 

It’s dead Jim, prime names bring prime matchups and exponentially more viewers. 

To be fair, I think you guys and maybe USC and OU are the only fanbases that don’t want to play regional schools.

And the TV execs.  Can’t forget them.

Edited April 18 by Al_4_ISU

[hook me 2163]

25 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

This is exactly where those schools are now.  They have no chance at being competitive going forward.  All they have is being able to brag about being in the Big 10 or SEC.  They will live vicariously off the wins of the blue bloods and act like they contributed something.  It's a super Aggy existence.  In this new model, they'd actually have a chance to win the division in a good year and get to the playoffs, because the blue bloods have been spread around and a blue blood can slip up from time to time.

But they are also the EXACT schools who stand to lose financially in this arrangement.  Right now they get paid for their association with the blue bloods.  That wouldn't happen here.  The blue bloods would make more money than they do currently, because they aren't sharing equally with schools that generate so much less.  The schools in the Big 12 and ACC probably go sideways financially, but we get rid of these stupid fucking nationwide conferences and have road games you can mostly drive to against schools who's fans you interact with daily.  The G5 probably aren't making much more money either.  But they have guaranteed access, which is the most important thing to them.  They at least have an objective path towards having a shot.

I get it.  You like being able to say "get the fuck out of my treehouse".  This definitely eliminates that aspect of college sports, and truthfully, that's probably the biggest hang up.  No one really acknowledges it, but that's a huge motivator for a lot of the people making these decisions.  But if this was structured properly you could achieve giving the blue bloods the money they crave (and truthfully generate), you can give the middle programs sensible geography for their scheduling, and you can give the lower programs access.

I don't know that I ENJOY it, what I enjoy is meaningful college football &, take all the offense you'd like, most of the teams on that list aren't meaningful to UT nor its fans on the football field. Having to play UH, BU, SMU, & TTU every year would be a gigantic step backwards for us. No one in the plains division comes even close to being relevant, the Northeast is a bore, the pacific is semi-interesting along with the southeast, & the South along with the Texas divisions are compelling. Even then, the Texas division is only compelling because I'm a UT fan. If I were a USC fan the Texas division looks exactly like the midwest with UT/OU being OSU/UM. I don't personally care about the money, when I say "support" I'm not typically talking money coming to UT. UT has plenty of money & always will. What I want is to get away from the programs that extend their coaches simply because they beat UT on a down year & play more schools that have more banners hanging than "we beat _____ in 20xx".

16 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I don't give a fuck about playing name schools.  There really aren't any in the division proposed for ISU.  But it's loaded with local teams.  Teams my school has history with.  Teams whose fans I interact with.  I don't give a shit if Ohio State and Texas have unlimited NIL.  I don't care if they get a better TV slot.

I want two things:  opponents that makes sense, and a theoretical shot to play for a championship.  That's it, and this gives us that.

You don't give a fuck about it because you're not one of them. If you don't care about UT & OSU then you should feel very good about the direction that things are headed. Y'all can get together with KSU & all the others, make your own division with conferences of teams within driving distance, interact & mingle with all of their fanbases, watch the away games on ESPN 8, & play for your own championship. Everyone would be much happier that way.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18963]

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

To be fair, I think you guys and maybe USC and OU are the only fanbases that don’t want to play regional schools.

Riiiight. I'm sure Washington fans would rather play Oregon State than Michigan or Ohio State. I'm sure Rutgers fans (if there are any) are pining for the days when they played UCONN and Temple instead of Penn State and Wisconsin.

And hello? A&M is a regional school. Oklahoma is a regional school. Arkansas is a regional school. We are all for playing those regional schools. There's just little upside to playing Baylor, TCU, Cougar High, etc. 

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

24 minutes ago, hook me said:

I don't know that I ENJOY it, what I enjoy is meaningful college football &, take all the offense you'd like, most of the teams on that list aren't meaningful to UT nor its fans on the football field. Having to play UH, BU, SMU, & TTU every year would be a gigantic step backwards for us. No one in the plains division comes even close to being relevant, the Northeast is a bore, the pacific is semi-interesting along with the southeast, & the South along with the Texas divisions are compelling. Even then, the Texas division is only compelling because I'm a UT fan. If I were a USC fan the Texas division looks exactly like the midwest with UT/OU being OSU/UM. I don't personally care about the money, when I say "support" I'm not typically talking money coming to UT. UT has plenty of money & always will. What I want is to get away from the programs that extend their coaches simply because they beat UT on a down year & play more schools that have more banners hanging than "we beat _____ in 20xx".

