I have a feeling the apple cart is going to get tipped over at some point. When you start talking about cutting out teams (and I'm not talking about ODU here) large portions of CFB fans will become disenfranchised. I don't really care about Clemson or Alabama but will still watch the championship game because I feel somewhat connected to it. Now if you whittle down to 32 will you have cut out whole states? Iowa/Iowa St invited? Kansas? Nevada? Arizona? All of New England? A bigger number would help demographically, but still there will be a lot that lose interest in NFL light. And so help me god if they **** with the NCAA tournament......

(09-12-2018 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 09:57 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Guys those are the details that need to be worked out. Maybe the cut-off is 48.
Just include the programs that make the money. If they are making money, somebody is watching and willing to pay.

This eliminates all the programs that have been grandfathered into conferences with big paydays.
It wouldn't eliminate the present conference just move the top programs from those conferences into one league.

Also need to add an element of promotion and relegation. Stop performing, stop making money, resting on your laurels, you get sent down.
CJ

There are less than 4 P schools that are subsidized above 10%.

There are no G5 schools subsidized less than 25%.

I think we have the answer already.

A healthy upper tier would consist of roughly 60 to 64 schools.

If you want another more exclusive point of separation then 48 is probably your number, but the wins / losses bell curve will be radically affected.

There's a reason you've been hearing 64 for these past 10 years.

As others have pointed out, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reason why the P schools are less subsidized is because they're making the lion's share of the revenues. If the lower 1/4 of the P conferences were left to fend for themselves instead of profiting from the TV $$ that Alabama and Clemson generate, they'd be in the same position.

It's only a matter of time before the presidents of those institutions (since that's who will make these decisions, not the fans or even the ADs) get seduced by the cash thrown at them by somebody who points out the money they're leaving on the table.

USFFan

(09-13-2018 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 11:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 10:25 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The effort to squeeze the little guys out started with The BTN. It will come to the conclusion when the teams that make the money break away.

Who needs to be squeezed out in order for the biggest programs to make more money?

There is a place where there's significant money to be made, it's just that no one has decided to "go there" just yet. Every P5 conference could make just as much TV money as they make now if they said goodbye to their two least valuable members. They'd have the same amount of conference revenue but they'd be dividing it 12 ways instead of 14, or 10 ways instead of 12, etc. It's a big difference for any conference bringing in as much media revenue as the P5 conferences do. Or maybe we'll get to the point where Clemson or Ohio State or Alabama asks for conference revenue to be divided un-equally with the biggest earners getting much larger shares. The big boys can make more money per school, even when TV is not increasing its total spend, not by getting certain teams off of the schedule, but by giving that $30-50 million/year in conference revenue to a smaller number of schools.

ABSOLUTELY.

In football, there is more money to be made by the P5 cutting out members of their own league than there is cutting anyone from the over-arching division.

Now basketball the NCAA skim and six distribution funds do present funds to be gained.

But the SEC has more potential profit booting Vandy or Ole Miss in football than they could ever make booting Southern Miss or Middle Tennessee from FBS football.

It "costs" Alabama some portion of roughly $40 million to have Mississippi State on the schedule. If the SEC culled two to get to 12 members that would be another $7 million in revenue and would make no change in the number of conference games.

Funny how it is always fans of G5 schools and the like that see things these ways. I've never yet heard an Alabama or LSU fan talk that way.

Probably because if you knew SEC culture, Alabama and LSU fans value their games vs Ole Miss and Mississippi State, as those are historical rivalries that reflect both the unity and the competition among their respective states.

Alabama and Mississippi State have played 101 times, LSU and Mississippi State have played 109 times, both series date back to 1896.

Both first played Ole Miss in 1894.

Nobody involved wants any of that to end.

You conveniently omit the rivalries that have already been abandoned in the search for the almighty dollar. You think LSU fans care more about their annual rivalries with the Mississippi schools than the fact that they've played only 1 regular season game vs. Georgia since 2009? Or that the once great Auburn/Florida rivalry is now lost to expansion? You think Texas and A&M fans are happy with the current lack of games between the two?

The "save the rivalries" horse has long left the barn.

USFFan

Why does this myth persist? A "breakoff" isn't happening.

1. Half of those who break away immediately lose out because they will lose more games and more donor dollars and ticket revenue.
2. No more "guarantee" games to stack the home schedule.
3. All of those legislators from states that "lose out" join the ranks of those who want to start treating college sports like the business it actually is.
4. Not enough content for the TV companies who are providing the big revenue.
5. The façade of the amateur college athlete and the nostalgia/romanticism that comes with it goes away.
6. The goose is pure gold now and there is enough to go around. G5 programs got MORE, not less in the latest incarnation of a championship format.

I cannot think of one good reason that Alabama or Clemson would want to split from the NCAA.

