Here comes the doomsday thread, sorry

[Al_4_State]

I agree with you it’s not likely to happen and I think they realize the safest bet is for them to keep a system where everyone has access. That said, I did find this quote interesting. From a Dennis Dodd article a couple days ago and it basically says the networks have told them a 2 conference breakaway would be successful financially. Here’s the quote:


If NCAA membership doesn't agree to their reforms, the SEC and Big Ten have the leverage to take their 34 teams and stage their own national championship. The networks and the market itself have told them that is possible, and it's a path which SEC commissioner Greg Sankey has already hinted at in the past.

SEC, Big Ten 'advisory group' stands as coded threat to NCAA: Figure it out, or we'll go off ourselves

The power conference may well reshape college athletics in their image

www.cbssports.com

It’s absolutely possible.

It’s highly unlikely to be more lucrative. If it were more lucrative they’d have already blown it all up.

 

[JHUNSY]

 

[MountainManHawk]

It’s absolutely possible.

It’s highly unlikely to be more lucrative. If it were more lucrative they’d have already blown it all up.

I agree. The upside would be keeping 100% of the revenue from the championship game as opposed to the current model where it gets split a bunch of different ways. But the risk is you piss off enough people that used to watch so keeping 100% of a smaller pie may end up being less money in the end.

I think instead they’ll push for a model with as many At Large bids as possible where the money gets awarded mostly to the conferences with the most bids.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I agree. The upside would be keeping 100% of the revenue from the championship game as opposed to the current model where it gets split a bunch of different ways. But the risk is you piss off enough people that used to watch so keeping 100% of a smaller pie may end up being less money in the end.

I think instead they’ll push for a model with as many At Large bids as possible where the money gets awarded mostly to the conferences with the most bids.

That’s already happening with the 5+7 model

 

[Mr Janny]

I agree. The upside would be keeping 100% of the revenue from the championship game as opposed to the current model where it gets split a bunch of different ways. But the risk is you piss off enough people that used to watch so keeping 100% of a smaller pie may end up being less money in the end.

I think instead they’ll push for a model with as many At Large bids as possible where the money gets awarded mostly to the conferences with the most bids.

The pie can stay the same or even shrink to some degree, but if the power 2 gets a bigger percentage than before, their number can go up.

Let's say, for example that $100 represents the entirety of television money in college football. Right now, let's say the Power 2 get $60 out of the 100, the ACC/Big12 get $30, and the other conferences get $10.

By adding the biggest brands in the other conferences, the power 2 is adding sellable content, so that the next time there are negotiations with networks, they'll have more to offer than their competitors. If the 5th best SEC game every week draws more viewers than the best ACC game, ESPN may decide they don't want pay for ACC content anymore, especially if the ACC is robbed of their biggest brands..
Or better yet, look at the smaller conferences. Who needs MACtion when you can have an SEC matchup on Wednesday night? More eyeballs than you were getting before. More ad money. By expanding, the SEC has the extra game inventory to sell, so they squeeze out the little guy, and even if the pie stays the same size in 5 years, they can still negotiate a bigger piece. So out of that same $100 or even $95, the Power 2 are getting $65 or $70 at the expense of the other conferences.

 

[Al_4_State]

I agree. The upside would be keeping 100% of the revenue from the championship game as opposed to the current model where it gets split a bunch of different ways. But the risk is you piss off enough people that used to watch so keeping 100% of a smaller pie may end up being less money in the end.

I think instead they’ll push for a model with as many At Large bids as possible where the money gets awarded mostly to the conferences with the most bids.

Yeah, it’ll be something where the conferences that participate in a given game get that revenue

 

[MountainManHawk]

That’s already happening with the 5+7 model

Sure, but we know that they want so much more than that. I’ve read a few articles that say the SEC is pushing to just make it 12 at-large bids. I also just read that the Big10 is pushing to just make the field 14 or even 16 so that way even if you throw the other conferences a bone and give them 5 auto-bids you can still have 9 at-large bids.

