(06-19-2013 02:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I can tell you, I was a long time season ticket holder of the Oilers. I completely lost interst in the NFL after Oilers left Houston and didn't come back until the Texans started up---and then I bought season tickets for the Texans. During the period I stopped watching, I found plenty of other things to do and didn't miss it at all.

I don't think that all NFL fans feel that way, though. NFL TV ratings are lower in L.A. than they were when the Rams and Raiders were there, and there are some people there who no longer follow the NFL closely, but the L.A. ratings are still pretty good. And that's one reason the NFL doesn't much care that they've now played 18 seasons without a team in L.A. If NFL TV ratings in L.A. were as low as NHL TV ratings, the NFL would be concerned. But that's not the case.

Yes, the truth is that most who watch college football are fans of "college football" as well as fans of their alma mater. That's why games like the Rose Bowl have always garnered huge ratings even though only two teams are involved and until 1998 only schools from two conferences were eligible to play in it. If Coog were correct, the only folks who tune in for the Rose would be the fans of the two teams involved, or at most fans of PAC and B1G schools. But that was never true.

No, that isn't what he was saying. He's saying the numbers would be less, not that only fans of PAC and B1G schools would watch.

(06-19-2013 02:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I can tell you, I was a long time season ticket holder of the Oilers. I completely lost interst in the NFL after Oilers left Houston and didn't come back until the Texans started up---and then I bought season tickets for the Texans. During the period I stopped watching, I found plenty of other things to do and didn't miss it at all.

I don't think that all NFL fans feel that way, though. NFL TV ratings are lower in L.A. than they were when the Rams and Raiders were there, and there are some people there who no longer follow the NFL closely, but the L.A. ratings are still pretty good. And that's one reason the NFL doesn't much care that they've now played 18 seasons without a team in L.A. If NFL TV ratings in L.A. were as low as NHL TV ratings, the NFL would be concerned. But that's not the case.

That's not true at all. The NFL is DYING to get into LA. LA, however, is not willing to do a thing that would enable the NFL to return. That's the only reason McNair was able to bring a team to Houston. LA is not willing to publically fund a new stadium.

To the bigger point, I believe the ratings would fall. The question is--how much?

(06-19-2013 04:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  the NFL doesn't much care that they've now played 18 seasons without a team in L.A.

That's not true at all. The NFL is DYING to get into LA. LA, however, is not willing to do a thing that would enable the NFL to return. That's the only reason McNair was able to bring a team to Houston. LA is not willing to publicly fund a new stadium.

When the Raiders/Rams went to Oakland and St. Louis, I remember thinking (at the time) that the networks would insist on having a team in the L.A./Orange Co. area as quickly as possible. Needless to say, that still hasn't happened. I don't think the networks care, and I don't think the people of LA care. I don't know if the NFL cares or not. But from the NFL's perspective, having the vacancy in LA certainly has the benefit of allowing every franchise which is dissatisfied with its current stadium to threaten a move to LA if they don't get what they want. Just within the last 12 months, the possibility of the Falcons moving to LA briefly floated around the Atlanta media. Few took it seriously but it still reinforced the idea that it Could happen if the GeorgiaDome (20 years old) doesn't get replaced soon enough with something better.

I thought LA is building a new stadium that will be available by 2015 or '16 at the latest. Not true?

(06-19-2013 02:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:31 AM)ecu92 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 12:54 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  Let's be real - about half of the BCS schools, regardless of league, are deadweight, and are being subsidized by 10 to 15 elite programs. My point is if you're dishing out welfare money, dish it out equitably. Words like "earning" and "deserves" are irrelevant.

Big difference between schools like USF and ECU and "deadweight" schools in the P5 club like Wake Forest or Vanderbilt is that the elite programs have chosen to associate with them (share "welfare" with them) and not with us, and as the revenue bread-winners they have the right to do that, so I'm not sure who your equity argument is pitched at?

The point is - Jim Delaney and other BCS mouthpieces have opposed revenue-sharing to the smaller conferences and non-BCS teams based on the "they don't bring enough value" argument; basically saying, these teams need to earn it, to pay their own way. If it's about earning it, everyone should have to earn it. We should have reasonable revenue sharing (as does NCAA basketball), or we should go to a no holds barred survival of the fittest model, which would mean no renevue sharing period, even among the leagues.

I think where your point falls flat is in not recognizing the conferences as structural entities. Delaney does not speak for a school, he speaks for a conference, and he is not saying "these teams (schools) need to earn it", he is saying "these conferences need to earn it", and that makes sense since he is talking about the distribution of money among conferences, not schools, which is the way these TV contracts are structured (the networks pay the conferences, not the schools directly). And at that level, there is no doubt that the B1G generates more revenue than the AAC so therefore one can argue it deserves more.

And how the conferences distribute conference-earned money among their members is, of course, a within-conference issue. As a USF fan, I have no standing to tell the SEC or ACC or MWC how it should distribute its money. If the ACC wants to give big-names FSU and Duke the same money as dead-weight Wake Forest, that's something for Wake and FSU fans to argue about if they want, but that's really none of my (USF fan's) business.