(09-12-2018 10:41 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 10:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The thing no one can ever effectively answer is WHY would anyone want to break? The non-wealthy are a resource that the richest programs use to enhance the reputation of their programs and to permit for more home games. There is no sharing of media money. Nominal sharing of post-season football revenue. The only money to gain is in post-season basketball and again the power system relies on playing an unbalanced number of home games.

The simple reason is that the schools that can command the money can make a whole lot more this way.

Your thesis is that these schools would stand to lose the money they make on ticket sales from home games, specifically the ones that they buy. OK, let's explore that. Michigan is one of the biggest money makers in this regard, and I'm going to use them to illustrate this. Per this article:

https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201..._cost.html

Michigan makes $39.5MM in ticket sales (for a >100,000 person stadium) per season. They typically play either 7 or 8 home games per year. In order to make the best case scenario for your argument, we'll argue that that $39.5MM is divided over 7 games, making a per game ticket sales of $5.6MM. We'll even be more generous and round that up to $6MM (because I'm lazy). In my proposed 32 team breakaway, every team would get 6 home games, meaning they'd be giving away a home game (or $6MM). Let's even say that Michigan is planning on playing 8 home games every year from now on, and somehow would be giving up 2 annual home games here, or $12MM. This same proposal I made was that every team in the breakaway would be getting $100MM every year exclusively for football broadcasts. Each B1G school made roughly $50MM per year on broadcast money for all sports last year. Don't forget that these schools would still be able to command additional revenues from their other athletic programs, but even if they didn't, $50MM >>>> $12MM, and this doesn't even include the costs of having to pay the teams they bring in for those payday games.

So that is WHY schools would want to break.

USFFan

You are using real numbers mixed with make believe ones ($100 million per school).

(09-12-2018 11:39 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 10:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The thing no one can ever effectively answer is WHY would anyone want to break? The non-wealthy are a resource that the richest programs use to enhance the reputation of their programs and to permit for more home games.

This is an important factor that is overlooked too often. The "name" programs are popular because they historically have had very lopsided W-L records, and one big reason they win so many more games than they lose is that they play so many games that they have at least a 90% chance of winning. If you create "the NFL of college football" and make all of those teams play a schedule for which every game is a 50-50 proposition, then you'll have a lot of teams that are around .500 every year. College football isn't the NFL. "Big time" college teams that are rarely above .500 will not keep their fanbase for very long because those fans are spoiled to expect 9 or more wins every year. Those big stadiums will empty out, TV viewers will watch something else, etc., if all these "big time" programs averaged 6 wins a year from now on.

That's why this won't happen. The people running these programs know they need their "90 percent" games to secure their impressive W-L records.

This guy gets it. Basic math. You start struggling to win half your games and you not only lose game day revenue and donations but you lose the ability to draw eyeballs. Why would anyone not consistently in the top 10 even consider such a proposal? If you cannot get critical mass you leave too many political and financial opponents out there.

(09-13-2018 01:39 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 09:57 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Guys those are the details that need to be worked out. Maybe the cut-off is 48.
Just include the programs that make the money. If they are making money, somebody is watching and willing to pay.

This eliminates all the programs that have been grandfathered into conferences with big paydays.
It wouldn't eliminate the present conference just move the top programs from those conferences into one league.

Also need to add an element of promotion and relegation. Stop performing, stop making money, resting on your laurels, you get sent down.
CJ

There are less than 4 P schools that are subsidized above 10%.

There are no G5 schools subsidized less than 25%.

I think we have the answer already.

A healthy upper tier would consist of roughly 60 to 64 schools.

If you want another more exclusive point of separation then 48 is probably your number, but the wins / losses bell curve will be radically affected.

There's a reason you've been hearing 64 for these past 10 years.

As others have pointed out, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reason why the P schools are less subsidized is because they're making the lion's share of the revenues. If the lower 1/4 of the P conferences were left to fend for themselves instead of profiting from the TV $$ that Alabama and Clemson generate, they'd be in the same position.

It's only a matter of time before the presidents of those institutions (since that's who will make these decisions, not the fans or even the ADs) get seduced by the cash thrown at them by somebody who points out the money they're leaving on the table.

USFFan

Not really. For most of the P5 it's like it is at Auburn or Alabama for instance where the TV revenue is only about 1/3 to 1/4 of the total revenue. Donations make up a significant portion of the total.

It took generations to get donations to those levels and that's the real advantage over many in the G5 and why G5 programs have higher subsidies.

If you look at the lower 1/4 of the P5 schools many you will find there are small privates like Wake Forest and Vanderbilt, or small state schools from smallish states with less football history than schools on the East Coast. Now we are talking Washington State and Oregon State.