You don't give a fuck about it because you're not one of them. If you don't care about UT & OSU then you should feel very good about the direction that things are headed. Y'all can get together with KSU & all the others, make your own division with conferences of teams within driving distance, interact & mingle with all of their fanbases, watch the away games on ESPN 8, & play for your own championship. Everyone would be much happier that way.

Kick Mizzou, Iowa, and Nebraska out of the tree fort and that sounds awesome.

That Plains pod is very close to my ideal schedule.

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

20 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Riiiight. I'm sure Washington fans would rather play Oregon State than Michigan or Ohio State. I'm sure Rutgers fans (if there are any) are pining for the days when they played UCONN and Temple instead of Penn State and Wisconsin.

And hello? A&M is a regional school. Oklahoma is a regional school. Arkansas is a regional school. We are all for playing those regional schools. There's just little upside to playing Baylor, TCU, Cougar High, etc. 

I think Oregon and Rutgers FANS kinda would prefer that, but they know it’s untenable in the current environment.

Edited April 18 by Al_4_ISU

[hook me 2163]

9 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Kick Mizzou, Iowa, and Nebraska out of the tree fort and that sounds awesome.

That Plains pod is very close to my ideal schedule.

I'd gladly give you those 3 in exchange for absolutely nothing. OU fans may have a different opinion on NU & Mizzou, I don't think anyone cares about Iowa other than ISU.

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

Just now, hook me said:

I'd gladly give you those 3 in exchange for absolutely nothing. OU fans may have a different opinion on NU & Mizzou, I don't think anyone cares about Iowa other than ISU.

You're correct.  Minnesota sort of does, but they belong on our level too.

There's a certain poster that I won't @ that will definitely bitch about my saying this for the millionth time, but if continued consolidation is the way this is going, I'd much prefer that the top 16-18 brands break away in their own association/conference/whatever you want to call it.  Kick 2/3rds of the Big 10 and the bottom half of the SEC to play in a division with current Big 12 and ACC schools.

I think a lot of people would eventually be happy with that.  The blue bloods get their buffet of marquee meaningful games and massive paychecks.  The rest of us get regional college football mostly the way we fell in love with it, and a chance to play for a championship.  The appetite for live sports will keep that division in a good TV spot and well paid (good enough anyways).  The schools left behind from the current Big 10 and SEC might be upset for minute, but they'd likely be the most competitive in their divisions in this set up.  

I think that would be interesting and fun.  No one outside of the top 16 brands is ever winning a natty anyhow.

The thing that chaps my ass, personally, is having these nearby schools like Minnesota, Mizzou, Iowa, etc that are riding the gravy train, contributing little, and meanwhile we're always getting threatened with something and playing games all over the fucking country.  I have 0 resentment for schools that command big bucks and big eyeballs wanting to play games against other similar schools.  I strongly resent having to listen to Iowa fans brag about a conference they add dick to.

[TKthunder2 5059]

23 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'd much prefer that the top 16-18 brands break away in their own association/conference/whatever you want to call it.  Kick 2/3rds of the Big 10 and the bottom half of the SEC to play in a division with current Big 12 and ACC schools.

16-18 is too small. You could cut schools like Vandy and Northwestern sure, but those schools serve a purpose of providing wins and great travel destinations to population centers in the middle of the conference. You could still cut a school like Mississippi State or Purdue who doesn’t check many boxes but there is not a lot of fat in the SEC/B1G that the presidents want to unanimously reject as it sets a bad president for those historically less successful teams.

I think 40-48 schools is as close as you’ll get to your “big brands breakaway league”. The SEC/B1G it sits at 34 so an easy jump to 40 would be ND, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA and then a wildcard school like Miami or Stanford. If they go to 48 you’d likely see some others from the B12/ACC as well, but I doubt it gets that big without a true league forming which could collectively agree that they need representation in the Four Corner states for viewership and political cover.

