(11-27-2018 07:47 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 07:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:48 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:03 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think your focusing on one portion. In this scenario the B1G takes on the baggage of the PAC although there is some traditional rivalry there but the West generally has less viewers. While the SEC got the two largest modern day blue bloods of the expansion in Texas & OU and restores some pretty big regional rivalry games OU vs Neb and UT vs A&M and also Ark. As well as adding Clemson. While the B1G took the declining blue bloods in USC & ND(which I'm not sure I would call a blue blood anymore).

So yes the secondary product you highlighted gave advantage B1G but I think the football product of the southwest/B12 country is better than what the B1G received in the ACC coastal states.

If its simply decided by the market and a free for all I'm not positive the B1G with the way academic presidents think couldn't pull in the best of the PAC the desired ACC coastal and UT & OU, keep Neb. and I'm not sure you would want that.

BTW, I was hoping this would get to a point where both leagues were equal and could negotiate as one body and its not a revenue/brand race in the future.

You squeezed in Cincinnati and some other's that can't pay their way.

BTW: The Big 10 academic angle hasn't dictated realignment so far! Maryland and Rutgers? That's hardly North Carolina and Virginia. Oklahoma may be an academic sticking point for the Big 10. They only meet the MEAN of the SEC academically.

My point is that neither the Big 10 nor the SEC will add schools that don't add significantly to their conference in some way.

Notre Dame gives the Big 10 exclusivity in many of the Northern cities like Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati, and gives them a bigger presence in New England. Syracuse is that physical presence in New York that coupled with N.D. and Rutgers brings home some ratings.

North Carolina / Duke / and Virginia nail down the beltway and a large state and provide them with 3 hoops brands to multiply content they already enjoy.

The Cali 4 and UW and Oregon are all that the Big 10 needs from the West to make it happen.

Those adds are all profitable in one way or another.

For the SEC securing the academic enhancement that Texas, Kansas, Colorado, and Iowa State would bring gives them a very balanced old core of the Big 8 and makes for a very Texas friendly schedule in the Southwest. It reunites rivalries that have a value on their own.

Virginia Tech and N.C. State are reasonable market additions while Clemson and F.S.U. bring the content multiplication that the SEC enjoys.

There's no reason why the Big 10 and SEC can't work together. And by providing the buffer conference we avoid political issues by creating a pathway for the 2nd state schools of the Big 12 and PAC and the leftover ACC schools to play and we include B.Y.U. Cincinnati, UConn, and the Florida twins without having to foist them upon the Big 10 or SEC. So it protects the branding of the SEC and Big 10 while solving the political problems of state Flagships with regard to their 2nd state schools.

At that point whatever the SEC and Big 10 decided would be law and the new conference would go along.

I was trying to be inclusive rather exclusive and didn't cut anyone from the current Power leagues although it was tempting to drop WSU, OSU, Baylor, WF and probably BC. I do think if the power leagues in CFB cut too many teams or creates too big of a disadvantage between leagues it may reduce its viewers its not as popular as the NFL. Throw int he way CFB tries to engineer outcomes with its playoffs, bowls and matchups and you risk losing overall market share for the sport in general.

I think I only added 3 schools BYU, Cincy & UCF to the current P65. I thought the growing Cincy market would fit in the current SEC. BYU probably deserves to be in a Power league with their attendance and following if leagues aren't biased towards them and UCF can be a better school/brand than quite a few teams in a short amount of time.

Actually USF has considerable advantages for inclusion mostly due the academic side of the ledger and the Gulf Coast exposure. But in a buffer league they all fit and you'll see that in that buffer league that ECU and Houston make the cut as well, mostly out of regional considerations in the groupings.

What kind of total conference tv/bowl/playoff revenue in your model would the buffer league receive and what would the 2 power leagues revenue be?

TV revenue would be negotiated by conference. CFP money would be split 3 ways for the base payout with a set payout to the conferences on behalf of the selected schools. Bowls would be free to negotiate their own bids and no tie ins would be permitted.

(11-27-2018 08:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 07:47 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 07:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:48 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  You squeezed in Cincinnati and some other's that can't pay their way.

BTW: The Big 10 academic angle hasn't dictated realignment so far! Maryland and Rutgers? That's hardly North Carolina and Virginia. Oklahoma may be an academic sticking point for the Big 10. They only meet the MEAN of the SEC academically.