Most of the large state schools East of the Mississippi or just West of it, are easily included inside the top 48 of the P5.

IMO football would have to be on its last leg before you see the upper tier dwindle to 32. I think the dividing line is monetary and not dependent solely on TV revenue and that the dividing line will eventually fall between 60 and 72 schools.

(09-13-2018 02:02 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 10:41 AM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 10:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  The thing no one can ever effectively answer is WHY would anyone want to break? The non-wealthy are a resource that the richest programs use to enhance the reputation of their programs and to permit for more home games. There is no sharing of media money. Nominal sharing of post-season football revenue. The only money to gain is in post-season basketball and again the power system relies on playing an unbalanced number of home games.

The simple reason is that the schools that can command the money can make a whole lot more this way.

Your thesis is that these schools would stand to lose the money they make on ticket sales from home games, specifically the ones that they buy. OK, let's explore that. Michigan is one of the biggest money makers in this regard, and I'm going to use them to illustrate this. Per this article:

https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/201..._cost.html

Michigan makes $39.5MM in ticket sales (for a >100,000 person stadium) per season. They typically play either 7 or 8 home games per year. In order to make the best case scenario for your argument, we'll argue that that $39.5MM is divided over 7 games, making a per game ticket sales of $5.6MM. We'll even be more generous and round that up to $6MM (because I'm lazy). In my proposed 32 team breakaway, every team would get 6 home games, meaning they'd be giving away a home game (or $6MM). Let's even say that Michigan is planning on playing 8 home games every year from now on, and somehow would be giving up 2 annual home games here, or $12MM. This same proposal I made was that every team in the breakaway would be getting $100MM every year exclusively for football broadcasts. Each B1G school made roughly $50MM per year on broadcast money for all sports last year. Don't forget that these schools would still be able to command additional revenues from their other athletic programs, but even if they didn't, $50MM >>>> $12MM, and this doesn't even include the costs of having to pay the teams they bring in for those payday games.

So that is WHY schools would want to break.

USFFan

You are using real numbers mixed with make believe ones ($100 million per school).

This was all based on a hypothetical offer to the top schools (since backed up by an Amazon executive saying they're looking at doing that very thing) that suggested this would be viable if some network were willing to pony up enough cash to make it worth the while of these schools to do it. I proposed that it would take an offer of $100MM/year, which is where that came from. Maybe that's not enough money. Maybe Amazon counters with $150MM. Some actuarial has crunched the numbers and knows what they could get to. My point was (and is) that this money could be made to dwarf the dollars made from ticket sales and donations.

USFFan

(09-13-2018 02:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 01:39 PM)usffan Wrote:  It's only a matter of time before the presidents of those institutions (since that's who will make these decisions, not the fans or even the ADs) get seduced by the cash thrown at them by somebody who points out the money they're leaving on the table.

USFFan

Not really. For most of the P5 it's like it is at Auburn or Alabama for instance where the TV revenue is only about 1/3 to 1/4 of the total revenue. Donations make up a significant portion of the total.

Yes, for schools like Alabama and LSU that have $160m in athletic revenue, about 75% of that is "locally" generated. They get $40m from the SEC, but $120m comes from donations and all the revenues that come from home attendance.

To be a truly big time program, there really is no substitute for building a local fan base. Many of these G5 believe that if they were just cashing a $20m media check all would be right with the world. But, schools like UConn are already in effect cashing that check, by soaking their students for upwards of $30m in fees.

I mean, my USF has a $50m athletic budget, and about $22m comes from student fees. What if we suddenly got a $20m media deal, but also got rid our student fees like LSU? Would we have a $150m budget?

Nope, it would still be $50m.

(09-13-2018 01:44 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 11:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 10:25 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The effort to squeeze the little guys out started with The BTN. It will come to the conclusion when the teams that make the money break away.

Who needs to be squeezed out in order for the biggest programs to make more money?

There is a place where there's significant money to be made, it's just that no one has decided to "go there" just yet. Every P5 conference could make just as much TV money as they make now if they said goodbye to their two least valuable members. They'd have the same amount of conference revenue but they'd be dividing it 12 ways instead of 14, or 10 ways instead of 12, etc. It's a big difference for any conference bringing in as much media revenue as the P5 conferences do. Or maybe we'll get to the point where Clemson or Ohio State or Alabama asks for conference revenue to be divided un-equally with the biggest earners getting much larger shares. The big boys can make more money per school, even when TV is not increasing its total spend, not by getting certain teams off of the schedule, but by giving that $30-50 million/year in conference revenue to a smaller number of schools.

ABSOLUTELY.

In football, there is more money to be made by the P5 cutting out members of their own league than there is cutting anyone from the over-arching division.

Now basketball the NCAA skim and six distribution funds do present funds to be gained.

