|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 6, 2024 13:59:23 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Sept 6, 2024 14:05:18 GMT -8
This thread:  |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 6, 2024 14:25:20 GMT -8
Oh, you're talking about the superconference. Yeah, it's probably going to happen at some point. But it all depends on how many programs are involved. Barnes said he thought it might be as many as 50-60. I'm not so sure about that. I think OSU has a chance if it's as many as 40 programs, definitely a very decent chance if it's 48. If it's 32 or something like that, there will be a lot of angry schools. |
|
|
|
Post by flyfishinbeav on Sept 6, 2024 14:49:47 GMT -8
Many would have you believe that we should just join the MW. Never liked that approach. Feels like giving up. Barnes has indicated that the AD will be funded like a P4 school.......at least until the money runs out, or we get a better landing spot. I agree with that approach. If we wanna be in a P4 we need to act like it.For the umpteenth time, we can act like a P4 school or act like the King of England all we want, but if no P4 conference wants us, we're not going to be a P4 school. And so far, no P4 conference has shown it's even remotely interested in us. Like it or not, that's where we stand. When it comes to being a P4 school, we do not control our own destiny. For the umpteenth time, we should not give up hope. We should conduct business as if we are P4, until we cannot, or we get in. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 6, 2024 14:50:27 GMT -8
This thread: I've never had horse, but I could imagine beating it could help with tenderness. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Sept 6, 2024 15:07:31 GMT -8
This thread: I've never had horse, but I could imagine beating it could help with tenderness. Facts. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 6, 2024 15:07:42 GMT -8
The first article is stupid. The second article is slightly better thought-out, but the headline does not really match the article. Maybe. Maybe not. They were talking super-conferences decades ago before the Southern Conference spat out the SEC and the ACC. And the WAC was talking about super-conferences as well before hemorrhaging apart. Conferences get stupid big and then fall apart. It has happened several times over the decades. This could be the time that that does not happen. But history tends to indicate that you are more likely to see more conferences in the near future and not fewer. |
|
|
|
Post by orangeattack on Sept 6, 2024 15:14:07 GMT -8
Performance aside, funding of the athletic department is probably most telling in terms of where a school "belongs". Not many of us are going to want to hear this, but Washington State and Oregon State rank 53rd and 54th respectively among public universities in athletic department budget. We spend $8M a year more than Cincinnati and $20 million a year less than Oklahoma State. In terms of the commitment to athletics, Oregon State kind of hovers near the bottom of the P5 schools and the top of the G5 schools, though there are no (public) G5 schools that spend more than the Pac2. We are on the bubble. That is the God's honest truth. The rankings you found are actually a few years old. In 2022-23, Oregon State was No. 50 at $98.4 million and WSU was No. 54 at $90.9 million. OSU was higher on the list than Kansas State, Cincinnati, UConn, UCF, Houston. San Diego State is easily the top G5 school at No. 51 ($96.6 million). Then it drops to Air Force ($69.4 million). Oregon State had to drop down to $91.6 million for 2024. So yeah, they are on the bubble but there's a huge gap between the bottom of the power conference level bubble and the top of the G5 schools with the exception of San Diego State. OSU is still funding at a rate that is $25-30 million higher than the best of the rest of the G5 and roughly $40 million more than Hawaii, Fresno State and Utah State. The difference in the media deal money and disbursements add up to around $25-30M a year for OSU compared to the G5 schools. The hard reality is that it is really what has separated OSU and WSU from the more competitive G5 schools. Right now the war chest that OSU has is keeping them going but to sustain it, they must get into one of the p4 conferences or rebuild the conference with a media deal that pays a good $20M better than the G5 schools are getting. Not an impossible task but a tall one. If OSU is forced to reverse merge with the MW they will simply not be able to sustain that level of funding. My guess is that the budget will shrink by $20M a year. Still more than Hawaii, Fresno, USU for sure, but not at a P4 level for sure as well. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Sept 6, 2024 15:46:55 GMT -8
thoughts and questions . . .
Is the only official difference between P4 and G5 an automatic entry into the playoff for a league champion?