My point is that neither the Big 10 nor the SEC will add schools that don't add significantly to their conference in some way.

Notre Dame gives the Big 10 exclusivity in many of the Northern cities like Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati, and gives them a bigger presence in New England. Syracuse is that physical presence in New York that coupled with N.D. and Rutgers brings home some ratings.

North Carolina / Duke / and Virginia nail down the beltway and a large state and provide them with 3 hoops brands to multiply content they already enjoy.

The Cali 4 and UW and Oregon are all that the Big 10 needs from the West to make it happen.

Those adds are all profitable in one way or another.

For the SEC securing the academic enhancement that Texas, Kansas, Colorado, and Iowa State would bring gives them a very balanced old core of the Big 8 and makes for a very Texas friendly schedule in the Southwest. It reunites rivalries that have a value on their own.

Virginia Tech and N.C. State are reasonable market additions while Clemson and F.S.U. bring the content multiplication that the SEC enjoys.

There's no reason why the Big 10 and SEC can't work together. And by providing the buffer conference we avoid political issues by creating a pathway for the 2nd state schools of the Big 12 and PAC and the leftover ACC schools to play and we include B.Y.U. Cincinnati, UConn, and the Florida twins without having to foist them upon the Big 10 or SEC. So it protects the branding of the SEC and Big 10 while solving the political problems of state Flagships with regard to their 2nd state schools.

At that point whatever the SEC and Big 10 decided would be law and the new conference would go along.

I was trying to be inclusive rather exclusive and didn't cut anyone from the current Power leagues although it was tempting to drop WSU, OSU, Baylor, WF and probably BC. I do think if the power leagues in CFB cut too many teams or creates too big of a disadvantage between leagues it may reduce its viewers its not as popular as the NFL. Throw int he way CFB tries to engineer outcomes with its playoffs, bowls and matchups and you risk losing overall market share for the sport in general.

I think I only added 3 schools BYU, Cincy & UCF to the current P65. I thought the growing Cincy market would fit in the current SEC. BYU probably deserves to be in a Power league with their attendance and following if leagues aren't biased towards them and UCF can be a better school/brand than quite a few teams in a short amount of time.

Actually USF has considerable advantages for inclusion mostly due the academic side of the ledger and the Gulf Coast exposure. But in a buffer league they all fit and you'll see that in that buffer league that ECU and Houston make the cut as well, mostly out of regional considerations in the groupings.

What kind of total conference tv/bowl/playoff revenue in your model would the buffer league receive and what would the 2 power leagues revenue be?

TV revenue would be negotiated by conference. CFP money would be split 3 ways for the base payout with a set payout to the conferences on behalf of the selected schools. Bowls would be free to negotiate their own bids and no tie ins would be permitted.

But what kind of revenue difference do you expect that to be?

(11-27-2018 09:09 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 08:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 07:47 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 07:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 06:48 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I was trying to be inclusive rather exclusive and didn't cut anyone from the current Power leagues although it was tempting to drop WSU, OSU, Baylor, WF and probably BC. I do think if the power leagues in CFB cut too many teams or creates too big of a disadvantage between leagues it may reduce its viewers its not as popular as the NFL. Throw int he way CFB tries to engineer outcomes with its playoffs, bowls and matchups and you risk losing overall market share for the sport in general.

I think I only added 3 schools BYU, Cincy & UCF to the current P65. I thought the growing Cincy market would fit in the current SEC. BYU probably deserves to be in a Power league with their attendance and following if leagues aren't biased towards them and UCF can be a better school/brand than quite a few teams in a short amount of time.

Actually USF has considerable advantages for inclusion mostly due the academic side of the ledger and the Gulf Coast exposure. But in a buffer league they all fit and you'll see that in that buffer league that ECU and Houston make the cut as well, mostly out of regional considerations in the groupings.

What kind of total conference tv/bowl/playoff revenue in your model would the buffer league receive and what would the 2 power leagues revenue be?

TV revenue would be negotiated by conference. CFP money would be split 3 ways for the base payout with a set payout to the conferences on behalf of the selected schools. Bowls would be free to negotiate their own bids and no tie ins would be permitted.

But what kind of revenue difference do you expect that to be?