But the SEC has more potential profit booting Vandy or Ole Miss in football than they could ever make booting Southern Miss or Middle Tennessee from FBS football.

It "costs" Alabama some portion of roughly $40 million to have Mississippi State on the schedule. If the SEC culled two to get to 12 members that would be another $7 million in revenue and would make no change in the number of conference games.

Funny how it is always fans of G5 schools and the like that see things these ways. I've never yet heard an Alabama or LSU fan talk that way.

Probably because if you knew SEC culture, Alabama and LSU fans value their games vs Ole Miss and Mississippi State, as those are historical rivalries that reflect both the unity and the competition among their respective states.

Alabama and Mississippi State have played 101 times, LSU and Mississippi State have played 109 times, both series date back to 1896.

Both first played Ole Miss in 1894.

Nobody involved wants any of that to end.

You conveniently omit the rivalries that have already been abandoned in the search for the almighty dollar. You think LSU fans care more about their annual rivalries with the Mississippi schools than the fact that they've played only 1 regular season game vs. Georgia since 2009? Or that the once great Auburn/Florida rivalry is now lost to expansion? You think Texas and A&M fans are happy with the current lack of games between the two?

The "save the rivalries" horse has long left the barn.

So ... why isn't there any clamoring at Alabama or Florida or LSU to ditch Vandy and Ole Miss and Mississippi State?

Sure, no question, money matters. TAMU, Maryland, and Nebraska all left many historical rivalries behind to get more money.

But, those were isolated cases, with some contingent factors. One big thing in all three cases was power: Both TAMU and Nebraska had long been unhappy in Texas's shadow, while Maryland had always chafed under the perceived control of the Carolina schools. All three fan bases had a contingent that had been agitating for a change for a while. And in Maryland's case, mismanagement had left their finances so bad that the B1G move was almost as much a bailout move as a greedy get more money move.

Of course, none of that applies to schools like Alabama and Florida, who are big-wig power brokers in their conferences, they don't chafe under anyone like the above schools did, and they are swimming in money.

Again, wake me up when the rumbling starts.

(09-13-2018 02:34 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 01:39 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 11:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 09:57 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Guys those are the details that need to be worked out. Maybe the cut-off is 48.
Just include the programs that make the money. If they are making money, somebody is watching and willing to pay.

This eliminates all the programs that have been grandfathered into conferences with big paydays.
It wouldn't eliminate the present conference just move the top programs from those conferences into one league.

Also need to add an element of promotion and relegation. Stop performing, stop making money, resting on your laurels, you get sent down.
CJ

There are less than 4 P schools that are subsidized above 10%.

There are no G5 schools subsidized less than 25%.

I think we have the answer already.

A healthy upper tier would consist of roughly 60 to 64 schools.

If you want another more exclusive point of separation then 48 is probably your number, but the wins / losses bell curve will be radically affected.

There's a reason you've been hearing 64 for these past 10 years.

As others have pointed out, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reason why the P schools are less subsidized is because they're making the lion's share of the revenues. If the lower 1/4 of the P conferences were left to fend for themselves instead of profiting from the TV $$ that Alabama and Clemson generate, they'd be in the same position.

It's only a matter of time before the presidents of those institutions (since that's who will make these decisions, not the fans or even the ADs) get seduced by the cash thrown at them by somebody who points out the money they're leaving on the table.

USFFan

Not really. For most of the P5 it's like it is at Auburn or Alabama for instance where the TV revenue is only about 1/3 to 1/4 of the total revenue. Donations make up a significant portion of the total.

It took generations to get donations to those levels and that's the real advantage over many in the G5 and why G5 programs have higher subsidies.

If you look at the lower 1/4 of the P5 schools many you will find there are small privates like Wake Forest and Vanderbilt, or small state schools from smallish states with less football history than schools on the East Coast. Now we are talking Washington State and Oregon State.

Most of the large state schools East of the Mississippi or just West of it, are easily included inside the top 48 of the P5.

IMO football would have to be on its last leg before you see the upper tier dwindle to 32. I think the dividing line is monetary and not dependent solely on TV revenue and that the dividing line will eventually fall between 60 and 72 schools.

You're arguing two different things. The bottom of the P5 are definitely making more money for their athletic departments from TV than they are from donations to the athletic departments themselves. For example (since Texas Tech has been bandied about in here, and I didn't list them in the top 32), here are some numbers:

In fiscal year 2017, Texas Tech received $2.77MM in donations to the university (https://www.depts.ttu.edu/irim/Reports/S...TTUAFR.pdf)

In this 2015 article (http://www.lubbockonline.com/article/201...06139867), Texas Tech reports a number of revenues:
Football ($17.1MM - "90% of which is from ticket sales and seat options)
Donations to the Red Raider Club ($6.5MM)
Sponsorships ($5.5MM)
Big 12 TV payout ($25MM)

In other words, roughly 50% of their revenue is coming from the Big 12. That goes away, they're suddenly subsidizing more.