Perhaps the leagues do have "standing" to distribute the league TV revenue how they see fit, but what about post-season? If basketball post-season were managed like the BCS, we would have never seen the likes of Gonzaga and other great teams from small leagues. Without the renevue-sharing, you'd have so few cinderellas in the NCAA tourney, which is a big part of its charm. Instead, all but a handful of the 64-teams the ACC, SEC, Big 10, etc.

(06-12-2013 07:56 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Get rid of your service academies. Then you may come to the dark side.

Wrong answer…. Having all three service academies in a merged AAC/MWC helps ensure that we aren’t left behind. The Cartel 5 would look very unpatriotic by leaving behind our united conference with the service academies included to form its own division. Therefore, we would almost be guaranteed a spot in the new division. That’s why it’s important for the AAC to get Army. By having two of the three, the AAC would be in a better position than the MWC should a split occur and a merger doesn’t take place between both conferences.

(06-19-2013 04:49 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  But from the NFL's perspective, having the vacancy in LA certainly has the benefit of allowing every franchise which is dissatisfied with its current stadium to threaten a move to LA if they don't get what they want.

That's true, but that leverage is really a side benefit, and it only benefits some of the franchises.

If the league thought that having a team or teams in L.A. would substantially increase their TV revenue, they'd have a team there already. But no one has broken ground on a new stadium, and won't until they land a team. (Which should go without saying given that one of these palaces now costs at least several hundred million to build.)

(06-19-2013 05:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 04:49 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  But from the NFL's perspective, having the vacancy in LA certainly has the benefit of allowing every franchise which is dissatisfied with its current stadium to threaten a move to LA if they don't get what they want.

That's true, but that leverage is really a side benefit, and it only benefits some of the franchises.

If the league thought that having a team or teams in L.A. would substantially increase their TV revenue, they'd have a team there already. But no one has broken ground on a new stadium, and won't until they land a team. (Which should go without saying given that one of these palaces now costs at least several hundred million to build.)

No owner is moving his team there until there is a new stadium. Simple as that. The league desperately wants a team there---but no owner is willing to play in an old dump with none of the modern boxes and amenities that are now required to be competitive. When LA commits to build a new stadium the NFL will be there 15 minutes later.

(06-19-2013 02:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I can tell you, I was a long time season ticket holder of the Oilers. I completely lost interst in the NFL after Oilers left Houston and didn't come back until the Texans started up---and then I bought season tickets for the Texans. During the period I stopped watching, I found plenty of other things to do and didn't miss it at all.

I don't think that all NFL fans feel that way, though. NFL TV ratings are lower in L.A. than they were when the Rams and Raiders were there, and there are some people there who no longer follow the NFL closely, but the L.A. ratings are still pretty good. And that's one reason the NFL doesn't much care that they've now played 18 seasons without a team in L.A. If NFL TV ratings in L.A. were as low as NHL TV ratings, the NFL would be concerned. But that's not the case.

Yes, the truth is that most who watch college football are fans of "college football" as well as fans of their alma mater. That's why games like the Rose Bowl have always garnered huge ratings even though only two teams are involved and until 1998 only schools from two conferences were eligible to play in it. If Coog were correct, the only folks who tune in for the Rose would be the fans of the two teams involved, or at most fans of PAC and B1G schools. But that was never true.

No, that isn't what he was saying. He's saying the numbers would be less, not that only fans of PAC and B1G schools would watch.

OK, i overstated his point. But it's still incorrect, as the Rose Bowl drew the largest ratings despite being the most restrictive of bowls in terms of which teams could play in it.

(06-19-2013 04:53 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:31 AM)ecu92 Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 12:54 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  Let's be real - about half of the BCS schools, regardless of league, are deadweight, and are being subsidized by 10 to 15 elite programs. My point is if you're dishing out welfare money, dish it out equitably. Words like "earning" and "deserves" are irrelevant.

Big difference between schools like USF and ECU and "deadweight" schools in the P5 club like Wake Forest or Vanderbilt is that the elite programs have chosen to associate with them (share "welfare" with them) and not with us, and as the revenue bread-winners they have the right to do that, so I'm not sure who your equity argument is pitched at?

The point is - Jim Delaney and other BCS mouthpieces have opposed revenue-sharing to the smaller conferences and non-BCS teams based on the "they don't bring enough value" argument; basically saying, these teams need to earn it, to pay their own way. If it's about earning it, everyone should have to earn it. We should have reasonable revenue sharing (as does NCAA basketball), or we should go to a no holds barred survival of the fittest model, which would mean no renevue sharing period, even among the leagues.

I think where your point falls flat is in not recognizing the conferences as structural entities. Delaney does not speak for a school, he speaks for a conference, and he is not saying "these teams (schools) need to earn it", he is saying "these conferences need to earn it", and that makes sense since he is talking about the distribution of money among conferences, not schools, which is the way these TV contracts are structured (the networks pay the conferences, not the schools directly). And at that level, there is no doubt that the B1G generates more revenue than the AAC so therefore one can argue it deserves more.

