(08-12-2014 09:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  It seems that TV money is included in the ruling, but how do you value the NILs of a Tulsa player compared to an Ohio St. player?

I would let the companies that want to use likenesses for various reasons do the valuation. That's their business to know that.

The point is that Big 10 school's make a lot more off TV than AAC or CUSA schools.

(08-12-2014 09:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

At every school the players would have rights to make endorsement revenue for their likeness and things symbolic of their play. It affects everyone. Whether or not to pay full cost of tuition or a living stipend is where the school will have options, unless the courts get involved there as well, but that remains to be seen.

It seems that TV money is included in the ruling, but how do you value the NILs of a Tulsa player compared to an Ohio St. player?

Before they are done with this the regulations on valuations and rates paid will rival the subsequent tax codes on all of this stuff and the CPA's the players have to hire will void much of the profit they are able to make off of their names (unless they are with a high profile school). It's going to be nightmare for schools, agents, coaches, and most players.

(08-12-2014 09:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

At every school the players would have rights to make endorsement revenue for their likeness and things symbolic of their play. It affects everyone. Whether or not to pay full cost of tuition or a living stipend is where the school will have options, unless the courts get involved there as well, but that remains to be seen.

It seems that TV money is included in the ruling, but how do you value the NILs of a Tulsa player compared to an Ohio St. player?

Before they are done with this the regulations on valuations and rates paid will rival the subsequent tax codes on all of this stuff and the CPA's the players have to hire will void much of the profit they are able to make off of their names (unless they are with a high profile school). It's going to be nightmare for schools, agents, coaches, and most players.

The agents will love it. They get paid off this sort of stuff.

(08-12-2014 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:46 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 09:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

At every school the players would have rights to make endorsement revenue for their likeness and things symbolic of their play. It affects everyone. Whether or not to pay full cost of tuition or a living stipend is where the school will have options, unless the courts get involved there as well, but that remains to be seen.

It seems that TV money is included in the ruling, but how do you value the NILs of a Tulsa player compared to an Ohio St. player?

Before they are done with this the regulations on valuations and rates paid will rival the subsequent tax codes on all of this stuff and the CPA's the players have to hire will void much of the profit they are able to make off of their names (unless they are with a high profile school). It's going to be nightmare for schools, agents, coaches, and most players.

The agents will love it. They get paid off this sort of stuff.

I don't know about that yet. You are right they get paid off of this kind of stuff, but what will the ceilings be, the regulations involved may cap many aspects of it and may even hem in the agents to a certain extent. They are going to push for some kind of quasi amateurism and that's going to be a really sticky wicket for everyone involved. It might make the old IOC regulations look like a cake walk.

(08-11-2014 09:28 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 09:11 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  9. Realignment is not a one-way street. The Southern Conference was up to 23 teams before the SEC schools split. It was back up to 17 when the ACC schools split. The WAC was up to 16 teams when it split. At some point the smaller budget schools in any conference are going to be more of a drag (money-wise) than they are worth.

Anything can happen, but getting kicked out of a P5 or voluntarily leaving is going to be a lot rarer I think.

I think teams getting kicked out of the P5 is the next shoe to drop (although I think it's pretty far into the future). Eventually the autonomy rules are going to lead to voting blocks among the P5, and the top of the P5 will start getting really tired of things they want getting blocked by the bottom of the P5. Right now the real power programs in the P5 believe that the rest of D1 is stopping them from doing what they want, but in the post autonomy world if they can't get things they want they'll start pointing fingers at members of their club. They may also begin to realize that the bottom of those leagues really aren't adding that much if any value to the leagues. The difference between the value of the bottom 10 P5 teams and the top 10 G5 teams has nothing to do with the name of those programs, but who those programs are associated with. Just picking at random if you swapped Iowa State and Cincinnati I'd be willing to bet the value of the AAC would be no greater than it currently is and the value of the B12 would be no less. Plenty of other examples I could use as well, but those schools aren't what's driving the P5 revenue. If on the other hand you took Texas and OU out of the B12 the remaining groups TV deal would likely be much closer to the AAC than what their current deal is.

(08-12-2014 12:28 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

Scholarship limits will change as well if necessary.

Also, SMU may not care that much but was not the conversation about such schools as Duke and their ilk? Let me remind you that Duke is in the process of building their football program. They have a coach that can take them far and whom seems to be very loyal to the school. He has already taken them to the conference championship.