And rest assured, this is only one school, lest somebody think I'm picking on Tech.

Now, if a TV entity went to Texas and Oklahoma and said "join our venture and we'll quadruple your TV revenues FOR FOOTBALL alone," I argue that they'd jump at it. They've both already seen long time rivalries with A&M and Nebraska (respectively) disappear in search of the almighty dollar. I don't think they'll draw a line in the sand to keep Tech, Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State attached at the hip over some sense of loyalty now.

As for the notion that this will only happen when football is on its last leg, that's a different argument, but one that I disagree with. This will happen if/when somebody makes an offer that's "too good to refuse."

USFFan

(09-13-2018 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 01:44 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 11:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Who needs to be squeezed out in order for the biggest programs to make more money?

There is a place where there's significant money to be made, it's just that no one has decided to "go there" just yet. Every P5 conference could make just as much TV money as they make now if they said goodbye to their two least valuable members. They'd have the same amount of conference revenue but they'd be dividing it 12 ways instead of 14, or 10 ways instead of 12, etc. It's a big difference for any conference bringing in as much media revenue as the P5 conferences do. Or maybe we'll get to the point where Clemson or Ohio State or Alabama asks for conference revenue to be divided un-equally with the biggest earners getting much larger shares. The big boys can make more money per school, even when TV is not increasing its total spend, not by getting certain teams off of the schedule, but by giving that $30-50 million/year in conference revenue to a smaller number of schools.

ABSOLUTELY.

In football, there is more money to be made by the P5 cutting out members of their own league than there is cutting anyone from the over-arching division.

Now basketball the NCAA skim and six distribution funds do present funds to be gained.

But the SEC has more potential profit booting Vandy or Ole Miss in football than they could ever make booting Southern Miss or Middle Tennessee from FBS football.

It "costs" Alabama some portion of roughly $40 million to have Mississippi State on the schedule. If the SEC culled two to get to 12 members that would be another $7 million in revenue and would make no change in the number of conference games.

Funny how it is always fans of G5 schools and the like that see things these ways. I've never yet heard an Alabama or LSU fan talk that way.

Probably because if you knew SEC culture, Alabama and LSU fans value their games vs Ole Miss and Mississippi State, as those are historical rivalries that reflect both the unity and the competition among their respective states.

Alabama and Mississippi State have played 101 times, LSU and Mississippi State have played 109 times, both series date back to 1896.

Both first played Ole Miss in 1894.

Nobody involved wants any of that to end.

You conveniently omit the rivalries that have already been abandoned in the search for the almighty dollar. You think LSU fans care more about their annual rivalries with the Mississippi schools than the fact that they've played only 1 regular season game vs. Georgia since 2009? Or that the once great Auburn/Florida rivalry is now lost to expansion? You think Texas and A&M fans are happy with the current lack of games between the two?

The "save the rivalries" horse has long left the barn.

So ... why isn't there any clamoring at Alabama or Florida or LSU to ditch Vandy and Ole Miss and Mississippi State?

Sure, no question, money matters. TAMU, Maryland, and Nebraska all left many historical rivalries behind to get more money.

But, those were isolated cases, with some contingent factors. One big thing in all three cases was power: Both TAMU and Nebraska had long been unhappy in Texas's shadow, while Maryland had always chafed under the perceived control of the Carolina schools. All three fan bases had a contingent that had been agitating for a change for a while. And in Maryland's case, mismanagement had left their finances so bad that the B1G move was almost as much a bailout move as a greedy get more money move.

Of course, none of that applies to schools like Alabama and Florida, who are big-wig power brokers in their conferences, they don't chafe under anyone like the above schools did, and they are swimming in money.

Again, wake me up when the rumbling starts.

The basis for this wasn't that somebody would be clamoring for it. Rather, could somebody make it worth Florida and Alabama's while to walk away from them. I've made the case that there's a number that would get them to do it, and I think any reasonable person realizes that that's the case. Let's make it ridiculous at first. If every school were offered $1BB/year to do this, there's no way they turn it down. The problem is that I don't think there's any feasible way somebody could offer that. So the question is, if/when a network with no allegiance to conferences comes along and offers up numbers, can they get high enough to get all of the critical players to jump? What is that number? I proposed $100MM/year would do the trick. Maybe not. But $200MM?

The thing is, those presidents recognize dollar figures FAR MORE than the romanticized notion of having LSU play Ole Miss every year.

USFFan

(09-12-2018 08:48 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This is what should be used to separate the contenders from the pretenders....