[TrashMaster G 18103]

5 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

It would have to be collectively bargained between the schools and the players.

Meaning the players would have to unionize first 

[ChickenSandwich 9959]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

To be fair, I think you guys and maybe USC and OU are the only fanbases that don’t want to play regional schools.

And the TV execs.  Can’t forget them.

This is NOT a regional schedule. This is 7 schools from one state. 

[CustersDoctor 585]

The 4th column is a schools % of 8,470,000,000 annual CFB regular season viewership. 5th column is the aggregate total. So as oft been said, the top 18 teams have 52% of the viewers. The top 52 schools have 90% of the viewers. Dumping the bottom 18, at worst, costs you 10% of the viewers. But you'd increase overall views by not having those terrible performers in the mix.

[TKthunder2 5059]

2 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

The 4th column is a schools % of 8,470,000,000 annual CFB regular season viewership. 5th column is the aggregate total. So as oft been said, the top 18 teams have 52% of the viewers. The top 52 schools have 90% of the viewers. Dumping the bottom 18, at worst, costs you 10% of the viewers. But you'd increase overall views by not having those terrible performers in the mix.

What year(s) is the data from?

I’ll be curious to see this data in 3 years and compare the 2021-23 data with the 2024-26 data especially for the B12.

I imagine you’ll see an decrease in schools like Oklahoma State, TCU, and WVU as the Texas/OU bump they’ve historically been able to pad their ratings with an extra 20 million viewers a year (and that’s a conservative estimate) will be no more a most of them will fall below the 100 million mark.

That bump could also be transferred to Arkansas, Mississippi State, and South Carolina since they’ll get on ABC/ESPN more often. Maybe they can capitalize on Colorado/Prime having another season of wild expectations and crazy ratings (and without early games against USC/Oregon) but absent that and without an annual blueblood matchups I’m assuming we’re seeing the peak for the Big 12 schools here.

[TxEx84 439]

And curious how those numbers are determined.  LHN is not rated. So does Texas get a zero viewership for two out of twelve games?

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

14 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

16-18 is too small. You could cut schools like Vandy and Northwestern sure, but those schools serve a purpose of providing wins and great travel destinations to population centers in the middle of the conference. You could still cut a school like Mississippi State or Purdue who doesn’t check many boxes but there is not a lot of fat in the SEC/B1G that the presidents want to unanimously reject as it sets a bad president for those historically less successful teams.

I think 40-48 schools is as close as you’ll get to your “big brands breakaway league”. The SEC/B1G it sits at 34 so an easy jump to 40 would be ND, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA and then a wildcard school like Miami or Stanford. If they go to 48 you’d likely see some others from the B12/ACC as well, but I doubt it gets that big without a true league forming which could collectively agree that they need representation in the Four Corner states for viewership and political cover.

Why?  We've been told over and over how the haves shouldn't be subsidizing lesser programs, and how boring those games are.  This eliminates all of that.  Every member would be a major financial contributor, and every division/conference game is against a helmet school.  Need to have some breathers?  Do it in the non-conference.

It almost seems like you're just trying to advocate for the shittiest possible version of college football as it would relate to my interests, as ISU would either be one of the first schools out or one of the last in, and frankly both of those outcomes would be worse than what we have today (for me).  I doubt that's your intent, but 40-48 schools going their own way would suck.

[CustersDoctor 585]

9 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

What year(s) is the data from?

I’ll be curious to see this data in 3 years and compare the 2021-23 data with the 2024-26 data especially for the B12.

I imagine you’ll see an decrease in schools like Oklahoma State, TCU, and WVU as the Texas/OU bump they’ve historically been able to pad their ratings with an extra 20 million viewers a year (and that’s a conservative estimate) will be no more a most of them will fall below the 100 million mark.

That bump could also be transferred to Arkansas, Mississippi State, and South Carolina since they’ll get on ABC/ESPN more often. Maybe they can capitalize on Colorado/Prime having another season of wild expectations and crazy ratings (and without early games against USC/Oregon) but absent that and without an annual blueblood matchups I’m assuming we’re seeing the peak for the Big 12 schools here.

