|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 6, 2024 20:26:57 GMT -8
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. Ha, which is it ‘most often’ or ‘period’? Most often may be true (51% of the post would be most often.) There were many many posts with more teams then SDSU and UNLV listed, so ‘period’ is absolutely false. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 6, 2024 20:35:49 GMT -8
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. I think I disagree with everything you wrote, which is weird since your first word is ‘agreed’ with respect to my post. The NFL has 32 teams and 14 playoff spots. Has anyone anywhere ever accused the NFL of leaving money on the table? More nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver55to7 on Sept 6, 2024 21:03:25 GMT -8
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. Here is a link to a seven page thread that starts with ND, you advocate for Gonzaga, jdoggy advocates for the entire wcc….and on and on it goes. I only could stomach thru page 2. bennyshouse.com/thread/23301/improbable-interesting-doable-conference-strategy |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 6, 2024 22:05:27 GMT -8
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. Yes. That's why Barnes and OSU see keeping the budget within that power bubble as so important. They see it as a sort of investment in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by scottishsteel on Sept 7, 2024 5:48:33 GMT -8
I think they are hoping. Big difference. Barnes and Murthy actually talk to people. Have real conversations with real humans that really make decision. We are all just jackasses behind a keyboard with opinions. I think Barnes and Murthy have more to go on than hopes and prayers. If they are putting a lot of weight into a certain outcome, you have to figure it is a reason greater than hope. Don't use my name in vain |
|
|
|
Post by scottishsteel on Sept 7, 2024 5:49:01 GMT -8
Barnes and Murthy actually talk to people. Have real conversations with real humans that really make decision. We are all just jackasses behind a keyboard with opinions. I think Barnes and Murthy have more to go on than hopes and prayers. If they are putting a lot of weight into a certain outcome, you have to figure it is a reason greater than hope. Don't use my name in vain That probably doesn't make sense since none of you know my name is Jack . . . well now I'm less anonymous |
|
|
|
Post by scottishsteel on Sept 7, 2024 6:07:53 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. Not specifically responding to you Wilky but to the conversation in general . . . Josh Whitman, the AD at Illinois, at his beginning of the year athletics all staff meeting said his primary goal is to make sure when the next realignment happens Illinois is not left behind (I know this is vague but my source is a former colleague who works in the Illin athletic department now) So I don't know when but there's at least one P5 AD who thinks it's sooner than later |
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Sept 7, 2024 8:07:40 GMT -8
It seems to me that our best shot comes through the CW. It looks like this:
- We win enough games early to get us in the race for the last playoff spot. It keeps us on the national radar and makes our CW games relevant. Even better if Wazzou does the same.
- As a result, the CW games do well. We don't need numbers in the millions - we just need the games to be solidly profitable for the CW.
- In turn, the CW encourages the ACC (their other TV partner) to schedule more games with the Pac next year, so they have even better games to televise. It probably wouldn't be a formal agreement, but just greasing the skids towards getting us 3-4 more games, mostly at Reser, to fill out our schedule.
- Next year goes well. The better games means more money from the CW, and hopefully a good year for the CW network overall.
The crux comes at the end of next season. The MWC conference TV contract is over and the ACC lawsuits will likely be settled - probably in a way that lets UNC, FSU, Clemson, and Miami out.
The only way the ACC survives is to expand. Given the relationship already developing, OSU and WSU become no-brainers to add. With the MWC contract up, it becomes possible for the CW to step in and give the MWC a better deal that the current stinker the conference has with CBSsn while also prying away a couple teams for the ACC - maybe just SDSU.
The CW gets a great scenario - a coast-to-coast P4 conference, plus a decent G5 conference that can fill in the empty spots in the schedule. The current ACC teams would only have to travel west once a season, depending on the details. The CW clearly believes that sports are essential to their future success - it's the only "appointment TV" left in this era of streaming - and this gives them a pretty cheap way to get the critical mass they need.
I imagine that this is one of the scenarios that Barnes and Murthy are thinking about. Of course, it all is predicated on just one thing: winning. Every game we play this year is the most important game we've ever played.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Sept 7, 2024 8:56:37 GMT -8
There is a simple pattern to see:
2003: Six power conferences.
Final football standings in the Big East:
Miami
West Virginia
Pitt
Virginia Tech
BC
Syracuse
Rutgers
Temple
Miami and Va Tech leave at the end of the season, UConn added.
2004 final football standings:
BC
Pitt
WVU
Syr
UConn
Rut
Temp
At the end of the year, BC leaves to join the ACC, where they are now one of the reason why Florida State and Clemson want out of the ACC NOW! Louisvill, South Florida, and Cincinnati join.