And how the conferences distribute conference-earned money among their members is, of course, a within-conference issue. As a USF fan, I have no standing to tell the SEC or ACC or MWC how it should distribute its money. If the ACC wants to give big-names FSU and Duke the same money as dead-weight Wake Forest, that's something for Wake and FSU fans to argue about if they want, but that's really none of my (USF fan's) business.

Perhaps the leagues do have "standing" to distribute the league TV revenue how they see fit, but what about post-season? If basketball post-season were managed like the BCS, we would have never seen the likes of Gonzaga and other great teams from small leagues. Without the renevue-sharing, you'd have so few cinderellas in the NCAA tourney, which is a big part of its charm. Instead, all but a handful of the 64-teams the ACC, SEC, Big 10, etc.

Here's a comparison of 2011 post-season money for both the BCS in football and the NCAA tournament. Looks like the P5 conferences mop up the same both ways. In both cases, the bottom 5 FBS conferences get, collectively in total, about the same amount of money as the lowest-paid Power conference makes:

Conference...... BCS (millions) ....NCAA (millions)

ACC ........................$21.2 ..... $18.2
Big 10 .................... $27.2 .... $18.5
Big 12 .................... $21.2 .... $18.9
Big East .................. $21.2 .... $24.9
Pac 10 ................... $27.2 .... $16.1
SEC ........................$27.2 .... $15.6
Mtn. West........... ..... $12.8 ....$5.0
Mid-American ............ $2.6 ....$1.7
Sun Belt .................. $1.9.... . $2.4
C-USA ................... $3.3 ...... $6.9
WAC ...................... $4.1 ..... $2.9

(06-19-2013 09:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I can tell you, I was a long time season ticket holder of the Oilers. I completely lost interst in the NFL after Oilers left Houston and didn't come back until the Texans started up---and then I bought season tickets for the Texans. During the period I stopped watching, I found plenty of other things to do and didn't miss it at all.

I don't think that all NFL fans feel that way, though. NFL TV ratings are lower in L.A. than they were when the Rams and Raiders were there, and there are some people there who no longer follow the NFL closely, but the L.A. ratings are still pretty good. And that's one reason the NFL doesn't much care that they've now played 18 seasons without a team in L.A. If NFL TV ratings in L.A. were as low as NHL TV ratings, the NFL would be concerned. But that's not the case.

Yes, the truth is that most who watch college football are fans of "college football" as well as fans of their alma mater. That's why games like the Rose Bowl have always garnered huge ratings even though only two teams are involved and until 1998 only schools from two conferences were eligible to play in it. If Coog were correct, the only folks who tune in for the Rose would be the fans of the two teams involved, or at most fans of PAC and B1G schools. But that was never true.

No, that isn't what he was saying. He's saying the numbers would be less, not that only fans of PAC and B1G schools would watch.

OK, i overstated his point. But it's still incorrect, as the Rose Bowl drew the largest ratings despite being the most restrictive of bowls in terms of which teams could play in it.

No, because the G5 had not been eliminated from the BCS bowls, or even the national championship. Nobody cares if the Rose Bowl was set aside for a couple conferences.

(06-19-2013 10:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 09:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I don't think that all NFL fans feel that way, though. NFL TV ratings are lower in L.A. than they were when the Rams and Raiders were there, and there are some people there who no longer follow the NFL closely, but the L.A. ratings are still pretty good. And that's one reason the NFL doesn't much care that they've now played 18 seasons without a team in L.A. If NFL TV ratings in L.A. were as low as NHL TV ratings, the NFL would be concerned. But that's not the case.

Yes, the truth is that most who watch college football are fans of "college football" as well as fans of their alma mater. That's why games like the Rose Bowl have always garnered huge ratings even though only two teams are involved and until 1998 only schools from two conferences were eligible to play in it. If Coog were correct, the only folks who tune in for the Rose would be the fans of the two teams involved, or at most fans of PAC and B1G schools. But that was never true.

No, that isn't what he was saying. He's saying the numbers would be less, not that only fans of PAC and B1G schools would watch.

OK, i overstated his point. But it's still incorrect, as the Rose Bowl drew the largest ratings despite being the most restrictive of bowls in terms of which teams could play in it.

No, because the G5 had not been eliminated from the BCS bowls, or even the national championship. Nobody cares if the Rose Bowl was set aside for a couple conferences.

... But by Coog's logic, they should, since viewership interest hinges, at least somewhat, on whether one's team is formally eligible to play in a game. So we can infer that 'nobody' will care (in a TV viewership sense) if the G5 are eliminated from the national championship.

(06-20-2013 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No, because the G5 had not been eliminated from the BCS bowls, or even the national championship. Nobody cares if the Rose Bowl was set aside for a couple conferences.

... But by Coog's logic, they should, since viewership interest hinges, at least somewhat, on whether one's team is formally eligible to play in a game. So we can infer that 'nobody' will care (in a TV viewership sense) if the G5 are eliminated from the national championship.