1. 2016-2023.

2. Streaming isn't included.

3. TCU's 2022 season ratings were very very good and that one good season bumped them a lot.

4. The left behind have been playing OUT and benefiting from those schools being in the TEN most watched schools. Their ratings will reflect that soon.

5. UCF, UH & CINCY's ratings aren't that good. BBut from 2016-2022 they are playing mostly mid-majors. So one can expect their rating to improve as they play teams that have better audiences.

6. It's hard to believe that these schools are out of the top 50. When they had multiple games against top performers each and every season. MISSOURI, Ariz St, Cal, Kansas, Virginia, Or St, UA & Illinois. 

[TKthunder2 5059]

4 hours ago, TxEx84 said:

And curious how those numbers are determined.  LHN is not rated. So does Texas get a zero viewership for two out of twelve games?

Yes the only tier 3 network that is rated is the Big Ten and now I believe Peacock. The SECN, LHN, PACN, ACCN, and ESPN+ which includes SoonerVision and Big12Now are not rated and do not have totals in the aggregate number.

[TKthunder2 5059]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Why?  We've been told over and over how the haves shouldn't be subsidizing lesser programs, and how boring those games are.  This eliminates all of that.  Every member would be a major financial contributor, and every division/conference game is against a helmet school.  Need to have some breathers?  Do it in the non-conference.

It almost seems like you're just trying to advocate for the shittiest possible version of college football as it would relate to my interests, as ISU would either be one of the first schools out or one of the last in, and frankly both of those outcomes would be worse than what we have today (for me).  I doubt that's your intent, but 40-48 schools going their own way would suck.

I have nothing against Iowa St. but I also don’t view everything through a lens where I’m taking their program into account when thinking about this topic. I’m an alumnus of a school that doesn’t have to worry about being left out so the considerations are different.

To answer your question, a league of 16 would be ridiculous. Yes Texas/OU wanted more big time football programs on their schedule but that does not mean we want ALL of them. It’s all about moderation. If Texas played a conference schedule of LSU, Bama, Tenn, OU, UGA, UF, Aub, FSU, Clemson, aggy it would be lead to a bad product and performance would decline. If every game is a Super Bowl, then no game is. A 9 game 3-6-6 schedule is just about perfect in the SEC. We’d play OU/Arkansas/aggy each year plus some combo of LSU/Bama/Aub or UF/UGA/TN which means our fans would would Immediately care about 2/3rds of the schedule versus 1/3 in the Big 12.

I don’t think we’re as concerned about subsidizing those few schools. Sure, it could be better, I’d trade Miss State for UNC in a heartbeat but overall the SEC still very high quality pound for pound. We play Mississippi State this year before back to back games with OU and Georgia followed by Vandy, then Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky, and aggy. Those teams serve a purpose.

Also you need some coverage across the other states to keep viewership interest and also for political coverage. One big reason I think the Big 12 will hang around is that it provides that coverage for a good chunk of these schools (WV, CO, UT, AZ, KS) without requiring the Big Ten/SEC to pay/play these schools directly.

If the ACC breaks up and the Big 12 adds its tier 2/3 schools like Pitt, Louisville, NCSU, and Virginia Tech that could be a great solution for go from a P4 to a P3 and drops another 6 or so schools from the P3 club in the process increasing postseason revenue for those who remain.

Other than trying to keep up financially, the biggest issue standing in the way of the Big 12 now is the postseason. If the SEC decided to run their own 4 team conference tournament and go back to the old bowl system pairing their tournament winner against the Big Ten’s 4 team tournament winner then I don’t really see a way for them to break into that. Which is why it’s in the Big 12 and Notre Dame’s interest to keep the SEC/B1G in the CFP despite all else.

[ouflak 60]

On 4/18/2024 at 7:02 PM, Texas Wahoo said:

It would have to be collectively bargained between the schools and the players.

The Supreme Court has recently ruled that no one at a public institution can be forced to abide by a union contract if they aren't a member of a union. It's already long since been the law that any American has the right to work or attend a public institution without any regards to union membership (in or out). So if none of the 5-star/4-star/proven-veteran-3-star players join a union, as that would certainly curtail their ability to maximize their earning potential, then what? What can the schools do? What could this 'super' league do about it?