2005 final Big East standings:
WVU
Louisville
Rut
South Florida
Pitt
UConn
Cincinnati
Syr
Temple is out of the Big East and out of a power conference
USF, Cincy, and Louis are now in a power conference
2011: WVU leaves the Big East and joins the ACC, where they are now one of the reason why Florida State and Clemson want out of the ACC NOW!
Temple rejoins the conference. They are back in a power conference again!
Until 2012, when the Big East dissolves.
--Temple is relegated to the American Athletic conference and will probably never be heard from again.
--Syracuse and Pitt went to the ACC, where they are now two of the reasons why Florida State and Clemson want out of the ACC NOW!
--UConn relegated back to the American Athletic but eventually went independent because they know that their killer basketball program it too good for the AAC. They now are desperately hoping that their basketball prowess gets them into a P4 conference. It won't, unless their cruddy football program takes a severe change of direction.
--Rutgers went into the American Athletic for a year before getting into the Big 10 because they are the preeminent football in New Jersey and fairly close to NYC. How long will they last?
--Louisville joined the AAC for a year then went to the ACC, where they are now one of the reasons why Florida State and Clemson want out of the ACC NOW!
--Cincinnati went to the AAC through the 2022 season.
--South Florida went to the AAC, where they now languish with Temple.
2013: There are now 5 Power conferences
2022: Texass and Oklahoma announced that they are departing the Big 12 to move to the SEC in 2024.
Big 12 Final football standings:
KState
TCU
Tex
Tex Tech
Okla St
Baylor
Kansas
Okla
WVU
Iowa St.
2023: Texas and Oklahoma played their last season for the Big 12.
At the end of the season, the Big 12 added:
UCF, Houston and Cincinnati from the AAC as well as
BYU, which had departed the Mountain West after the 2010 season to go independent. At long last, they were living their power conference dream!
2023: USC and UCLA announce they are living the Pac 12 for the big 10. The Pac doesn't get another year out of them like the Big 12 got out of Texas and Oklahoma.
The remaining Pac 12 members were offered a media deal that works out to somewhere between $22-31 million per team per year (likely in the higher range). They rejected it.
Shortly thereafter, the Big 12 is offered and media deal somewhere to the tune of $30 million per team per year. Big 12 conference commissioner and the conference school presidents seem to have a feel for their value and sign at $31.7 million per team per year.
It takes some torturous time, but the Pac 12 dissolves. The biggest four schools go to the big ten, then next four to the Big 12, the next two to the ACC, and OSU and WSU are relegated to non-Power 4 status.
Now there are 4 power conference teams.
But really, there are only 2, as demonstrated by current media contracts. The ACC and Big 12 are getting less than half of what the big ten and the SEC are getting. The only thing keeping the ACC and Big 12 as power conferences is their contractual obligations to stay together, because if either or both dissolve, the majority of teams in either conference will not land a media rights deal anywhere near the SEC and big ten and probably a lot less than what the Big 12 is getting right now.
If Florida State and Clemson are not able to escape their current contractual obligations, then count on it being no later than 2036, the year the ACC's current grant of rights contract expires, when another round of realignment hits and teams from the ACC are relegated to the G5.
College football is moving towards a Power 2 conference structure. Frankly, it's already there. They won't call it that, but the SEC and big ten will get the biggest media deals, the most CFP spots, and the most CFP money.
Because I have no delusions that OSU will be a part of the final Power 2, I would like to see the Power 2 be as few teams as possible because that would mean that there are schools left over with real market value, which could benefit OSU if OSU remains a part of that second division.