I don't think Coog's entirely wrong here. I'd be shocked if Rose Bowl ratings weren't higher in the Midwest and west than in the South, and if the Sugar Bowl's ratings weren't higher in the South than in the Midwest.

I think Coogs' mistake is in over-estimating how much of the audience G5 fans make up. The G5 is 20-33% (I forget and don't have time to look) of FBS attendance, but I'd bet that the proportion of the TV audience is smaller.

1. Lower-FBS attendance is inflated by accounting gimmicks. (The same is true of weak power conference teams.)
2. The audience share of the top 25 or so FBS programs is under-estimated by attendance--those schools' attendance isn't limited by demand, it's limited by the physics of stadium-building.
3. There's a certain baseline attendance of undergraduates-attending-because-its-free, and at non-power schools, that doesn't translate to watching on TV anymore than going to frat parties translates to watching frat parties on a webcam.

The idea of a split is that even if the pie is smaller, the power-conferences win because they claim a much larger slice of the slightly smaller pie.

Coog is right that that well is pretty much tapped dry for FBS. If the power-conferences were really looking to cut lower-FBS out of the system, there wouldn't be a reserved spot in the Access Bowls. The money is in the NCAA basketball tournament.

(06-20-2013 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 09:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:34 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the truth is that most who watch college football are fans of "college football" as well as fans of their alma mater. That's why games like the Rose Bowl have always garnered huge ratings even though only two teams are involved and until 1998 only schools from two conferences were eligible to play in it. If Coog were correct, the only folks who tune in for the Rose would be the fans of the two teams involved, or at most fans of PAC and B1G schools. But that was never true.

No, that isn't what he was saying. He's saying the numbers would be less, not that only fans of PAC and B1G schools would watch.

OK, i overstated his point. But it's still incorrect, as the Rose Bowl drew the largest ratings despite being the most restrictive of bowls in terms of which teams could play in it.

No, because the G5 had not been eliminated from the BCS bowls, or even the national championship. Nobody cares if the Rose Bowl was set aside for a couple conferences.

... But by Coog's logic, they should, since viewership interest hinges, at least somewhat, on whether one's team is formally eligible to play in a game. So we can infer that 'nobody' will care (in a TV viewership sense) if the G5 are eliminated from the national championship.

I don't really think so because at this point the G5 has not been cut out of the system. They don't care if they can't get into the Rose Bowl if they can still get into another BCS bowl game.

(06-20-2013 07:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No, because the G5 had not been eliminated from the BCS bowls, or even the national championship. Nobody cares if the Rose Bowl was set aside for a couple conferences.

... But by Coog's logic, they should, since viewership interest hinges, at least somewhat, on whether one's team is formally eligible to play in a game. So we can infer that 'nobody' will care (in a TV viewership sense) if the G5 are eliminated from the national championship.

I don't think Coog's entirely wrong here. I'd be shocked if Rose Bowl ratings weren't higher in the Midwest and west than in the South, and if the Sugar Bowl's ratings weren't higher in the South than in the Midwest.

I think Coogs' mistake is in over-estimating how much of the audience G5 fans make up. The G5 is 20-33% (I forget and don't have time to look) of FBS attendance, but I'd bet that the proportion of the TV audience is smaller.

1. Lower-FBS attendance is inflated by accounting gimmicks. (The same is true of weak power conference teams.)
2. The audience share of the top 25 or so FBS programs is under-estimated by attendance--those schools' attendance isn't limited by demand, it's limited by the physics of stadium-building.
3. There's a certain baseline attendance of undergraduates-attending-because-its-free, and at non-power schools, that doesn't translate to watching on TV anymore than going to frat parties translates to watching frat parties on a webcam.

The idea of a split is that even if the pie is smaller, the power-conferences win because they claim a much larger slice of the slightly smaller pie.

Coog is right that that well is pretty much tapped dry for FBS. If the power-conferences were really looking to cut lower-FBS out of the system, there wouldn't be a reserved spot in the Access Bowls. The money is in the NCAA basketball tournament.

You could also argue that students and alumni of non-power schools, being more casual fans in general, are much more likely to watch on TV instead of taking the trouble (and spending the money, for alumni) to go to the game. Considering that there are plenty of weaker P5 programs that also have overstated attendance, I think the G5 viewership is not overstated that much compared to P5. Especially when there are casual fans that only watch college football, including being part of the viewership of P5 games, because their team is in the top division.

(06-20-2013 09:51 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 09:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No, that isn't what he was saying. He's saying the numbers would be less, not that only fans of PAC and B1G schools would watch.

OK, i overstated his point. But it's still incorrect, as the Rose Bowl drew the largest ratings despite being the most restrictive of bowls in terms of which teams could play in it.

No, because the G5 had not been eliminated from the BCS bowls, or even the national championship. Nobody cares if the Rose Bowl was set aside for a couple conferences.

... But by Coog's logic, they should, since viewership interest hinges, at least somewhat, on whether one's team is formally eligible to play in a game. So we can infer that 'nobody' will care (in a TV viewership sense) if the G5 are eliminated from the national championship.

