(07-26-2014 08:12 AM)perimeterpost Wrote: (07-26-2014 02:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote: Just so I get this right....you are saying the revenue from the playoff for the SEC should be the exact same as the MAC? If so, why?
Correct. For the same reason The Milwaukee Brewers receive the same share of revenue as the NY Yankees from the MLB. Or the same reason Northwestern receives the same revenue as Ohio State from the Big Ten. The MAC is as much a member of the Football Sub Division as the SEC.
Note that revenues specific to individual teams and/or individual conferences are not part of the revenue share. This only deals with revenue designate to the FBS.
(07-26-2014 02:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote: There would be some lost revenue, but to say it would be significant is foolish. Like I listed above, better opponents would mean higher ticket prices, so some of the revenue loss would be negated by that, in addition it would most likely be a more desirable game for their media partners. More desirable games means more valuable games which means better leverage come media contract negotiation time.
Along with the better opponents you can also figure supply and demand to figure in on pricing. If you go from 7 or 8 games a year to 6 you create more of a demand for tickets since the supply is diminished. Even if you just raise the price of a ticket $10 you lessen the impact, especially since I already pointed out the fact you are replacing a dog game with one already more desirable and expensive ticket price wise.
I don't see how you can subsidize the value of losing 300K tickets by raising prices.
(07-26-2014 02:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote: Maybe there will be some revolt initially as some spoiled fanbases are in unfamiliar positions, but in true nature fills a void fashion they would be balanced out by the people drawn to the now very competitive level of play overall. Conference and division races would come down to the final games of the season more often, and the playoff race would be even more compelling than it will be under the current system.
Plus if there were a complete split the P5 and G5 would individually draw all the revenue they earn on their own merits. You fail to factor that into your poverty fantasy for the P5.
Bandwagon fans love to brag about winning national championships, if you're 1-3 in Sept that dream is over. Of course those fan bases will survive and be strong, but there will be a drop off.
If there was a split the G5 would go on virtually unchanged, its the P5 that would suffer.
Again, let's go point by point
On point #1, the NCAA is not MLB, the NFL, NBA, or any other professional league. There is no master organization who collects the revenue from the TV partners and distributes it to the teams. The NCAA has absolutely nothing to do with the playoff, so being FBS doesn't matter. The college football playoff is comprised of all ten conferences and Notre Dame, which means that the G5 composes five of eleven voting members. BYU and Army have absolutely no say whatsoever in the operation of the playoff.
If it were indeed unfair then the MAC should say so. Let's see what the MAC representative had to say :
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...s/1762709/
Quote:The vote of the Presidential Oversight Committee last month at a BCS meeting in Denver was unanimous, according to Northern Illinois president John Peters, who represented the Mid-American Conference.
"We think it's fair," Peters said last month. "It does recognize that some conferences contribute more in a revenue way. … From my point of view for my conference, what it means is more."
Imagine that. Your conference thinks it is fair.
"What does he mean by some conferences contribute more revenue wise" you ask? Probably has something to do with this:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...r/1700455/
Quote:The smaller conferences known as the "Group of Five" – Big East, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Mountain West and Sun Belt – had pushed for addition of a seventh bowl beginning in 2014, when college football moves to a four-team playoff. The Big 12 and Pac-12 also were in favor of the extra bowl, which would have allowed a second guaranteed slot for those conferences' teams. But with little interest from potential TV partners, commissioners ultimately decided against the idea.
Little interest = wasn't going to bring enough money to be worth the trouble.
On concern #2, it's simple math. "How do you replace 300k of lost revenue?" You ask....simple, when you play an Arizona State instead of a Kent you increase your ticket price to surpass that deficit. In the case of Ohio State that's $3 a ticket. To overcome the 300k deficit you keep citing you charge $82 for the ticket to see the ASU game instead of the $79 you charge for Kent and you not only make up the $300k you are fascinated with, you make a $6987 profit. See how simple that is?
On point #3....perhaps in some cases as I illustrated above. But like I said in the previous post for everyone that goes down it means someone is going to go up, so as a whole it would balance out.
As for the G5 being unchanged, I find that really hard to believe since so many of the G5 programs are dependent on payday games just to keep their athletic departments afloat. What is Ohio going to do without the payday game? Increase the 66% budget subsidy you currently receive? How well do you think that is going to be received on campus?
As for the P5, I can't speak for anybody else but I imagine that Clemson will still put enough fans in the stands for our Orange and White game in the spring than could fit in Peden.