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 7, 2024 9:04:37 GMT -8
It seems to me that our best shot comes through the CW. It looks like this: - We win enough games early to get us in the race for the last playoff spot. It keeps us on the national radar and makes our CW games relevant. Even better if Wazzou does the same. - As a result, the CW games do well. We don't need numbers in the millions - we just need the games to be solidly profitable for the CW. - In turn, the CW encourages the ACC (their other TV partner) to schedule more games with the Pac next year, so they have even better games to televise. It probably wouldn't be a formal agreement, but just greasing the skids towards getting us 3-4 more games, mostly at Reser, to fill out our schedule. - Next year goes well. The better games means more money from the CW, and hopefully a good year for the CW network overall. The crux comes at the end of next season. The MWC conference TV contract is over and the ACC lawsuits will likely be settled - probably in a way that lets UNC, FSU, Clemson, and Miami out. The only way the ACC survives is to expand. Given the relationship already developing, OSU and WSU become no-brainers to add. With the MWC contract up, it becomes possible for the CW to step in and give the MWC a better deal that the current stinker the conference has with CBSsn while also prying away a couple teams for the ACC - maybe just SDSU. The CW gets a great scenario - a coast-to-coast P4 conference, plus a decent G5 conference that can fill in the empty spots in the schedule. The current ACC teams would only have to travel west once a season, depending on the details. The CW clearly believes that sports are essential to their future success - it's the only "appointment TV" left in this era of streaming - and this gives them a pretty cheap way to get the critical mass they need. I imagine that this is one of the scenarios that Barnes and Murthy are thinking about. Of course, it all is predicated on just one thing: winning. Every game we play this year is the most important game we've ever played. This is pretty much in line with what I've come to believe is going to happen with the Pac-2. There are reports that the Big 12 has a handshake deal with Miami and Louisville to join if/when the ACC starts to lose teams. It has also been reported that the ACC has been talking with programs to fill the gaps. IMO, the ACC will stay together as a conference but will most likely lose 4 to 6 schools. It is highly likely at that point that OSU and WSU are offered, along with San Diego State to make a six-team West Coast division of sorts (with SMU). Maybe two other schools would be added as well but I've heard the Pac-2 and SDSU specifically. The CW would definitely be a factor in facilitating this scenario. I will add that there is a possibility that the Big 12 would step in with an offer to counter the ACC. Reports have been that OSU is on their list, just not above some ACC teams |
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Sept 7, 2024 9:18:13 GMT -8
There is a simple pattern to see: 2003: Six power conferences. Final football standings in the Big East: Miami West Virginia Pitt Virginia Tech BC Syracuse Rutgers Temple Miami and Va Tech leave at the end of the season, UConn added. 2004 final football standings: BC Pitt WVU Syr UConn Rut Temp At the end of the year, BC leaves to join the ACC, where they are now one of the reason why Florida State and Clemson want out of the ACC NOW! Louisvill, South Florida, and Cincinnati join. 2005 final Big East standings: WVU Louisville Rut South Florida Pitt UConn Cincinnati Syr Temple is out of the Big East and out of a power conference USF, Cincy, and Louis are now in a power conference 2011: WVU leaves the Big East and joins the ACC, where they are now one of the reason why Florida State and Clemson want out of the ACC NOW! Temple rejoins the conference. They are back in a power conference again! Until 2012, when the Big East dissolves. --Temple is relegated to the American Athletic conference and will probably never be heard from again. --Syracuse and Pitt went to the ACC, where they are now two of the reasons why Florida State and Clemson want out of the ACC NOW! --UConn relegated back to the American Athletic but eventually went independent because they know that their killer basketball program it too good for the AAC. They now are desperately hoping that their basketball prowess gets them into a P4 conference. It won't, unless their cruddy football program takes a severe change of direction. --Rutgers went into the American Athletic for a year before getting into the Big 10 because they are the preeminent football in New Jersey and fairly close to NYC. How long will they last? --Louisville joined the AAC for a year then went to the ACC, where they are now one of the reasons why Florida State and Clemson want out of the ACC NOW! --Cincinnati went to the AAC through the 2022 season. --South Florida went to the AAC, where they now languish with Temple. 2013: There are now 5 Power conferences 2022: Texass and Oklahoma announced that they are departing the Big 12 to move to the SEC in 2024. Big 12 Final football standings: KState TCU Tex Tex Tech Okla St Baylor Kansas Okla WVU Iowa St. 2023: Texas and Oklahoma played their last season for the Big 12. At the end of the season, the Big 12 added: UCF, Houston and Cincinnati from the AAC as well as BYU, which had departed the Mountain West after the 2010 season to go independent. At long last, they were living their power conference dream! 