Very little between the SEC & Big 10 because both would be gauging their contracts by the other. The Buffer conference would probably make 10-15 million less, but easily 20 million more than any of the G conferences.

Think 60 million range for the SEC and Big 10 and 45 million range for the Buffer Conference. Then think at most in the rebuilt AAC 15 to 20 million. And for the record I would expect to see contraction in the G5 to give us a G3 or even G2.

Think in terms of the SEC and Big 10 occupying Saturdays and Thanksgiving and utilizing the 2:00, 5:00, 8:00, & 11:00 o'clock time slots on national TV and cable channels. Think of the Buffer conference giving us Thursday, Friday, and 11:00 o'clock Saturday games with all of their residual games on ESPN+ and their own conference network.

G5 games would be streamed, and on air with the Tuesday TV slots. (I'm thinking three here 5:00, 8:00, & 11:00)

(11-27-2018 09:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 09:09 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 08:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 07:47 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 07:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Actually USF has considerable advantages for inclusion mostly due the academic side of the ledger and the Gulf Coast exposure. But in a buffer league they all fit and you'll see that in that buffer league that ECU and Houston make the cut as well, mostly out of regional considerations in the groupings.

What kind of total conference tv/bowl/playoff revenue in your model would the buffer league receive and what would the 2 power leagues revenue be?

TV revenue would be negotiated by conference. CFP money would be split 3 ways for the base payout with a set payout to the conferences on behalf of the selected schools. Bowls would be free to negotiate their own bids and no tie ins would be permitted.

But what kind of revenue difference do you expect that to be?

Very little between the SEC & Big 10 because both would be gauging their contracts by the other. The Buffer conference would probably make 10-15 million less, but easily 20 million more than any of the G conferences.

Think 60 million range for the SEC and Big 10 and 45 million range for the Buffer Conference. Then think at most in the rebuilt AAC 15 to 20 million. And for the record I would expect to see contraction in the G5 to give us a G3 or even G2.

Think in terms of the SEC and Big 10 occupying Saturdays and Thanksgiving and utilizing the 2:00, 5:00, 8:00, & 11:00 o'clock time slots on national TV and cable channels. Think of the Buffer conference giving us Thursday, Friday, and 11:00 o'clock Saturday games with all of their residual games on ESPN+ and their own conference network.

G5 games would be streamed, and on air with the Tuesday TV slots. (I'm thinking three here 5:00, 8:00, & 11:00)

The buffer conference you listed would be LUCKY if they made half of the other two leagues. $10M-15m less than 60M is one thing but it wouldn't be close to that. You would be creating a two tiered system within your new system and I think that would have negative effects on the sport over time.

(11-28-2018 02:17 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 09:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 09:09 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 08:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-27-2018 07:47 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  What kind of total conference tv/bowl/playoff revenue in your model would the buffer league receive and what would the 2 power leagues revenue be?

TV revenue would be negotiated by conference. CFP money would be split 3 ways for the base payout with a set payout to the conferences on behalf of the selected schools. Bowls would be free to negotiate their own bids and no tie ins would be permitted.

But what kind of revenue difference do you expect that to be?

Very little between the SEC & Big 10 because both would be gauging their contracts by the other. The Buffer conference would probably make 10-15 million less, but easily 20 million more than any of the G conferences.

Think 60 million range for the SEC and Big 10 and 45 million range for the Buffer Conference. Then think at most in the rebuilt AAC 15 to 20 million. And for the record I would expect to see contraction in the G5 to give us a G3 or even G2.

Think in terms of the SEC and Big 10 occupying Saturdays and Thanksgiving and utilizing the 2:00, 5:00, 8:00, & 11:00 o'clock time slots on national TV and cable channels. Think of the Buffer conference giving us Thursday, Friday, and 11:00 o'clock Saturday games with all of their residual games on ESPN+ and their own conference network.

G5 games would be streamed, and on air with the Tuesday TV slots. (I'm thinking three here 5:00, 8:00, & 11:00)

The buffer conference you listed would be LUCKY if they made half of the other two leagues. $10M-15m less than 60M is one thing but it wouldn't be close to that. You would be creating a two tiered system within your new system and I think that would have negative effects on the sport over time.

The CFP slot would ensure that they were a viable third conference. Inclusion in that insures national interest. Perhaps not at the same levels of the other two conferences, but enough to make up the difference.