I don't really think so because at this point the G5 has not been cut out of the system. They don't care if they can't get into the Rose Bowl if they can still get into another BCS bowl game.

Actually the G5 CAN get into the Rose Bowl in the years it functions as a playoff semifinal. Though that really doesn't matter. The really important point is that the G-5 and P-5 are all going after the same national championship trophy. As long as that is the case, championship/P-5 interest within the G5 fan bases should stay strong.

Look, the whole concept that television is going to willingly toss aside a 15%, 10% or even a 5% segment of a HUGE college educated audience has no basis in fact. It has never been done. Watch how advertisers run for the hills as soon as any television or radio show begins to get in trouble with the tiniest of special interest groups. If past history is our guide, the networks and the advertisers will not want anything nearly so controversial as a split that eliminates 60-65 FBS schools from the top division of college football.

Perhaps all of FBS will break away from D1. Perhaps most of FBS will break away. Maybe the D-1 herd gets narrowed down a bit. But I seriously doubt that the final result will be just the P-5 conferences comprised of 65 or so teams as the new D-1.

(06-20-2013 07:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No, because the G5 had not been eliminated from the BCS bowls, or even the national championship. Nobody cares if the Rose Bowl was set aside for a couple conferences.

... But by Coog's logic, they should, since viewership interest hinges, at least somewhat, on whether one's team is formally eligible to play in a game. So we can infer that 'nobody' will care (in a TV viewership sense) if the G5 are eliminated from the national championship.

I don't think Coog's entirely wrong here. I'd be shocked if Rose Bowl ratings weren't higher in the Midwest and west than in the South, and if the Sugar Bowl's ratings weren't higher in the South than in the Midwest.

I think Coogs' mistake is in over-estimating how much of the audience G5 fans make up. The G5 is 20-33% (I forget and don't have time to look) of FBS attendance, but I'd bet that the proportion of the TV audience is smaller.

1. Lower-FBS attendance is inflated by accounting gimmicks. (The same is true of weak power conference teams.)
2. The audience share of the top 25 or so FBS programs is under-estimated by attendance--those schools' attendance isn't limited by demand, it's limited by the physics of stadium-building.
3. There's a certain baseline attendance of undergraduates-attending-because-its-free, and at non-power schools, that doesn't translate to watching on TV anymore than going to frat parties translates to watching frat parties on a webcam.

The idea of a split is that even if the pie is smaller, the power-conferences win because they claim a much larger slice of the slightly smaller pie.

Coog is right that that well is pretty much tapped dry for FBS. If the power-conferences were really looking to cut lower-FBS out of the system, there wouldn't be a reserved spot in the Access Bowls. The money is in the NCAA basketball tournament.

First, there is a myth that the NCAA tournament money distribution is better for the G5 than the BCS distribution. That's because of the oft-quoted stat that the P5 gets 85% to 90% of BCS money but only 48% of NCAA tourney money. But, what that stat overlooks is that that 52% of NCAA tourney money that the P5 (really, P6) doesn't get is NOT going mostly to the G5. That's because the NCAA money isn't just split among P5 and G5, but among a much a larger pool of all D1 schools, because basketball doesn't have the FBS/FCS split that football has. Conferences like the SWAC and MEAC get NCAA tourney money but not BCS money.

Here's a comparison of 2011 post-season money for both the BCS in football and the NCAA tournament for FBS conferences. Looks like the P5 conferences mop up the same both ways. In both cases, the bottom 5 FBS conferences get, collectively in total, about the same amount of money as the lowest-paid Power conference makes:

Conference...... BCS (millions) ....NCAA (millions)

ACC ........................$21.2 ..... $18.2
Big 10 .................... $27.2 .... $18.5
Big 12 .................... $21.2 .... $18.9
Big East .................. $21.2 .... $24.9
Pac 10 ................... $27.2 .... $16.1
SEC ........................$27.2 .... $15.6
Mtn. West........... ..... $12.8 ....$5.0
Mid-American ............ $2.6 ....$1.7
Sun Belt .................. $1.9.... . $2.4
C-USA ................... $3.3 ...... $6.9
WAC ...................... $4.1 ..... $2.9

Second, while certainly it is the case that the Rose Bowl draws higher ratings in the midwest than south, that would probably be reversed in a given year if the Rose Bowl were open to all-comers and if in that year the Rose team came from the south and not the midwest. So it is not a function of exclusivity, but just the naturally greater interest on the part of fans who are closer to the participants (e.g., I don't doubt that ratings for tonite's NBA finals game will be higher in San Antonio than in Phoenix, but that's just because San Antonio has a team in the game. The results would be reversed if the Suns were in the finals). IOW's, to the extent viewership of the Rose is less in the south, it's just because there isn't a team from the south in the game, not because the Rose rules made southern teams (until 1998) ineligible. Same with a P5-only playoff.

Bottom line is that it seems hard to believe that the networks would pay fewer total dollars for a P5 only playoff than for the current system that includes the G5.