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Take the top 32 and move on....
CJ

Top 53 public schools, except UConn, and add the top bakers dozen private schools: (ND, USC, Stanford, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Vandy, BC, TCU, Baylor, Wake). Oh wait that is already the P5.

UConn is the only school above the line, and they achieve that by massive deficit spending.

Effectively the split has already occurred within the existing structure, and the gap starting to widen more. This begs the question, why bother to change the structure when it's already working for the P5 and only handful of G5 are even in shouting distance? If it ain't broke, why fix it (from a P5 perspective)?

(09-13-2018 03:08 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 02:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 01:44 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  ABSOLUTELY.

In football, there is more money to be made by the P5 cutting out members of their own league than there is cutting anyone from the over-arching division.

Now basketball the NCAA skim and six distribution funds do present funds to be gained.

But the SEC has more potential profit booting Vandy or Ole Miss in football than they could ever make booting Southern Miss or Middle Tennessee from FBS football.

It "costs" Alabama some portion of roughly $40 million to have Mississippi State on the schedule. If the SEC culled two to get to 12 members that would be another $7 million in revenue and would make no change in the number of conference games.

Funny how it is always fans of G5 schools and the like that see things these ways. I've never yet heard an Alabama or LSU fan talk that way.

Probably because if you knew SEC culture, Alabama and LSU fans value their games vs Ole Miss and Mississippi State, as those are historical rivalries that reflect both the unity and the competition among their respective states.

Alabama and Mississippi State have played 101 times, LSU and Mississippi State have played 109 times, both series date back to 1896.

Both first played Ole Miss in 1894.

Nobody involved wants any of that to end.

You conveniently omit the rivalries that have already been abandoned in the search for the almighty dollar. You think LSU fans care more about their annual rivalries with the Mississippi schools than the fact that they've played only 1 regular season game vs. Georgia since 2009? Or that the once great Auburn/Florida rivalry is now lost to expansion? You think Texas and A&M fans are happy with the current lack of games between the two?

The "save the rivalries" horse has long left the barn.

So ... why isn't there any clamoring at Alabama or Florida or LSU to ditch Vandy and Ole Miss and Mississippi State?

Sure, no question, money matters. TAMU, Maryland, and Nebraska all left many historical rivalries behind to get more money.

But, those were isolated cases, with some contingent factors. One big thing in all three cases was power: Both TAMU and Nebraska had long been unhappy in Texas's shadow, while Maryland had always chafed under the perceived control of the Carolina schools. All three fan bases had a contingent that had been agitating for a change for a while. And in Maryland's case, mismanagement had left their finances so bad that the B1G move was almost as much a bailout move as a greedy get more money move.

Of course, none of that applies to schools like Alabama and Florida, who are big-wig power brokers in their conferences, they don't chafe under anyone like the above schools did, and they are swimming in money.

Again, wake me up when the rumbling starts.

The basis for this wasn't that somebody would be clamoring for it. Rather, could somebody make it worth Florida and Alabama's while to walk away from them. I've made the case that there's a number that would get them to do it, and I think any reasonable person realizes that that's the case. Let's make it ridiculous at first. If every school were offered $1BB/year to do this, there's no way they turn it down. The problem is that I don't think there's any feasible way somebody could offer that. So the question is, if/when a network with no allegiance to conferences comes along and offers up numbers, can they get high enough to get all of the critical players to jump? What is that number? I proposed $100MM/year would do the trick. Maybe not. But $200MM?

No question, if they money offered was great enough, the schools involved would do anything. Everything has its price, including rivalries. Nobody has doubted that.

Where we differ is that IMO, it won't happen because the amount of money needed to get LSU and Alabama to ditch Ole Miss and Vandy will not be forthcoming, because there isn't that much value-added to anyone in doing so.

(09-13-2018 03:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 08:48 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This is what should be used to separate the contenders from the pretenders....

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Take the top 32 and move on....
CJ

Top 53 public schools, except UConn, and add the top bakers dozen private schools: (ND, USC, Stanford, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Vandy, BC, TCU, Baylor, Wake). Oh wait that is already the P5.

UConn is the only school above the line, and they achieve that by massive deficit spending.

Effectively the split has already occurred within the existing structure, and the gap starting to widen more. This begs the question, why bother to change the structure when it's already working for the P5 and only handful of G5 are even in shouting distance? If it ain't broke, why fix it (from a P5 perspective)?

I was wondering how long before someone brought this up ...lol

(09-13-2018 03:35 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 03:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(09-12-2018 08:48 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  This is what should be used to separate the contenders from the pretenders....

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

Take the top 32 and move on....
CJ

Top 53 public schools, except UConn, and add the top bakers dozen private schools: (ND, USC, Stanford, Duke, Miami, Syracuse, Pitt, Northwestern, Vandy, BC, TCU, Baylor, Wake). Oh wait that is already the P5.