Maybe this is unrealistic, but a PAC consisting of OSU, WSU, Cal, Stanford, SMU, SanDiegoState, UNLV, FresnoState, Boise State, and either Nevada or Utah State along with a media deal at aroung $25M/year (maybe CW?) still G5?
If there are only 40 to 45 schools playing football at the highest level, even a 12-team playoff does not make a lot of sense. And if folks want to go to 16, what's the sweet spot? I'd throw out around 80.
History has shown that big conferences (in terms of members) implode. My take is that a 16-team conference is one media deal from disbanding. If the conference has 20 members, someone will not even wait for the expiration of that media deal.
|
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Sept 6, 2024 16:27:35 GMT -8
thoughts and questions . . . Is the only official difference between P4 and G5 an automatic entry into the playoff for a league champion? Maybe this is unrealistic, but a PAC consisting of OSU, WSU, Cal, Stanford, SMU, SanDiegoState, UNLV, FresnoState, Boise State, and either Nevada or Utah State along with a media deal at aroung $25M/year (maybe CW?) still G5? If there are only 40 to 45 schools playing football at the highest level, even a 12-team playoff does not make a lot of sense. And if folks want to go to 16, what's the sweet spot? I'd throw out around 80. History has shown that big conferences (in terms of members) implode. My take is that a 16-team conference is one media deal from disbanding. If the conference has 20 members, someone will not even wait for the expiration of that media deal. Good point that 12 playoff teams out of 40-45 is kinda nonsensical. I'd like to see a 16 team playoff where no teams get a bye, win or you're out. At which point there should be a move to 5 power conferences of 16-18 teams so no more than 20 percent get into the playoffs. They should allow deserving G5 teams into the playoffs, they'd have to figure out the requirements for that. Five 16 team conferences would hit your 80 team sweet spot quite nicely. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 6, 2024 17:20:17 GMT -8
Many would have you believe that we should just join the MW. Never liked that approach. Feels like giving up. Barnes has indicated that the AD will be funded like a P4 school.......at least until the money runs out, or we get a better landing spot. I agree with that approach. If we wanna be in a P4 we need to act like it.For the umpteenth time, we can act like a P4 school or act like the King of England all we want, but if no P4 conference wants us, we're not going to be a P4 school. And so far, no P4 conference has shown it's even remotely interested in us. Like it or not, that's where we stand. When it comes to being a P4 school, we do not control our own destiny. And... no one has said "join the MWC". The talk has been... let media deal run its course; no penalties for schools bailing; bail on 2025 MWC deal so no poaching penalties for OSU; rebuild the Pac12 in the best way possible before the NCAA deadline. I believe there was even talk of asking for an extension from the NCAA to see what might change in 2026?? |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 6, 2024 17:24:40 GMT -8
The first article is stupid. The second article is slightly better thought-out, but the headline does not really match the article. Maybe. Maybe not. They were talking super-conferences decades ago before the Southern Conference spat out the SEC and the ACC. And the WAC was talking about super-conferences as well before hemorrhaging apart. Conferences get stupid big and then fall apart. It has happened several times over the decades. This could be the time that that does not happen. But history tends to indicate that you are more likely to see more conferences in the near future and not fewer. As the article stated the powers that be aren't interested in giving up power to some outside committee. And, in the super conference scenario laid out being one of 60, 70, 80 teams getting lower tier cuts of the revenue would just exacerbate the haves and have nots even more. Add, having no say in the organization and policies. Lol... great deal! |
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 6, 2024 17:30:02 GMT -8