Edited April 20 by ouflak

[bullet 1630]

On 4/18/2024 at 6:42 PM, TKthunder2 said:

16-18 is too small. You could cut schools like Vandy and Northwestern sure, but those schools serve a purpose of providing wins and great travel destinations to population centers in the middle of the conference. You could still cut a school like Mississippi State or Purdue who doesn’t check many boxes but there is not a lot of fat in the SEC/B1G that the presidents want to unanimously reject as it sets a bad president for those historically less successful teams.

I think 40-48 schools is as close as you’ll get to your “big brands breakaway league”. The SEC/B1G it sits at 34 so an easy jump to 40 would be ND, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA and then a wildcard school like Miami or Stanford. If they go to 48 you’d likely see some others from the B12/ACC as well, but I doubt it gets that big without a true league forming which could collectively agree that they need representation in the Four Corner states for viewership and political cover.

16-18 is Prestige Worldwide.  The rest will still be around for ooc wins.

[bullet 1630]

https://sports.yahoo.com/how-the-new-college-football-playoff-format-came-to-be-and-what-it-means-for-the-sports-future-165149801.html

 

Good article on why Sankey became Cranky and became the Grinch that stole CFP $$s for the G5 and M2.  And what comes next???!

 

"...During a meeting of CFP commissioners in November, well before the revenue negotiations began, a discussion point emerged about the CFP’s future.

“There was a belief that all of us had to stay together as is,” Sankey recalled. “I never viewed it that way.”

Sankey’s honest and stunning admission may indicate the future course of the SEC and perhaps the Big Ten too. It casts doubt on the glue that binds the nine leagues together.

Schwarz believes the future is not necessarily two 20-team conferences that create a separate entity, as so many predict. Instead, he sees two 24-team conferences plus a third, possibly three 20-team leagues. “They’d all love to rip one of the four apart and make it a Big Three,” he said.

Said one high-placed college athletics insider: “Five power leagues could not survive. Neither can four....""

[bullet 1630]

I just don't see how going beyond 20 makes sense for the SEC or Big 10 at current contract rates.  Only ND, FSU, Clemson and maybe Miami bring in high enough ratings to justify expansion financially.   And it makes no sense to go to 24 for any reason other than financial.  But clearly people are talking about it.  4X18 or 2X20, 2X16 just makes more sense than 3X24.

[BurntOrange&White 41889]

2 minutes ago, bullet said:

I just don't see how going beyond 20 makes sense for the SEC or Big 10 at current contract rates.  Only ND, FSU, Clemson and maybe Miami bring in high enough ratings to justify expansion financially.   And it makes no sense to go to 24 for any reason other than financial.  But clearly people are talking about it.  4X18 or 2X20, 2X16 just makes more sense than 3X24.

Because it wouldn’t be for just football they’d bring basketball and baseball too. 

[TKthunder2 5059]

13 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Because it wouldn’t be for just football they’d bring basketball and baseball too. 

Bingo.

If we assume it’s the Big Ten, SEC, and Big12 in a 3x24 setup with the ACC falling apart you’d have 22 spots in total maximum. That would be enough to take the new ACC+ND+PAC2+2 more like UConn/Memphis.

That clearly won’t happen because it’s just diluting the product. I don’t see the SEC going past 20 and I doubt the Big Ten does either though they are more likely open to it than the SEC.

My feeling is that we’ll see the Big Ten hold until they can get ND and then maybe Stanford, while the SEC will take FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA when the opportunity arises.

Then the Big 12 will take the top remaining 8 from the ACC. Miami, VT, NCSU, Pitt, Louisville, and Duke are sure things. The final 2 could be Syracuse and GT but I could see passing on GT (markets not as big of a deal anymore) and letting Yormark make a signature move on UConn (they did just win another).

That lineup would be pretty salty with Miami, Oklahoma St, TCU, Utah, VT, K State and Pitt headlining the football side Duke, Kansas, UConn, Louisville, Baylor, Syracuse, and Houston headlining the basketball side, both with plenty of depth in between with teams like NCSU, West Virginia, Iowa St, BYU, Cincy, TX Tech, and Colorado.