(06-20-2013 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  First, there is a myth that the NCAA tournament money distribution is better for the G5 than the BCS distribution. That's because of the oft-quoted stat that the P5 gets 85% to 90% of BCS money but only 48% of NCAA tourney money.

P5 doesn't give a rip about the G5. All they see is money they ain't getting, which strikes them as a violation of the natural order of things.

(06-20-2013 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 07:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No, because the G5 had not been eliminated from the BCS bowls, or even the national championship. Nobody cares if the Rose Bowl was set aside for a couple conferences.

... But by Coog's logic, they should, since viewership interest hinges, at least somewhat, on whether one's team is formally eligible to play in a game. So we can infer that 'nobody' will care (in a TV viewership sense) if the G5 are eliminated from the national championship.

I don't think Coog's entirely wrong here. I'd be shocked if Rose Bowl ratings weren't higher in the Midwest and west than in the South, and if the Sugar Bowl's ratings weren't higher in the South than in the Midwest.

I think Coogs' mistake is in over-estimating how much of the audience G5 fans make up. The G5 is 20-33% (I forget and don't have time to look) of FBS attendance, but I'd bet that the proportion of the TV audience is smaller.

1. Lower-FBS attendance is inflated by accounting gimmicks. (The same is true of weak power conference teams.)
2. The audience share of the top 25 or so FBS programs is under-estimated by attendance--those schools' attendance isn't limited by demand, it's limited by the physics of stadium-building.
3. There's a certain baseline attendance of undergraduates-attending-because-its-free, and at non-power schools, that doesn't translate to watching on TV anymore than going to frat parties translates to watching frat parties on a webcam.

The idea of a split is that even if the pie is smaller, the power-conferences win because they claim a much larger slice of the slightly smaller pie.

Coog is right that that well is pretty much tapped dry for FBS. If the power-conferences were really looking to cut lower-FBS out of the system, there wouldn't be a reserved spot in the Access Bowls. The money is in the NCAA basketball tournament.

First, there is a myth that the NCAA tournament money distribution is better for the G5 than the BCS distribution. That's because of the oft-quoted stat that the P5 gets 85% to 90% of BCS money but only 48% of NCAA tourney money. But, what that stat overlooks is that that 52% of NCAA tourney money that the P5 (really, P6) doesn't get is NOT going mostly to the G5. That's because the NCAA money isn't just split among P5 and G5, but among a much a larger pool of all D1 schools, because basketball doesn't have the FBS/FCS split that football has. Conferences like the SWAC and MEAC get NCAA tourney money but not BCS money.

Here's a comparison of 2011 post-season money for both the BCS in football and the NCAA tournament for FBS conferences. Looks like the P5 conferences mop up the same both ways. In both cases, the bottom 5 FBS conferences get, collectively in total, about the same amount of money as the lowest-paid Power conference makes:

Conference...... BCS (millions) ....NCAA (millions)

ACC ........................$21.2 ..... $18.2
Big 10 .................... $27.2 .... $18.5
Big 12 .................... $21.2 .... $18.9
Big East .................. $21.2 .... $24.9
Pac 10 ................... $27.2 .... $16.1
SEC ........................$27.2 .... $15.6
Mtn. West........... ..... $12.8 ....$5.0
Mid-American ............ $2.6 ....$1.7
Sun Belt .................. $1.9.... . $2.4
C-USA ................... $3.3 ...... $6.9
WAC ...................... $4.1 ..... $2.9

Second, while certainly it is the case that the Rose Bowl draws higher ratings in the midwest than south, that would probably be reversed in a given year if the Rose Bowl were open to all-comers and if in that year the Rose team came from the south and not the midwest. So it is not a function of exclusivity, but just the naturally greater interest on the part of fans who are closer to the participants (e.g., I don't doubt that ratings for tonite's NBA finals game will be higher in San Antonio than in Phoenix, but that's just because San Antonio has a team in the game. The results would be reversed if the Suns were in the finals). IOW's, to the extent viewership of the Rose is less in the south, it's just because there isn't a team from the south in the game, not because the Rose rules made southern teams (until 1998) ineligible. Same with a P5-only playoff.

Bottom line is that it seems hard to believe that the networks would pay fewer total dollars for a P5 only playoff than for the current system that includes the G5.

I don't recall anybody saying the NCAA money was better for the G5, just that there's more money, or at least a larger fraction, that the P5 is NOT getting.

(06-20-2013 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 07:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No, because the G5 had not been eliminated from the BCS bowls, or even the national championship. Nobody cares if the Rose Bowl was set aside for a couple conferences.

... But by Coog's logic, they should, since viewership interest hinges, at least somewhat, on whether one's team is formally eligible to play in a game. So we can infer that 'nobody' will care (in a TV viewership sense) if the G5 are eliminated from the national championship.

I don't think Coog's entirely wrong here. I'd be shocked if Rose Bowl ratings weren't higher in the Midwest and west than in the South, and if the Sugar Bowl's ratings weren't higher in the South than in the Midwest.