2023: USC and UCLA announce they are living the Pac 12 for the big 10. The Pac doesn't get another year out of them like the Big 12 got out of Texas and Oklahoma. The remaining Pac 12 members were offered a media deal that works out to somewhere between $22-31 million per team per year (likely in the higher range). They rejected it. Shortly thereafter, the Big 12 is offered and media deal somewhere to the tune of $30 million per team per year. Big 12 conference commissioner and the conference school presidents seem to have a feel for their value and sign at $31.7 million per team per year. It takes some torturous time, but the Pac 12 dissolves. The biggest four schools go to the big ten, then next four to the Big 12, the next two to the ACC, and OSU and WSU are relegated to non-Power 4 status. Now there are 4 power conference teams. But really, there are only 2, as demonstrated by current media contracts. The ACC and Big 12 are getting less than half of what the big ten and the SEC are getting. The only thing keeping the ACC and Big 12 as power conferences is their contractual obligations to stay together, because if either or both dissolve, the majority of teams in either conference will not land a media rights deal anywhere near the SEC and big ten and probably a lot less than what the Big 12 is getting right now. If Florida State and Clemson are not able to escape their current contractual obligations, then count on it being no later than 2036, the year the ACC's current grant of rights contract expires, when another round of realignment hits and teams from the ACC are relegated to the G5. College football is moving towards a Power 2 conference structure. Frankly, it's already there. They won't call it that, but the SEC and big ten will get the biggest media deals, the most CFP spots, and the most CFP money. Because I have no delusions that OSU will be a part of the final Power 2, I would like to see the Power 2 be as few teams as possible because that would mean that there are schools left over with real market value, which could benefit OSU if OSU remains a part of that second division. This gets back to a semi-conversation I had with 55to7 yesterday. Let's say the Power 2 has 38 teams. It will look something like (in no particular order) 1. TexasA&M 2. LSU 3. Georgia 4. Florida 5. Arkansas 6. Alabama 7. Tennessee 8. Auburn 9. Texas 11. Oklahoma 12. Wisconsin 13. Ohio State 14. Iowa 15. Indiana 16. Illinois 17. Michigan 18. PennState 19. Nebraska 20. USC 21. UCLA 22. Washington 23. Oregon 24. MichiganState 25. OleMiss 26. MississippiState 27. Utah 28. NorthCarolina 29. FloridaState 30. NotreDame 31. MiamiFL 32. Clemson 33. NCState 34. Pittsburgh 35. Virginia 36. ArizonaState 37. Missouri and 38. Minnesota YOu can make a lot of arguments on if they would end up at 38 or not. And the bottom 18 of those 38 are guesses. They could be moved out for the top of the next tier. But my point is if these 38 have a playoff, then there is a playoff of the next 60 to 80 schools. In that group you have Arizona, OregonState, WashingtonState, BYU, Stanford, Cal, OklahomaState, Baylor, TexasTech, Kansas, KansasState, Louisville, VirginiaTech, GeorgiaTech and so on. I think you get the picture that all those schools care about football. That second tier playoff will have as much attendance and as much TV revenue as the first. It's conceivable it would be even bigger. If our group of schools schedules no more than one upper crust team per year, the blue-bloods leave and enormous amount of dollars on the table. They pay their players more, have greatly increased travel expenses, and burn rivalries in order to make less money. I don't think they are that stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 7, 2024 10:12:38 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. Not specifically responding to you Wilky but to the conversation in general . . . Josh Whitman, the AD at Illinois, at his beginning of the year athletics all staff meeting said his primary goal is to make sure when the next realignment happens Illinois is not left behind (I know this is vague but my source is a former colleague who works in the Illin athletic department now) So I don't know when but there's at least one P5 AD who thinks it's sooner than later You can add Scott Barnes to that list, according to what he said in his interview a few days ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 7, 2024 15:25:47 GMT -8
Not specifically responding to you Wilky but to the conversation in general . . . Josh Whitman, the AD at Illinois, at his beginning of the year athletics all staff meeting said his primary goal is to make sure when the next realignment happens Illinois is not left behind (I know this is vague but my source is a former colleague who works in the Illin athletic department now) So I don't know when but there's at least one P5 AD who thinks it's sooner than later You can add Scott Barnes to that list, according to what he said in his interview a few days ago. If Illinois is worried about being left behind as a Big Ten member, there will definitely be some contraction. Hard to envision a tdeam already out of the P4 (us) being chosen over teams already in the P4 come contracting time. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 7, 2024 15:36:13 GMT -8
You can add Scott Barnes to that list, according to what he said in his interview a few days ago. If Illinois is worried about being left behind as a Big Ten member, there will definitely be some contraction. Hard to envision a tdeam already out of the P4 (us) being chosen over teams already in the P4 come contracting time. It depends on how many schools are going to be included. Barnes said as many as 50 to 60. I think OSU gets in if it's at least 48 teams. If it's like 32, then I would expect a second tier to form and OSU would be a part of that. Either way, getting into a power conference would be rendered irrelevant. But it's unclear how soon they are talking about. Two years? Five? A decade? |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 7, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -8
If Illinois is worried about being left behind as a Big Ten member, there will definitely be some contraction. Hard to envision a tdeam already out of the P4 (us) being chosen over teams already in the P4 come contracting time. It depends on how many schools are going to be included. Barnes said as many as 50 to 60. I think OSU gets in if it's at least 48 teams. If it's like 32, then I would expect a second tier to form and OSU would be a part of that. Either way, getting into a power conference would be rendered irrelevant. But it's unclear how soon they are talking about. Two years? Five? A decade? Have to love you optimistic "logic". So there are how many P4 teams currently? And OSU isn't one, and supposedly wasn't even under consideration. So now going to less P4 teams OSU will be part of 48. So, 67 (?) P4 conference team plus ND make 68. Somehow they'll drop 21+ current members to add a non member? With the disparity in payouts, and more in the future they don't need to drop any team. They'll pay them less and have built in game fodder as the reduced payouts take their toll. |
|