 

[MountainManHawk]

Sure, but we know that they want so much more than that. I’ve read a few articles that say the SEC is pushing to just make it 12 at-large bids. I also just read that the Big10 is pushing to just make the field 14 or even 16 so that way even if you throw the other conferences a bone and give them 5 auto-bids you can still have 9 at-large bids.

I found the link. Here are some quotes:


In an interview with Yahoo Sports earlier this week, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti, for the first time publicly, expressed doubts in their commitment to the future of the CFP if leaders can’t “get right” a litany of issues. It comes on the heels of an announcement Friday that the leagues were forming a joint advisory board to study the future of college athletics.

Given the latest realignment wave — the four power leagues swelled to 16-18 members each — the format is back under the microscope for further examination. Petitti has discussed with commissioners expansion models that include 14 and 16 teams with multiple automatic qualifiers to major conferences, sources told Yahoo Sports.

Sankey and his corresponding representative on the CFP Board, Mississippi State president Mark Keenum, have suggested in the past that the model incorporate only at-large selections.

With CFP still undecided on future format, SEC and Big Ten express doubts in commitment

With college sports in turmoil, the CFP management committee is still undecided on a future format. There are several key issues in play this week in Dallas.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[WooBadger18]

Don’t think I’ve ever come close to that sentiment, pretty sure I just watched TCU beat Michigan last season. Comparing the Big12 to G5 isn’t even close

No, you haven't. But I guess my point is you create as good of a system as possible because you never know when the situation is going to change and you're no longer on top. If you say "the G5 is not competitive so they collectively only get one bid" (because let's be honest, no matter how deserving they are, they'll never get a second bid), that opens you up to saying the same thing about the Big 12 and ACC.

The gulf in money is only going to get worse. That means that the Big 10 and SEC will have the best facilities, most prestigious coaches, almost certainly the most NIL, and as a result the best rosters. I think it is likely that in the not so distant future we will have people using the same logic to say "the Big 12 and ACC don't deserve more than a single autobid between them."

I also think it's dumb to just have one autobid for the G5 because the games should matter. Otherwise, just pick the playoff field at the beginning of the season. We all "know" Iowa State, Michigan State, and Wisconsin aren't going to win the national title, so why even let them be eligible for the playoffs?

 

[NotJustMagic]

This seems like a big deal! Would be the first step to creating a players union which will ultimately change the dynamic of the power grab; where players have a bigger say on what the future looks like.

 

[Mr Janny]

This seems like a big deal! Would be the first step to creating a players union which will ultimately change the dynamic of the power grab; where players have a bigger say on what the future looks like.

Yeah, I hope they do end up unionizing. It could actually be in the NCAA'S best interest, long-term, as it could provide a path for them to negotiate rules on things like transfers and NIL. My fear is that we're already past the point where some of the higher profile athletes will see unionizing as a benefit.

 

[AuH2O]

The pie can stay the same or even shrink to some degree, but if the power 2 gets a bigger percentage than before, their number can go up.

Let's say, for example that $100 represents the entirety of television money in college football. Right now, let's say the Power 2 get $60 out of the 100, the ACC/Big12 get $30, and the other conferences get $10.

By adding the biggest brands in the other conferences, the power 2 is adding sellable content, so that the next time there are negotiations with networks, they'll have more to offer than their competitors. If the 5th best SEC game every week draws more viewers than the best ACC game, ESPN may decide they don't want pay for ACC content anymore, especially if the ACC is robbed of their biggest brands..
Or better yet, look at the smaller conferences. Who needs MACtion when you can have an SEC matchup on Wednesday night? More eyeballs than you were getting before. More ad money. By expanding, the SEC has the extra game inventory to sell, so they squeeze out the little guy, and even if the pie stays the same size in 5 years, they can still negotiate a bigger piece. So out of that same $100 or even $95, the Power 2 are getting $65 or $70 at the expense of the other conferences.