I think Coogs' mistake is in over-estimating how much of the audience G5 fans make up. The G5 is 20-33% (I forget and don't have time to look) of FBS attendance, but I'd bet that the proportion of the TV audience is smaller.

1. Lower-FBS attendance is inflated by accounting gimmicks. (The same is true of weak power conference teams.)
2. The audience share of the top 25 or so FBS programs is under-estimated by attendance--those schools' attendance isn't limited by demand, it's limited by the physics of stadium-building.
3. There's a certain baseline attendance of undergraduates-attending-because-its-free, and at non-power schools, that doesn't translate to watching on TV anymore than going to frat parties translates to watching frat parties on a webcam.

The idea of a split is that even if the pie is smaller, the power-conferences win because they claim a much larger slice of the slightly smaller pie.

Coog is right that that well is pretty much tapped dry for FBS. If the power-conferences were really looking to cut lower-FBS out of the system, there wouldn't be a reserved spot in the Access Bowls. The money is in the NCAA basketball tournament.

First, there is a myth that the NCAA tournament money distribution is better for the G5 than the BCS distribution. That's because of the oft-quoted stat that the P5 gets 85% to 90% of BCS money but only 48% of NCAA tourney money. But, what that stat overlooks is that that 52% of NCAA tourney money that the P5 (really, P6) doesn't get is NOT going mostly to the G5. That's because the NCAA money isn't just split among P5 and G5, but among a much a larger pool of all D1 schools, because basketball doesn't have the FBS/FCS split that football has. Conferences like the SWAC and MEAC get NCAA tourney money but not BCS money.

Here's a comparison of 2011 post-season money for both the BCS in football and the NCAA tournament for FBS conferences. Looks like the P5 conferences mop up the same both ways. In both cases, the bottom 5 FBS conferences get, collectively in total, about the same amount of money as the lowest-paid Power conference makes:

Conference...... BCS (millions) ....NCAA (millions)

ACC ........................$21.2 ..... $18.2
Big 10 .................... $27.2 .... $18.5
Big 12 .................... $21.2 .... $18.9
Big East .................. $21.2 .... $24.9
Pac 10 ................... $27.2 .... $16.1
SEC ........................$27.2 .... $15.6
Mtn. West........... ..... $12.8 ....$5.0
Mid-American ............ $2.6 ....$1.7
Sun Belt .................. $1.9.... . $2.4
C-USA ................... $3.3 ...... $6.9
WAC ...................... $4.1 ..... $2.9

Second, while certainly it is the case that the Rose Bowl draws higher ratings in the midwest than south, that would probably be reversed in a given year if the Rose Bowl were open to all-comers and if in that year the Rose team came from the south and not the midwest. So it is not a function of exclusivity, but just the naturally greater interest on the part of fans who are closer to the participants (e.g., I don't doubt that ratings for tonite's NBA finals game will be higher in San Antonio than in Phoenix, but that's just because San Antonio has a team in the game. The results would be reversed if the Suns were in the finals). IOW's, to the extent viewership of the Rose is less in the south, it's just because there isn't a team from the south in the game, not because the Rose rules made southern teams (until 1998) ineligible. Same with a P5-only playoff.

Bottom line is that it seems hard to believe that the networks would pay fewer total dollars for a P5 only playoff than for the current system that includes the G5.

Those numbers are very misleading. The numbers you present are comparing the newest NCAA basketball agreement to the old BCS agreement.

In the new BCS/CFP agreement, the SEC and Big-12 will split 80 million from the proceeds of the Sugar Bowl alone. The B1G and Pac-12 will split 80 million for the Rose Bowl. The ACC and their opponent will split 55 million for the Orange Bowl. Those numbers are part of the CFP bowl series---but that money doesn't get included in the shared pot. Once you count ALL the monies from the new contract, you can see the split is far far different from the NCAA basketball agreement and the amount is huge.

The power conferences will receive about 72% of the "shared" playoff revenue pool (which would be added to their Sugar/Orange/Rose windfalls to get the real power conference total). The G5 get only 27% of the shared revenue. But this is far different than getting 27% of the actual total revenue since 215 million (around a third) of the revenue has been removed from the shared pool before even starting.

(06-20-2013 12:54 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 10:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 07:46 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-20-2013 07:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 10:25 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  No, because the G5 had not been eliminated from the BCS bowls, or even the national championship. Nobody cares if the Rose Bowl was set aside for a couple conferences.

... But by Coog's logic, they should, since viewership interest hinges, at least somewhat, on whether one's team is formally eligible to play in a game. So we can infer that 'nobody' will care (in a TV viewership sense) if the G5 are eliminated from the national championship.

I don't think Coog's entirely wrong here. I'd be shocked if Rose Bowl ratings weren't higher in the Midwest and west than in the South, and if the Sugar Bowl's ratings weren't higher in the South than in the Midwest.

I think Coogs' mistake is in over-estimating how much of the audience G5 fans make up. The G5 is 20-33% (I forget and don't have time to look) of FBS attendance, but I'd bet that the proportion of the TV audience is smaller.