thoughts and questions . . . Is the only official difference between P4 and G5 an automatic entry into the playoff for a league champion? Maybe this is unrealistic, but a PAC consisting of OSU, WSU, Cal, Stanford, SMU, SanDiegoState, UNLV, FresnoState, Boise State, and either Nevada or Utah State along with a media deal at aroung $25M/year (maybe CW?) still G5? If there are only 40 to 45 schools playing football at the highest level, even a 12-team playoff does not make a lot of sense. And if folks want to go to 16, what's the sweet spot? I'd throw out around 80. History has shown that big conferences (in terms of members) implode. My take is that a 16-team conference is one media deal from disbanding. If the conference has 20 members, someone will not even wait for the expiration of that media deal. Good point that 12 playoff teams out of 40-45 is kinda nonsensical. I'd like to see a 16 team playoff where no teams get a bye, win or you're out. At which point there should be a move to 5 power conferences of 16-18 teams so no more than 20 percent get into the playoffs. They should allow deserving G5 teams into the playoffs, they'd have to figure out the requirements for that. Five 16 team conferences would hit your 80 team sweet spot quite nicely. Why would b1g and SEC teams ever agree to that? You folks always propose nonsensical ideas that have no basis in real world athletic economics. Before the pac 12 exploded you all had post after post about adding 4, 6, etc MW teams to the pac 12. It made no sense, no way were Stanford, Cal, uo, UW, or really any team going to add a bunch of bloodsuckers and think that would stabilize the pac 12. The objective is to increase revenue, if you can’t explain why your idea would increase revenue per school, best to just keep it to yourself, because it is all about the BENJAMINS! ffs |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 6, 2024 18:17:37 GMT -8
Good point that 12 playoff teams out of 40-45 is kinda nonsensical. I'd like to see a 16 team playoff where no teams get a bye, win or you're out. At which point there should be a move to 5 power conferences of 16-18 teams so no more than 20 percent get into the playoffs. They should allow deserving G5 teams into the playoffs, they'd have to figure out the requirements for that. Five 16 team conferences would hit your 80 team sweet spot quite nicely. Why would b1g and SEC teams ever agree to that? You folks always propose nonsensical ideas that have no basis in real world athletic economics. Before the pac 12 exploded you all had post after post about adding 4, 6, etc MW teams to the pac 12. It made no sense, no way were Stanford, Cal, uo, UW, or really any team going to add a bunch of bloodsuckers and think that would stabilize the pac 12. The objective is to increase revenue, if you can’t explain why your idea would increase revenue per school, best to just keep it to yourself, because it is all about the BENJAMINS! ffs What I saw advocated most often was adding SDSU and UNLV to replace the LA schools. Period. Keep the league at 12, keep the championship game, maintain a presence in SoCal, and add a huge, growing market in Vegas. |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Sept 6, 2024 19:42:16 GMT -8
Good point that 12 playoff teams out of 40-45 is kinda nonsensical. I'd like to see a 16 team playoff where no teams get a bye, win or you're out. At which point there should be a move to 5 power conferences of 16-18 teams so no more than 20 percent get into the playoffs. They should allow deserving G5 teams into the playoffs, they'd have to figure out the requirements for that. Five 16 team conferences would hit your 80 team sweet spot quite nicely. Why would b1g and SEC teams ever agree to that? You folks always propose nonsensical ideas that have no basis in real world athletic economics. Before the pac 12 exploded you all had post after post about adding 4, 6, etc MW teams to the pac 12. It made no sense, no way were Stanford, Cal, uo, UW, or really any team going to add a bunch of bloodsuckers and think that would stabilize the pac 12. The objective is to increase revenue, if you can’t explain why your idea would increase revenue per school, best to just keep it to yourself, because it is all about the BENJAMINS! ffs Agreed, everything is about money. My thought is how do you maximize total revenue adding a playoff and regular season. With more teams, there are more possible story lines. If, for example, there are 42 teams at the highest level and 16 make the playoffs, I think college football leaves money on the table. In that case, I believe, people lose some interest in the regular season and some of the playoff games don't mean much. Again, how do you maximize income for each school? And then regarding the 10 schools I mentioned as a possible PAC, how do they maximize their revenue. The first step is to get a decent TV deal. Would a network (even Apple) care about those 10 schools. I don't have that answer. And finally, a playoff is a huge revenue generator. How would this PAC get a bigger piece of the pie? If for some reason the PAC was labelled "G5" and both Oregon State and (for instance) Memphis were 12 - 0 and one did not make the playoffs, that would make the playoffs feel cheap and incomplete (limiting revenue). It's a bit like a union negotiating with an owner. How do you find the spot where everybody feels they win at least something. The alternative is strikes or p'o'ed workers making profits shrink. |
|
