(03-15-2024 12:52 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 11:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 10:03 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:56 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

Agree. The ACC (and B12?) publicly announced that their members unanimously approved the proposed CFP financial distribution. That was odd because I don’t remember a precedent…I was curious why ESPN wanted a formal record on this media contract:

Is ESPN getting fed-up with the politics of this CFP media deal?
Does ESPN not really trust Hancock, the CFP director?
Does ESPN not like the approach of the SEC / B1G?
Is ESPN worried about actions from the ACC / B12?

It seems like there is more to this story.

I think it's that ESPN wants this done and off their plate before the NBA negotiations kick into high gear. That exclusivity window opens in April

The G5 is not on board with this.

On the one hand, nobody cares. (At least not enough people to matter). On the other hand, the G5 *does* seem to be on board with this. (I think I saw a tweet yesterday about Aresco being opposed, but getting zero support so he dropped it)

Quote:have seen that group of 5 teams have beaten teams in both the SEC and Big 10.

Yes, but not very often, and not very good Big Ten teams. If a Tulane beats a 4-8 Arkansas, who cares?

Quote:If SBC, MWC and AAC have schools that have no loses? You will have a blood bath if you allow a crappy 7-5 3rd place Big 10 team in the playoffs.

There' not much chance of a 7-5 Big 10 or SEC or Notre Dame in the playoffs. You'll have a stink if there are two undefeated G5s, there will be a hue and cry that the #13 9-3 Big TEn or SEC team got the bid.

The g5 all hated it but Aresco was the only one to publicly oppose them

(03-15-2024 09:52 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  A what?

So does this mean they're going to wait until marriage?

BYU put that clause in but "soaking" with interconference friends is allowed.

(03-15-2024 12:52 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 11:21 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 10:03 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:56 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 09:25 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

A 'loyalty pledge' to what? Being part of the P2-organised playoff as opposed to... starting their own postseason or something?

Agree. The ACC (and B12?) publicly announced that their members unanimously approved the proposed CFP financial distribution. That was odd because I don’t remember a precedent…I was curious why ESPN wanted a formal record on this media contract:

Is ESPN getting fed-up with the politics of this CFP media deal?
Does ESPN not really trust Hancock, the CFP director?
Does ESPN not like the approach of the SEC / B1G?
Is ESPN worried about actions from the ACC / B12?

It seems like there is more to this story.

I think it's that ESPN wants this done and off their plate before the NBA negotiations kick into high gear. That exclusivity window opens in April

The G5 is not on board with this.

On the one hand, nobody cares. (At least not enough people to matter). On the other hand, the G5 *does* seem to be on board with this. (I think I saw a tweet yesterday about Aresco being opposed, but getting zero support so he dropped it)

Quote:have seen that group of 5 teams have beaten teams in both the SEC and Big 10.

Yes, but not very often, and not very good Big Ten teams. If a Tulane beats a 4-8 Arkansas, who cares?

Quote:If SBC, MWC and AAC have schools that have no loses? You will have a blood bath if you allow a crappy 7-5 3rd place Big 10 team in the playoffs.

There' not much chance of a 7-5 Big 10 or SEC or Notre Dame in the playoffs. You'll have a stink if there are two undefeated G5s, there will be a hue and cry that the #13 9-3 Big TEn or SEC team got the bid.

Marshall and App State knocked off two P2 teams ranked in the Top 10 on the same weekend. So it does happen.

(03-15-2024 11:16 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Strictly from a business standpoint, The ACC and The Big 12 need to be happy The SEC and The Big Ten don't take their ball and go home. A P2 is possible.

Be that as it may, the best chance (in fact, the only real chance) the B12/ACC have of negotiating slightly better terms is by sticking together and creating a united front. Even then, they arent exactly dripping with negotiating leverage---but they at least have enough value to perhaps push for some incremental changes.

(03-15-2024 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I am frequently wrong, but one thing I believe I was right about is the P2 getting way more than the M2.

You don't add brands like Texas and OU, when you already have better brands to begin with, then say oh well we're all still equal colleagues, or anything close to it.