You think such a well endowed school as is Duke, is going to allow themselves to be outspent to the point of losing all that they are working on right now?

No, I am sorry, they will not.

Well my response was to Bullet bringing up the privates. He mentioned Duke, NW, Vandy and then asked if Tulsa, SMU, Rice and Tulane could afford it. That is why I mention SMU and Tulsa. Yeah Duke, NW and Vandy are on a different level than the other four privates he brought up..

(08-11-2014 05:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 05:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:45 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 04:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  Well the ESPN president said realignment cost him a lot of money. And ESPN and Fox tried to discourage the Pac 16. ESPN will make money on the SEC network, but for CBS, the expansion did nothing.

Delany told ESPN to take a hike with the BTN. I don't think the networks were behind Big 10 expansion. ESPN doesn't have a guarantee they still have that contract in 2017.

That's a fair assessment Bullet, but it overlooks the acquisition of the Big East property that ESPN stockpiled into the ACC after their disgruntlement with Delany. Could it be that they used the ACC as a repository for property that gave them leverage with the Big 10? Or that they enhanced the value of property they already had by adding product that accentuated its worth? Either way the motivation is internal to the Network. And as for the Big 12 it could as easily be argued that since the PACN is self owned that neither FOX or ESPN would want to lose contracted properties to that conference. Hence the agreement to pay old rates for less schools and then the early renegotiation to up the pay. That move secured the Big 12 properties from being lost. What was interesting to me were the subsequent T3 deals that were secured by FOX and ESPN as they tried to tie down the future interests of Big 12 individual schools. So the first contract being upheld and then increased was a successful attempt to stop properties from (contrary to the position taken here) acting in their own self interest independent of Network considerations and the T3 deals were the ties that bind those schools to the Networks for the future.

Now truthfully as long as the schools agree to be paid more they appear as independent agents. But in reality it was Network action that stabilized and then locked down the properties in the Big 12.

As I have argued, the ACC raid ended up being beneficial to ESPN (and why I'm more likely to see the hand of ESPN there) by making Duke basketball more valuable in the Northeast because Duke is now a conference mate of schools in the region and Syrcause football is now more valuable in South Carolina because of shared conference ties.

Georgia football and Kentucky basketball are now more valuable in Missouri than they had been and Alabama football and LSU basketball more valuable in Texas.

In a carriage fee environment those are critical developments.

Going back to a prior point you made about the need for a quasi P5 or two or three to be part of the equation. I think the schools recognize this better than the networks. The G5 by several accounts walked into the CFP meetings prepared to demand a certain percentage or fight and they were offered more than the amount they came to demand.

The elites have an incentive to brand a number of schools similarly to serve their purposes. Is that number 65 or (the eventual 66 if Sun Belt expands)? Or is it a smaller number like 24 or 48 or 60?

It will depend upon contract stipulations and language in the future renewals. If added P5 games are the content target of the negotiations then I thin the number expands from 65 to as many as 72. If it is understood that certain G5 schools will carry greater significance to the networks for play against P5 schools and that those games will be rewarded as well on the schedule then I think the number you are speaking of shrinks, but to somewhere around 60.

The risk with making the club too small is too great to go much lower IMO.

I don't think the "extras" number of co-branded schools can fall below 33 you need enough that everyone has an opportunity to schedule them but it will be hard to find any willing to take on more than two such games.

That's basically what we have right now. The P5 are FBS and the G5 are co-branded FBS.

The co-branded schools have value because they are seen as better opponents than schools offering fewer scholarships.

FBS has three forms of revenue sharing.
1. CFP distribution.
2. Money paid for a non-returned game.
3. Money that can be self-generated by playing a P5 home/home which should also improve the value of the G5's TV.

Constrain the supply of the co-branded schools too much and you imperil scheduling. Give the co-branded schools too much leverage and you have to turn to less attractive opponents branded as being low scholarship football. Reduce too much and suddenly Boise State looks more like Utah than they do now and less like San Jose State (who finally has good leadership and is progressing) and you have fewer brand names in the marketplace meaning an increase in value of programs that were basically widgets before.

Expand too much and fans cannot tell the difference between a co-branded and lower division (see college basketball).

It will be a fine line to walk.