I do wonder if there is much benefit to adding teams though without shedding some of the lesser brands. They have enough teams that are big names that can fill the best slots on the best networks right now. I'm not sure if splitting the pie further to populate ESPN2 is worth it. Maybe weeknight games can pay off, I don't know. The problem with the approach you suggest is that it doesn't really matter who you stick on the lesser channels, they just don't draw, and as a result don't add that much value. Really you've got about 10-15 brands and 12-15 time slots that make up pretty much all the value.

I'm not sure having more inventory to sell has a return for Big 10 and SEC. I think the negotiations suggest that the value to populate the timeslots other than the major networks and the three key Saturday slots drops off in a huge way. I think the optimum return in terms of TV is kind of what those leagues have now - enough big names to claim the top 12-15 time/network slots.

Personally, I think the way the Big 10 and SEC make the most money would be to:
- Figure out how to dump the lower brands (dissolve the leagues?)
- Maybe add the best of the rest from the ACC and Big 12, but maybe not. Maybe just be the best 20-24 brands between the two.
- Get the playoff $ shifted to nearly all at large, if not all at large
- Still let the ACC and Big 12 be part of the playoff similar to G5 in the old model. Throw them a bone to keep those fanbases watching their games, but you basically share no revenue with them. These leagues can be the discount programming for ESPN and FS

 

[WooBadger18]

I do wonder if there is much benefit to adding teams though without shedding some of the lesser brands. They have enough teams that are big names that can fill the best slots on the best networks right now. I'm not sure if splitting the pie further to populate ESPN2 is worth it. Maybe weeknight games can pay off, I don't know. The problem with the approach you suggest is that it doesn't really matter who you stick on the lesser channels, they just don't draw, and as a result don't add that much value. Really you've got about 10-15 brands and 12-15 time slots that make up pretty much all the value.

I'm not sure having more inventory to sell has a return for Big 10 and SEC. I think the negotiations suggest that the value to populate the timeslots other than the major networks and the three key Saturday slots drops off in a huge way. I think the optimum return in terms of TV is kind of what those leagues have now - enough big names to claim the top 12-15 time/network slots.

Personally, I think the way the Big 10 and SEC make the most money would be to:
- Figure out how to dump the lower brands (dissolve the leagues?)
- Maybe add the best of the rest from the ACC and Big 12, but maybe not. Maybe just be the best 20-24 brands between the two.
- Get the playoff $ shifted to nearly all at large, if not all at large
- Still let the ACC and Big 12 be part of the playoff similar to G5 in the old model. Throw them a bone to keep those fanbases watching their games, but you basically share no revenue with them. These leagues can be the discount programming for ESPN and FS

Regarding that, I don't think they will kick the teams out or dissolve the leagues, the largest teams will just leave to form new conferences

 

[AuH2O]

Yeah, I hope they do end up unionizing. It could actually be in the NCAA'S best interest, long-term, as it could provide a path for them to negotiate rules on things like transfers and NIL. My fear is that we're already past the point where some of the higher profile athletes will see unionizing as a benefit.

This should've been the approach pushed for years ago by all the P5 ADs that aren't blue bloods. ADs at schools like ISU really screwed themselves and played into the hands of the bluebloods by clinging to the amateurism model. I've thought for years this was a penny wise and pound foolish move.

Imagine five years ago having 20-30 or more ADs get together and say that they need to create a system to pay players, provide insurance, and provide some system that allows them NIL, but actual NIL, not the current pay for play we have now. Maybe ultimately the wild west wins out, but had they been proactive and set up a reasonable system that could be lucrative for student athletes, I'm not sure it does.

 

[KnappShack]

I do wonder if there is much benefit to adding teams though without shedding some of the lesser brands. They have enough teams that are big names that can fill the best slots on the best networks right now. I'm not sure if splitting the pie further to populate ESPN2 is worth it. Maybe weeknight games can pay off, I don't know. The problem with the approach you suggest is that it doesn't really matter who you stick on the lesser channels, they just don't draw, and as a result don't add that much value. Really you've got about 10-15 brands and 12-15 time slots that make up pretty much all the value.