1. Lower-FBS attendance is inflated by accounting gimmicks. (The same is true of weak power conference teams.)
2. The audience share of the top 25 or so FBS programs is under-estimated by attendance--those schools' attendance isn't limited by demand, it's limited by the physics of stadium-building.
3. There's a certain baseline attendance of undergraduates-attending-because-its-free, and at non-power schools, that doesn't translate to watching on TV anymore than going to frat parties translates to watching frat parties on a webcam.

The idea of a split is that even if the pie is smaller, the power-conferences win because they claim a much larger slice of the slightly smaller pie.

Coog is right that that well is pretty much tapped dry for FBS. If the power-conferences were really looking to cut lower-FBS out of the system, there wouldn't be a reserved spot in the Access Bowls. The money is in the NCAA basketball tournament.

First, there is a myth that the NCAA tournament money distribution is better for the G5 than the BCS distribution. That's because of the oft-quoted stat that the P5 gets 85% to 90% of BCS money but only 48% of NCAA tourney money. But, what that stat overlooks is that that 52% of NCAA tourney money that the P5 (really, P6) doesn't get is NOT going mostly to the G5. That's because the NCAA money isn't just split among P5 and G5, but among a much a larger pool of all D1 schools, because basketball doesn't have the FBS/FCS split that football has. Conferences like the SWAC and MEAC get NCAA tourney money but not BCS money.

Here's a comparison of 2011 post-season money for both the BCS in football and the NCAA tournament for FBS conferences. Looks like the P5 conferences mop up the same both ways. In both cases, the bottom 5 FBS conferences get, collectively in total, about the same amount of money as the lowest-paid Power conference makes:

Conference...... BCS (millions) ....NCAA (millions)

ACC ........................$21.2 ..... $18.2
Big 10 .................... $27.2 .... $18.5
Big 12 .................... $21.2 .... $18.9
Big East .................. $21.2 .... $24.9
Pac 10 ................... $27.2 .... $16.1
SEC ........................$27.2 .... $15.6
Mtn. West........... ..... $12.8 ....$5.0
Mid-American ............ $2.6 ....$1.7
Sun Belt .................. $1.9.... . $2.4
C-USA ................... $3.3 ...... $6.9
WAC ...................... $4.1 ..... $2.9

Second, while certainly it is the case that the Rose Bowl draws higher ratings in the midwest than south, that would probably be reversed in a given year if the Rose Bowl were open to all-comers and if in that year the Rose team came from the south and not the midwest. So it is not a function of exclusivity, but just the naturally greater interest on the part of fans who are closer to the participants (e.g., I don't doubt that ratings for tonite's NBA finals game will be higher in San Antonio than in Phoenix, but that's just because San Antonio has a team in the game. The results would be reversed if the Suns were in the finals). IOW's, to the extent viewership of the Rose is less in the south, it's just because there isn't a team from the south in the game, not because the Rose rules made southern teams (until 1998) ineligible. Same with a P5-only playoff.

Bottom line is that it seems hard to believe that the networks would pay fewer total dollars for a P5 only playoff than for the current system that includes the G5.

Those numbers are very misleading. The numbers you present are comparing the newest NCAA basketball agreement to the old BCS agreement.

In the new BCS/CFP agreement, the SEC and Big-12 will split 80 million from the proceeds of the Sugar Bowl alone. The B1G and Pac-12 will split 80 million for the Rose Bowl. The ACC and their opponent will split 55 million for the Orange Bowl. Those numbers are part of the CFP bowl series---but that money doesn't get included in the shared pot. Once you count ALL the monies from the new contract, you can see the split is far far different from the NCAA basketball agreement and the amount is huge.

The power conferences will receive about 72% of the "shared" playoff revenue pool (which would be added to their Sugar/Orange/Rose windfalls to get the real power conference total). The G5 get only 27% of the shared revenue. But this is far different than getting 27% of the actual total revenue since 215 million (around a third) of the revenue has been removed from the shared pool before even starting.

First, the numbers are NOT misleading. They are the actual, real-world numbers for 2011. Facts cannot be misleading.

Second, under the old BCS, the money split between the AQ conferences and G5 ranged between 80% and 90% to the AQ conferences, depending on whether the G5 (non-AQs) placed one or two teams in the BCS bowls. Most years it was about an 85-15 split. How does that compare with the new post-season playoffs split? You are correct that the G5 isn't really getting 27%, not when we factor in those huge amounts the P5 are getting for their Big Bowl tie-ins. So what percentage IS the P5 getting? Well, something very similar to the 85-15 split as under the old BCS!

So what does that mean? It means that my 2011 comparison IS representative of what will happen going forward: Even with a 85-15 BCS split, and with the Power conferences getting "only" 47% of NCAA basketball tourney money, the proportions will still look remarkably similar between the AQ and G5 conferences. The gross money involved with be much greater but the split will be the same. Point being, whatever merits of the method the NCAA uses to split the basketball money, it essentially results, and will result, in the same proportion of money going to the P5, whether under the old BCS regime or the new playoffs regime.