[statsman 5693]

Quote

but I could see passing on GT (markets not as big of a deal anymore

Markets may not be as big of a deal anymore, but to the Big XII schools, recruiting territories are. Most of the schools in the Big XII lack them. In the last 25 years, the number of NFL players originating in Georgia has mushroomed, and there are only two P4 schools in the state. 
 
GT has won a MNC as recently as the last B12 school to do so. They are like Stanford- they are mid because they don’t emphasize being better, and not because they can’t be better. 

[Hurtlocker 2219]

9 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Bingo.

If we assume it’s the Big Ten, SEC, and Big12 in a 3x24 setup with the ACC falling apart you’d have 22 spots in total maximum. That would be enough to take the new ACC+ND+PAC2+2 more like UConn/Memphis.

That clearly won’t happen because it’s just diluting the product. I don’t see the SEC going past 20 and I doubt the Big Ten does either though they are more likely open to it than the SEC.

My feeling is that we’ll see the Big Ten hold until they can get ND and then maybe Stanford, while the SEC will take FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA when the opportunity arises.

Then the Big 12 will take the top remaining 8 from the ACC. Miami, VT, NCSU, Pitt, Louisville, and Duke are sure things. The final 2 could be Syracuse and GT but I could see passing on GT (markets not as big of a deal anymore) and letting Yormark make a signature move on UConn (they did just win another).

That lineup would be pretty salty with Miami, Oklahoma St, TCU, Utah, VT, K State and Pitt headlining the football side Duke, Kansas, UConn, Louisville, Baylor, Syracuse, and Houston headlining the basketball side, both with plenty of depth in between with teams like NCSU, West Virginia, Iowa St, BYU, Cincy, TX Tech, and Colorado.

Reading that article, 24 may be too many, looks more like 3x20, which if I'm doing my math right, is 10, not 22.   If you use those viewer numbers above and assume basketball plays a tiebreaking part if you're a blueblood:

Clearly in: ND, FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, Virginia, Duke 

Knife Fight for the Final Three: Stanford, Louisville, VTech, Pitt, NCSt, Cal, Cuse 

That being said, 64 has been the sweet spot for break away in our discussions for years.   At 14, that would be the list above.

I think @Al_4_ISU is onto something though and this "Super League" concept will likely set it off.   PE won't stop trying to build it, just because they couldn't do it this time.    CFB is leaving a lot of money on the table with fiefdoms, but the SEC and B1G don't want to share money.   However, they put it in with this 6 year window, performance pays.    If you move to the super league and get rid of the archaic concept of conferences (much like the archaic concept of bowl games was eventually destroyed) you can also start to weed out the schools that still get the free ride, e.g. Vandy, Northwestern, Rutgers, etc.    They don't need to be demoted, but you can just pay on tiers on this six-year swing.   Share 50% of the cash, divide the rest like:

• Top 16 - 40%
• Second 16 - 30%
• Third - 20%
• Fourth - 10%

If you had a $6.5b contract (regular and post 6 years from now), you'll lose a percent to the PE, so let's give them $500m yearly, leaving you $6b to share (rounding so may not be exact).

• Top 16 - $54.7m (50%) + $87.5m (40%) = $142.2m
• Second 16 - $54.7m + $65.6m (30%) = $120.3m
• Third - $54.7m + $43.8m (20%) = $98.5m
• Fourth - $54.7m + 21.9m (10%) = $76.6m

Now you have relegation without having to have multiple leagues, you make more over all with pooled contracts, you give the opportunity to make more with performance, the top brands will make far more than currently, and you can budget due to a six-year cycle.   The schools that underperform and piss Al off for getting paid due to starting life on third base drift to wherever they actually should be.

If I'm the PE, I start talking to Michigan/Texas/Ohio State/USC/Bama/Georgia/NDs of the world, that's where this will get decided.

And, if I'm the PE, I immediately do the same thing with the "Group of Five" with a much smaller number and structure the games to play off days from the top, filling broadcast windows.

 

Edited April 23 by Hurtlocker

[statsman 5693]

The problem with restructuring college football, per the proposal, is that it only solves problems for the M2 programs (the problem being- “How do we get to keep telling our alums and boosters that we’re big time, so they keep buying and contributing?”). 
 