I'm not sure having more inventory to sell has a return for Big 10 and SEC. I think the negotiations suggest that the value to populate the timeslots other than the major networks and the three key Saturday slots drops off in a huge way. I think the optimum return in terms of TV is kind of what those leagues have now - enough big names to claim the top 12-15 time/network slots.

Personally, I think the way the Big 10 and SEC make the most money would be to:
- Figure out how to dump the lower brands (dissolve the leagues?)
- Maybe add the best of the rest from the ACC and Big 12, but maybe not. Maybe just be the best 20-24 brands between the two.
- Get the playoff $ shifted to nearly all at large, if not all at large
- Still let the ACC and Big 12 be part of the playoff similar to G5 in the old model. Throw them a bone to keep those fanbases watching their games, but you basically share no revenue with them. These leagues can be the discount programming for ESPN and FS

So far college football hasn't hit a wall with viewership. Maybe some cracks in a few areas, but large audiences are tuning in and driving the cash.

I see no reason why they wouldn't dissolve the B1G or SEC in it's current form. Keep the names for branding, but the college powers have not gotten any backlash to this point.

Break off. Go full professional football.

At some point (maybe years ago?) football outgrew the governance of the institutions.

License the names from the schools, break completely clean from academics and AD oversight, kick out the low earners, and print money.

The rest of us can piss off and die.

 

[JHUNSY]

To add:

 

[HFCS]

So far college football hasn't hit a wall with viewership. Maybe some cracks in a few areas, but large audiences are tuning in and driving the cash.

I see no reason why they wouldn't dissolve the B1G or SEC in it's current form. Keep the names for branding, but the college powers have not gotten any backlash to this point.

Break off. Go full professional football.

At some point (maybe years ago?) football outgrew the governance of the institutions.

License the names from the schools, break completely clean from academics and AD oversight, kick out the low earners, and print money.

The rest of us can piss off and die.

It won’t as long as acc and big 12 are viable products seen as part of the same sport, the giant question is what happens if it does separate…and the big ten and sec seem focused on that goal.

Power conference football has actually grown if those leagues stay competitive for fb.

So far the only casualties:
Ore St (real loss)
WSU (real loss)
UConn (barely promoted)
USF (barely promoted)

But the power conference gains:
TCU (huge add, national runner up)
Utah (huge add)
BYU (huge add)
Cincy (solid add)
UCF (solid add)
Houston (wait and see)
SMU (wait and see)

 

[JHUNSY]

To add:

 

[KnappShack]

It won’t as long as acc and big 12 are viable products seen as part of the same sport, the giant question is what happens if it does separate…and the big ten and sec seem focused on that goal.

Power conference football has actually grown if those leagues stay competitive for fb.

So far the only casualties:
Ore St (real loss)
WSU (real loss)
UConn (barely promoted)
USF (barely promoted)

But the power conference gains:
TCU (huge add, national runner up)
Utah (huge add)
BYU (huge add)
Cincy (solid add)
UCF (solid add)
Houston (wait and see)
SMU (wait and see)

Same sport as in the NFL vs XFL.

A tight 16 team premiere league with a collectively bargained TV deal fills a lot of the available windows. Maybe they can have a 32 team league to mirror the NFL with unequal revenue.

This is going head first into an NFL alignment.

The XFL-UFL is viable but greatly reduced and diminished league. At best a feeder league

 

[NotJustMagic]

Facinated to see how this develops. Will each confrence make their own union, will there be a larger "all encompassing" union, will there be consquences on "leaving" the union (i.e. transfering), etc. Will be a cool case study to review in 10 years from now. I'm not a big fan of unions in general, but i do believe that this might be a great use for this time & place.