UConn is the only school above the line, and they achieve that by massive deficit spending.

Effectively the split has already occurred within the existing structure, and the gap starting to widen more. This begs the question, why bother to change the structure when it's already working for the P5 and only handful of G5 are even in shouting distance? If it ain't broke, why fix it (from a P5 perspective)?

I was wondering how long before someone brought this up ...lol

Because even as is, the top half of that group is what is driving far more than 50% of the revenues. If/when somebody makes an offer to the top group and says "we can quadruple your TV revenues," they'll jump at it faster than you could drive out of Manhattan, Kansas or Pullman, Washington.

And I believe that offer is coming sooner rather than later. Perhaps as soon as the next set of TV contracts comes up.

USFFan

(09-13-2018 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 11:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 10:25 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The effort to squeeze the little guys out started with The BTN. It will come to the conclusion when the teams that make the money break away.

Who needs to be squeezed out in order for the biggest programs to make more money?

There is a place where there's significant money to be made, it's just that no one has decided to "go there" just yet. Every P5 conference could make just as much TV money as they make now if they said goodbye to their two least valuable members. They'd have the same amount of conference revenue but they'd be dividing it 12 ways instead of 14, or 10 ways instead of 12, etc. It's a big difference for any conference bringing in as much media revenue as the P5 conferences do. Or maybe we'll get to the point where Clemson or Ohio State or Alabama asks for conference revenue to be divided un-equally with the biggest earners getting much larger shares. The big boys can make more money per school, even when TV is not increasing its total spend, not by getting certain teams off of the schedule, but by giving that $30-50 million/year in conference revenue to a smaller number of schools.

ABSOLUTELY.

In football, there is more money to be made by the P5 cutting out members of their own league than there is cutting anyone from the over-arching division.

Now basketball the NCAA skim and six distribution funds do present funds to be gained.

But the SEC has more potential profit booting Vandy or Ole Miss in football than they could ever make booting Southern Miss or Middle Tennessee from FBS football.

It "costs" Alabama some portion of roughly $40 million to have Mississippi State on the schedule. If the SEC culled two to get to 12 members that would be another $7 million in revenue and would make no change in the number of conference games.

Funny how it is always fans of G5 schools and the like that see things these ways. I've never yet heard an Alabama or LSU fan talk that way.

Probably because if you knew SEC culture, Alabama and LSU fans value their games vs Ole Miss and Mississippi State, as those are historical rivalries that reflect both the unity and the competition among their respective states.

Alabama and Mississippi State have played 101 times, LSU and Mississippi State have played 109 times, both series date back to 1896.

Both first played Ole Miss in 1894.

Nobody involved wants any of that to end.

That's the point. We get this constant BS about how the power 5 will be so much richer if they "cull" the schools they aren't sharing revenue with, who don't vote on autonomy issues, and have a lesser weighted vote in general issues, but if they are so concerned, the profit is culling their own leagues and that ain't happening either.

(09-13-2018 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 11:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 10:25 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  The effort to squeeze the little guys out started with The BTN. It will come to the conclusion when the teams that make the money break away.

Who needs to be squeezed out in order for the biggest programs to make more money?

There is a place where there's significant money to be made, it's just that no one has decided to "go there" just yet. Every P5 conference could make just as much TV money as they make now if they said goodbye to their two least valuable members. They'd have the same amount of conference revenue but they'd be dividing it 12 ways instead of 14, or 10 ways instead of 12, etc. It's a big difference for any conference bringing in as much media revenue as the P5 conferences do. Or maybe we'll get to the point where Clemson or Ohio State or Alabama asks for conference revenue to be divided un-equally with the biggest earners getting much larger shares. The big boys can make more money per school, even when TV is not increasing its total spend, not by getting certain teams off of the schedule, but by giving that $30-50 million/year in conference revenue to a smaller number of schools.

ABSOLUTELY.

In football, there is more money to be made by the P5 cutting out members of their own league than there is cutting anyone from the over-arching division.

Now basketball the NCAA skim and six distribution funds do present funds to be gained.

But the SEC has more potential profit booting Vandy or Ole Miss in football than they could ever make booting Southern Miss or Middle Tennessee from FBS football.

It "costs" Alabama some portion of roughly $40 million to have Mississippi State on the schedule. If the SEC culled two to get to 12 members that would be another $7 million in revenue and would make no change in the number of conference games.

Funny how it is always fans of G5 schools and the like that see things these ways. I've never yet heard an Alabama or LSU fan talk that way.

Probably because if you knew SEC culture, Alabama and LSU fans value their games vs Ole Miss and Mississippi State, as those are historical rivalries that reflect both the unity and the competition among their respective states.