(08-11-2014 09:28 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 09:11 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  9. Realignment is not a one-way street. The Southern Conference was up to 23 teams before the SEC schools split. It was back up to 17 when the ACC schools split. The WAC was up to 16 teams when it split. At some point the smaller budget schools in any conference are going to be more of a drag (money-wise) than they are worth.

Anything can happen, but getting kicked out of a P5 or voluntarily leaving is going to be a lot rarer I think.

There is rarely any stomach for kicking schools out. The Sun Belt is one of the few leagues to ever do it and in each case the SBC felt backed into doing it.

But if someone gets left behind (Rice, TCU, Houston, SMU, UConn, USF, Cincy) that is a different matter as long as they technically remain in the greater club.

When it comes the likeness issue, I have no discomfort if Alabama gets a god-jillion dollars for telecasting a game and a player gets a full ride or even full cost of attendance.

When Alabama makes $5k selling the jersey of a star player and the player gets zip, I'm getting uncomfortable.

When a commercial airs for deodarant and uses old game footage and the observant fan knows who the players are in that commerical and the player gets zip, especially when that commerical airs years after they leave school, I've got a problem with that. If memory serves Axe did exactly that during the NCAA Tournament.

When a video game maker continues to utilize the likeness of a player after they have exhausted their eligibility and the player gets zip, I've got a problem with that as well.

When someone makes a poster of the greatest play in school history and sells it for profit and the players in the photo get nothing out it, I'm not comfortable with that either.

Now the money generated from the things that give me heartburn isn't very much. It wouldn't operate an SEC program for a full day but to me those things cross a line.

The O'Bannon judge seems to recognize the same thing the Bloom judge recognized. If you allow a player to sell his autograph or do ads for a car dealer, the odds are more likely the transaction will be a sham to funnel money to the athlete not based on the value of likeness but the value the payor assigns to their participation on the team.

The game is already too rich for the Service Academies blood. I could definitely see them dropping down.

(08-12-2014 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the "extras" number of co-branded schools can fall below 33 you need enough that everyone has an opportunity to schedule them but it will be hard to find any willing to take on more than two such games.

33 is too low. The group you're calling "co-branded" has to be able to largely exist in their own ecosystem (for football) with minimal interaction with the P5, as they do now. The current G5 teams play 85-95% of their games vs. other G5 teams and play nearly all their bowl games vs. other G5 teams. A pool of 33 or so co-branded teams is not enough to maintain that, unless 7 to 10 bowl games go away and those teams fill gaps in their schedule with more games vs. FCS teams, which seems like a poor idea financially.

(08-12-2014 07:40 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 03:42 PM)TerryD Wrote:  , the best answer is " I don't know. It all depends."

, the best answer is "I don't know. It all stipends."

+2 on the Rep Points for that one, lol.

(08-12-2014 11:49 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 10:43 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I don't think the "extras" number of co-branded schools can fall below 33 you need enough that everyone has an opportunity to schedule them but it will be hard to find any willing to take on more than two such games.

33 is too low. The group you're calling "co-branded" has to be able to largely exist in their own ecosystem (for football) with minimal interaction with the P5, as they do now. The current G5 teams play 85-95% of their games vs. other G5 teams and play nearly all their bowl games vs. other G5 teams. A pool of 33 or so co-branded teams is not enough to maintain that, unless 7 to 10 bowl games go away and those teams fill gaps in their schedule with more games vs. FCS teams, which seems like a poor idea financially.

In the current model, the 65-66 we seem to be drifting into is probably ideal to support the maximum of number of P5 declaring a successful season at 6-6 or better while at the upper end of the limit prior to diluting the brand.

If the model changes and we have something like a 16 team playoff and fan expectations shift from "we made a bowl" to "we made the playoff" then the need for co-branded schools is less.

(08-12-2014 10:11 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 12:28 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

Scholarship limits will change as well if necessary.

Also, SMU may not care that much but was not the conversation about such schools as Duke and their ilk? Let me remind you that Duke is in the process of building their football program. They have a coach that can take them far and whom seems to be very loyal to the school. He has already taken them to the conference championship.

You think such a well endowed school as is Duke, is going to allow themselves to be outspent to the point of losing all that they are working on right now?

No, I am sorry, they will not.