Absolutely, and I wasn’t surprised by the money. The nSEC took the best Big XII value and the nB18 took the best Pac value and then some.

The ACC is actually being punished despite not losing any programs. Although the conference is competitive—winning record vs the oSEC last season and multiple natties—the reality is there are a lot of basketball first programs that aren’t big football TV draws. It is what it is.

(03-15-2024 01:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 11:16 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Strictly from a business standpoint, The ACC and The Big 12 need to be happy The SEC and The Big Ten don't take their ball and go home. A P2 is possible.

Be that as it may, the best chance (in fact, the only real chance) the B12/ACC have of negotiating slightly better terms is by sticking together and creating a united front. Even then, they arent exactly dripping with negotiating leverage---but they at least have enough value to get perhaps push for some incremental changes.

I agree. Two voices are stronger than one. The conferences have enough of their own identity to be more powerful separately than they do as the mythical sprawling conference nobody is going to pay for. Otherwise, why do both conferences have a capped pro-rata?

(03-15-2024 03:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I am frequently wrong, but one thing I believe I was right about is the P2 getting way more than the M2.

You don't add brands like Texas and OU, when you already have better brands to begin with, then say oh well we're all still equal colleagues, or anything close to it.

Absolutely, and I wasn’t surprised by the money. The nSEC took the best Big XII value and the nB18 took the best Pac value and then some.

The ACC is actually being punished despite not losing any programs. Although the conference is competitive—winning record vs the oSEC last season and multiple natties—the reality is there are a lot of basketball first programs that aren’t big football TV draws. It is what it is.

The ACC is proof-positive IMO that competitiveness has nothing to do with this. During the ten year CFP era, regarding national titles, the ACC was the second-best football performer, and the best hoops performer among the P5 (tied with the Big East overall), lost no members, and yet have been demoted to the M2.

It's all about brands.

(03-15-2024 04:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 03:38 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I am frequently wrong, but one thing I believe I was right about is the P2 getting way more than the M2.

You don't add brands like Texas and OU, when you already have better brands to begin with, then say oh well we're all still equal colleagues, or anything close to it.

Absolutely, and I wasn’t surprised by the money. The nSEC took the best Big XII value and the nB18 took the best Pac value and then some.

The ACC is actually being punished despite not losing any programs. Although the conference is competitive—winning record vs the oSEC last season and multiple natties—the reality is there are a lot of basketball first programs that aren’t big football TV draws. It is what it is.

The ACC is proof-positive IMO that competitiveness has nothing to do with this. During the ten year CFP era, regarding national titles, the ACC was the second-best football performer, and the best hoops performer among the P5 (tied with the Big East overall), lost no members, and yet have been demoted to the M2.

It's all about brands.

It always was.

(03-15-2024 05:06 PM)Porcine Wrote:  

(03-15-2024 04:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The ACC is proof-positive IMO that competitiveness has nothing to do with this. During the ten year CFP era, regarding national titles, the ACC was the second-best football performer, and the best hoops performer among the P5 (tied with the Big East overall), lost no members, and yet have been demoted to the M2.

It's all about brands.

It always was.

'Brand' is a recipe, of course.

The recipe includes alumni population as an important ingredient. Big schools fare better here than smaller ones.

A winning tradition is another ingredient in the 'brand' recipe. But it's just one ingredient, not the whole recipe.

Press hype is a key ingredient. Media can make its own stars. If a media company defines one partner conference as 'our football product' and another as 'our basketball product,' it advertises (and compensates) them accordingly until the stereotypes are self-fulfilling. Pollsters and high school seniors who aren't paying close attention absorb the hype, and on we go.

Seriously, I think the "loyalty pledge" is, not to each other, but to the CFP itself. ESPN wanted to know that the ACC and Big XII were "all in" despite getting less money than the Greedy 2.

(03-15-2024 10:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Seriously, I think the "loyalty pledge" is, not to each other, but to the CFP itself. ESPN wanted to know that the ACC and Big XII were "all in" despite getting less money than the Greedy 2.

Yeah. That's a big bitter pill they just swallowed. There will be repercussions inside each league.