It doesn’t solve problems for the P2. 
 
It doesn’t solve problems for the networks. As a matter of fact, they really want college football to be more like the NFL, where they need less crews to broadcast to more people. 

[Hurtlocker 2219]

1 hour ago, statsman said:

The problem with restructuring college football, per the proposal, is that it only solves problems for the M2 programs (the problem being- “How do we get to keep telling our alums and boosters that we’re big time, so they keep buying and contributing?”). 
 
It doesn’t solve problems for the P2. 
 
It doesn’t solve problems for the networks. As a matter of fact, they really want college football to be more like the NFL, where they need less crews to broadcast to more people. 

You can get close to the NFL model, which has 32 teams, but not exactly, just due to how both are set up.    NFL teams are condensed in major markets, this allows them to segregate their broadcasts so each major DMA has the local game to maximize eyeballs across the nation in two windows, with national games making up the remaining three.  College sports are more partitioned than this and less attuned to a DMA than an NFL team, so you can't do this same strategy.   They used to mirror more, but they don't get NFL numbers, even if you had USC in the west, Texas in the Central, and Georgia on the East at the same time, you wouldn't draw NFL numbers.   For the CFB you need brands and brands only draw when they're winning.   Too few teams in whatever you call the league (Super, Power, whatever) and the big brands collect too many losses for high viewership interest.   Too many teams and the big brands don't meet enough to maximize revenues.

If, to keep the math simple from above, we agree you have 16 major brands in CFB (though I'd argue it is closer to 6), you want them to meet around 2-3 times per regular season, which is 32-48 games a year.    With three windows a Saturday, that nets you 2.5ish games a week, depending on other sporting events clogging up windows.  For those games to generate a lot of eyeballs, like half of the NFL eyeballs, you need the teams to be playing for the division lead or something.   Right now the big brands are paying the generals the same amount as the globetrotters, which isn't sustainable either.   Step one is they have to finally shed conferences.   Until whatever the end result becomes actually pools their full media rights, like they do for the playoffs, they're leaving massive amounts of money on the table.  

Should that occur, what do they make of it?   Now you have 34 in the P2, but they're all paid the same.   At some point to make the next growth jump, the brands will need to siphon off of that too, hence the payment tiering they've already started.    So do you keep 34, or move to 40(4x10), or 48 (4x12 or 6x8) or 64 (8x8)?   The sweet spot is probably between 48-64 for maximizing both wins and marquee match ups per week and giving you less of a drastic upflow of money than at 34.   

• Most money: Likely going to 40 with ND, FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC, and someone else. 
• Least Problems: Likely going to 64.   Whatever this becomes is going to generate an astronomical number of lawsuits, the more sharing it the better.  The more states with a player in the game, the better.

The NFL also has an antitrust exemption CFB doesn't possess.   Before they make this change, they'll need to work out all those player issues that are all wild, wild west now (that's two wilds, one west) and they're going to need to give up something, or a lot of somethings, to get help there.

[Horn of Gabriel 1886]

Money quote from the Yahoo article above: 

"...the ramifications of the new CFP deal are deep, as two conferences distance themselves from the rest with uneven revenue distribution.  Schwarz, the economist, sees it a different way. “The new revenue model is not causing the separation, it’s a reflection of the separation,” he said."

[Evil Bill Obrien 3510]

 

Intrigued by this as a possible final outcome of the next round of realignment where whatever version of the 2-4 "power" conferences do whatever they want and the Sunbelt, AAC, MWC, MAC, CUSA need to figure out a way to be relevant in their own way. Think its an uphill push right now because there are enough left behind schools in the AAC like Memphis that think they should be in some reformulated ACC or Big 12 but save that gotta think the other members of the G5 conferences have got be up for trying something other than just taking the 9% of table scraps offered up by the new CFP deal and liking it. 