Well my response was to Bullet bringing up the privates. He mentioned Duke, NW, Vandy and then asked if Tulsa, SMU, Rice and Tulane could afford it. That is why I mention SMU and Tulsa. Yeah Duke, NW and Vandy are on a different level than the other four privates he brought up..

Rice can afford it. The question is whether they are willing to. Right now the choice is Division III and flying across the country to play Chicago, Emory, Carnegie Mellon and NYU or stay in CUSA. Now if the choice were CUSA or dropping football and joining Duke, Vandy and Northwestern, that might be a different decision.

(08-12-2014 11:27 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The game is already too rich for the Service Academies blood. I could definitely see them dropping down.

They are giving full rides to everyone anyway. But I do think it clashes with their mission. They don't need 200 lb. officers having their careers and knees destroyed playing against 300 lb. guys who plan a career in football. And they need to not try too hard to get football players and focus more on officer skills.

As long as the academies aren't getting embarassed they will continue as is. If the day comes that none of the three are able to field competitive teams, they will realign to FCS.

(08-12-2014 10:06 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 09:28 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 09:11 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  9. Realignment is not a one-way street. The Southern Conference was up to 23 teams before the SEC schools split. It was back up to 17 when the ACC schools split. The WAC was up to 16 teams when it split. At some point the smaller budget schools in any conference are going to be more of a drag (money-wise) than they are worth.

Anything can happen, but getting kicked out of a P5 or voluntarily leaving is going to be a lot rarer I think.

I think teams getting kicked out of the P5 is the next shoe to drop (although I think it's pretty far into the future). Eventually the autonomy rules are going to lead to voting blocks among the P5, and the top of the P5 will start getting really tired of things they want getting blocked by the bottom of the P5.

There have always been big competitive and revenue disparities within power conferences and yet those conferences have been fine with that.

I don't see how or why that will change going forward.

(08-12-2014 10:11 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 12:28 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:39 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  But the small schoools do not often get the recruits the big boys want anyway. I know SMU does not often beat UT or A&M etc. for a recruit and I know Tulsa does not usually get recruits that OU or OSU wants. As long as the 85 scholarship limt is in place, I do not see it making much of a difference, since they are taking what is left anyway.

Scholarship limits will change as well if necessary.

Also, SMU may not care that much but was not the conversation about such schools as Duke and their ilk? Let me remind you that Duke is in the process of building their football program. They have a coach that can take them far and whom seems to be very loyal to the school. He has already taken them to the conference championship.

You think such a well endowed school as is Duke, is going to allow themselves to be outspent to the point of losing all that they are working on right now?

No, I am sorry, they will not.

Well my response was to Bullet bringing up the privates. He mentioned Duke, NW, Vandy and then asked if Tulsa, SMU, Rice and Tulane could afford it. That is why I mention SMU and Tulsa. Yeah Duke, NW and Vandy are on a different level than the other four privates he brought up..

Ahh, alright I gotcha. Well, my personal opinion is that those schools you listed that are in the AAC will definitely be able to keep up. I don't know how it is going to work out for anyone below that.

(08-12-2014 03:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 11:27 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The game is already too rich for the Service Academies blood. I could definitely see them dropping down.

They are giving full rides to everyone anyway. But I do think it clashes with their mission. They don't need 200 lb. officers having their careers and knees destroyed playing against 300 lb. guys who plan a career in football. And they need to not try too hard to get football players and focus more on officer skills.

Its the bolded that truly becomes an issue when trying to stay in the FBS game. Service Academies are defacto engineering that with all the STEM classes that are required to graduate. To say nothing of the fact that the 'full ride' entails a five year commitment in the military some football grads aren't too keen in fulfilling upon graduation.

(08-12-2014 07:54 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 03:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2014 11:27 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  The game is already too rich for the Service Academies blood. I could definitely see them dropping down.

They are giving full rides to everyone anyway. But I do think it clashes with their mission. They don't need 200 lb. officers having their careers and knees destroyed playing against 300 lb. guys who plan a career in football. And they need to not try too hard to get football players and focus more on officer skills.

Its the bolded that truly becomes an issue when trying to stay in the FBS game. Service Academies are defacto engineering that with all the STEM classes that are required to graduate. To say nothing of the fact that the 'full ride' entails a five year commitment in the military some football grads aren't too keen in fulfilling upon graduation.

And they are small schools with only 4000 students that are having an increasing number of female students.