Alabama and Mississippi State have played 101 times, LSU and Mississippi State have played 109 times, both series date back to 1896.

Both first played Ole Miss in 1894.

Nobody involved wants any of that to end.

That's the point. We get this constant BS about how the power 5 will be so much richer if they "cull" the schools they aren't sharing revenue with, who don't vote on autonomy issues, and have a lesser weighted vote in general issues, but if they are so concerned, the profit is culling their own leagues and that ain't happening either.

No. The issue is basketball. The P5's next revenue stream will be in culling basketball. They don't need to cull football. But as the 2nd revenue sport basketball is excruciatingly siphoned by the NCAA. When the P5 can handle basketball revenues like they do football revenues then they will be where they want to be.

The aren't really looking to separate from the FBS. They are looking to separate the NCAA from the cash cow that stores 70 million a year on average out of the NCAA basketball tournament and which has done it long enough to endow 1 billion of that revenue.

But that narrative doesn't suit those who want to rail against the bigger schools and who gripe about the larger TV revenue which is solely based on audience participation in broadcasts. The larger the alumni base the more you make. The more non alum fans that adopt your program the more you make. There's nothing unfair about it. It's all based on demand and those with branding acquired it over decades of performance.

What the G5 fans don't realize is that many of their basketball programs would make a lot more if they were free of the NCAA's handling of their tourney credits.

Looking at revenue minus student fees, the cut off should be only P5 schools. Net revenues goes down significantly at this point. Close to 30% less for the highest non P5 vs lowest P5 and not even 20% of the top schools.

(09-14-2018 02:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 11:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 12:21 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-13-2018 11:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Who needs to be squeezed out in order for the biggest programs to make more money?

There is a place where there's significant money to be made, it's just that no one has decided to "go there" just yet. Every P5 conference could make just as much TV money as they make now if they said goodbye to their two least valuable members. They'd have the same amount of conference revenue but they'd be dividing it 12 ways instead of 14, or 10 ways instead of 12, etc. It's a big difference for any conference bringing in as much media revenue as the P5 conferences do. Or maybe we'll get to the point where Clemson or Ohio State or Alabama asks for conference revenue to be divided un-equally with the biggest earners getting much larger shares. The big boys can make more money per school, even when TV is not increasing its total spend, not by getting certain teams off of the schedule, but by giving that $30-50 million/year in conference revenue to a smaller number of schools.

ABSOLUTELY.

In football, there is more money to be made by the P5 cutting out members of their own league than there is cutting anyone from the over-arching division.

Now basketball the NCAA skim and six distribution funds do present funds to be gained.

But the SEC has more potential profit booting Vandy or Ole Miss in football than they could ever make booting Southern Miss or Middle Tennessee from FBS football.

It "costs" Alabama some portion of roughly $40 million to have Mississippi State on the schedule. If the SEC culled two to get to 12 members that would be another $7 million in revenue and would make no change in the number of conference games.

Funny how it is always fans of G5 schools and the like that see things these ways. I've never yet heard an Alabama or LSU fan talk that way.

Probably because if you knew SEC culture, Alabama and LSU fans value their games vs Ole Miss and Mississippi State, as those are historical rivalries that reflect both the unity and the competition among their respective states.

Alabama and Mississippi State have played 101 times, LSU and Mississippi State have played 109 times, both series date back to 1896.

Both first played Ole Miss in 1894.

Nobody involved wants any of that to end.

That's the point. We get this constant BS about how the power 5 will be so much richer if they "cull" the schools they aren't sharing revenue with, who don't vote on autonomy issues, and have a lesser weighted vote in general issues, but if they are so concerned, the profit is culling their own leagues and that ain't happening either.

No. The issue is basketball. The P5's next revenue stream will be in culling basketball. They don't need to cull football. But as the 2nd revenue sport basketball is excruciatingly siphoned by the NCAA. When the P5 can handle basketball revenues like they do football revenues then they will be where they want to be.

The aren't really looking to separate from the FBS. They are looking to separate the NCAA from the cash cow that stores 70 million a year on average out of the NCAA basketball tournament and which has done it long enough to endow 1 billion of that revenue.

But that narrative doesn't suit those who want to rail against the bigger schools and who gripe about the larger TV revenue which is solely based on audience participation in broadcasts. The larger the alumni base the more you make. The more non alum fans that adopt your program the more you make. There's nothing unfair about it. It's all based on demand and those with branding acquired it over decades of performance.

What the G5 fans don't realize is that many of their basketball programs would make a lot more if they were free of the NCAA's handling of their tourney credits.

Switching the NCAA Tournament to CFP style event and making the NCAA a dues based organization rather than having the NCAA skim in order to get certain things done by keeping the money out of the hands of the ADs is just a logical progression.