 

[mr. sunshine 2859]

2 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

whatever version of the 2-4 "power" conferences do whatever they want

 

There's only 2

[statsman 5693]

15 hours ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

 

Intrigued by this as a possible final outcome of the next round of realignment where whatever version of the 2-4 "power" conferences do whatever they want and the Sunbelt, AAC, MWC, MAC, CUSA need to figure out a way to be relevant in their own way. Think its an uphill push right now because there are enough left behind schools in the AAC like Memphis that think they should be in some reformulated ACC or Big 12 but save that gotta think the other members of the G5 conferences have got be up for trying something other than just taking the 9% of table scraps offered up by the new CFP deal and liking it. 

 

Well, it’s becoming more and more clear that the non-CFP bowls, with opt outs and transfers, are almost totally exhibition games, marginally more interesting than scrimmages. The G5’s need to do something 

['stache 22145]

I think a G5 playoff to determine who gets the CFP spot makes sense financially, the only downside being to the highest ranked champion who has to play additional games to get the spot. Anything that adds meaningful postseason games is a plus. The G5 vs P4 bowl games are meaningless and the best players just opt out anyway, only the better G5 players looking to make an impression before entering the portal have any incentive to play.

If we’re tiering the conferences, it seems to me that there are 4 levels, not two. Big/Sec, ACC/XII, MWC/AAC/Sunbelt, MAC/CUSA. The last one, CUSA especially, feel like a division below (despite Liberty’s odd success). But a G5 playoff format makes sense either way as long as they’re playing for the CFP spot. If it’s all the teams that didn’t get the CFP spot, it’s just football NIT, barely seems worth it.

[Josef Pwag 1914]

21 minutes ago, 'stache said:

If we’re tiering the conferences, it seems to me that there are 4 levels, not two. Big/Sec, ACC/XII, MWC/AAC/Sunbelt, MAC/CUSA.

There is a good chance the ACC melts down and the XII is just an island. No doubt, they will be squeezed out of the real playoffs by the B1G and SEC over time. The XII needs to crown its own annual champ and come to terms with being a feeder system for the 2 remaining power conferences. 

['stache 22145]

16 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

There is a good chance the ACC melts down and the XII is just an island. No doubt, they will be squeezed out of the real playoffs by the B1G and SEC over time. The XII needs to crown its own annual champ and come to terms with being a feeder system for the 2 remaining power conferences. 

Nah, the XII as is or with a few ACC leftovers will always have a few spots in the CFP. Only way the programs are left out is if the top 16-20 break off which will also leave the bottom halves of the BIG and SEC behind. 

[GreenspointTexas 9974]

The current big 12 is the worst conference of the 4 that are left. When the acc teams go to the big 10, sec, and the big 12, the big 12 will be the worst of the 3. Sure, they may have a spot or two on the cfp, but the other 14-15 teams in the cfp will be from big10/sec

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Nah, the XII as is or with a few ACC leftovers will always have a few spots in the CFP. Only way the programs are left out is if the top 16-20 break off which will also leave the bottom halves of the BIG and SEC behind. 

You’re arguing with what I’m pretty sure is a burner/alt devoted to trolling the remaining Big 12 fans.

['stache 22145]

6 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

The current big 12 is the worst conference of the 4 that are left. When the acc teams go to the big 10, sec, and the big 12, the big 12 will be the worst of the 3. Sure, they may have a spot or two on the cfp, but the other 14-15 teams in the cfp will be from big10/sec

No way! Or more accurately, yeah, of course. None of the XII fans here are arguing otherwise (except that ACC is not above the XII currently, they are stronger at the top, but way weaker below them).

Edited April 24 by 'stache

[CustersDoctor 585]

Any of you buying recent rumors that Nebraska could be pushed out of the B1G because their AAU status has changed since they joined the B1G?

[Josef Pwag 1914]

9 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

Any of you buying recent rumors that Nebraska could be pushed out of the B1G because their AAU status has changed since they joined the B1G?

That happened 12 years ago. 

[thunderlounge 8415]

58 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

Any of you buying recent rumors that Nebraska could be pushed out of the B1G because their AAU status has changed since they joined the B1G?

 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3510]

1 hour ago, CustersDoctor said:

Any of you buying recent rumors that Nebraska could be pushed out of the B1G because their AAU status has changed since they joined the B1G?

 

[John80 160]

I'm sure the Big Ten expected Nebraska to continue being nationally relevant in football but it hasn't turned out that way. The last time Nebraska had a winning conference record was 2016.