proposes a deal where P5's play only 1 G5 and P5 conferences go to 9 games.

Thoughts

https://twitter.com/chastings1049

It would be better for college football (look how many dud games we get nowadays) but good luck convincing schools to give up a 7th home game. Penn St is sacking a 100 game rivalry to ensure a 7th home game.

Really, you’ll need someone above the schools to step in. But such a mandate could inadvertently rekindle some lost rivalries.

(06-23-2019 12:38 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  proposes a deal where P5's play only 1 G5 and P5 conferences go to 9 games.

Thoughts

https://twitter.com/chastings1049

That might well be a step along the way, but ultimately I think we'll have 12 P regular season games 9 of which will be conference games. And there will be a preseason game in late August (which takes the place of Spring games) that is sold with season ticket books and which will be against a local G5 or FCS school. That way all P schools will have 7 home games to sell, 6 P games and the preseason game which could help a smaller state school.

(06-23-2019 12:38 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  proposes a deal where P5's play only 1 G5 and P5 conferences go to 9 games.

Thoughts

https://twitter.com/chastings1049

it is a totally stupid idea all the more so in relation to the idea that it gives better data to choose playoff teams

how does having conferences go more insular in relation to scheduling give anyone a better idea of what conference champion (or second place team) deserves a playoff spot

lets take this idea to the stupid extreme and say that conferences had 13 teams and played 12 conference games.....you then have every single conference with a total conference record of .500 so how in the hell do you then decide what conference champions (or some champions and second place teams) from conferences that all have a .500 record deserve to be in the playoffs......well you pretend that you can gauge a conference on how good the conference is and their champion is based on nothing other than well they played a bunch of other teams in the same conference and won more

that is just totally stupid

along with that it will lead to horribly stratified conferences where some teams sift to the bottom and generally have about a 10% chance of ever climbing out of the bottom.....and really that is a big issue as it is and playing more conference games will only massively magnify that issue

the intelligent thing to do is play 8 conference games for most conferences and 7 for the Big 12 and then the various teams in the conference are free to schedule for their needs.....if a team has an average of 4 wins over 5 seasons they have no business scheduling like next year they are a playoff contender and doing so only weakens their conference because you do not get any strength of schedule as a conference member for playing other teams in your conference that lost to a lot of good teams.......your team gets much more strength of schedule both directly and indirectly by beating teams in your conference that have more wins than losses

directly because again no one values a team that is 1-11 against top teams Vs 8-4 against mostly G5 teams and indirectly because that team also plays into the strength of schedule of every other team in your conference including the others you play in conference

only a moron believes that you gain strength for your conference by beating up on m ore teams in your conference......your CONFERENCE gains strength by beating teams from OTHER CONFERENCES

and that included lower win teams in your conference getting more wins against weaker teams instead of thinking they gain something by getting the snot knocked out of them by good teams

and if you are a top team in the conference you schedule YOUR OOC to make the playoffs and then look for your fellow conference members to schedule to get the most wins....be it wins against top teams or wins against bad teams until they make more bowl games, recruit better, gain traction for their program and start to schedule better in the OOC

doing the opposite will just make what is already a bad situation much worse for lower level conference teams and for deciding who should be in the playoffs

(06-23-2019 01:01 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 12:38 AM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  proposes a deal where P5's play only 1 G5 and P5 conferences go to 9 games.

Thoughts

https://twitter.com/chastings1049

it is a totally stupid idea all the more so in relation to the idea that it gives better data to choose playoff teams

how does having conferences go more insular in relation to scheduling give anyone a better idea of what conference champion (or second place team) deserves a playoff spot

lets take this idea to the stupid extreme and say that conferences had 13 teams and played 12 conference games.....you then have every single conference with a total conference record of .500 so how in the hell do you then decide what conference champions (or some champions and second place teams) from conferences that all have a .500 record deserve to be in the playoffs......well you pretend that you can gauge a conference on how good the conference is and their champion is based on nothing other than well they played a bunch of other teams in the same conference and won more

that is just totally stupid

along with that it will lead to horribly stratified conferences where some teams sift to the bottom and generally have about a 10% chance of ever climbing out of the bottom.....and really that is a big issue as it is and playing more conference games will only massively magnify that issue

the intelligent thing to do is play 8 conference games for most conferences and 7 for the Big 12 and then the various teams in the conference are free to schedule for their needs.....if a team has an average of 4 wins over 5 seasons they have no business scheduling like next year they are a playoff contender and doing so only weakens their conference because you do not get any strength of schedule as a conference member for playing other teams in your conference that lost to a lot of good teams.......your team gets much more strength of schedule both directly and indirectly by beating teams in your conference that have more wins than losses

directly because again no one values a team that is 1-11 against top teams Vs 8-4 against mostly G5 teams and indirectly because that team also plays into the strength of schedule of every other team in your conference including the others you play in conference

only a moron believes that you gain strength for your conference by beating up on m ore teams in your conference......your CONFERENCE gains strength by beating teams from OTHER CONFERENCES

and that included lower win teams in your conference getting more wins against weaker teams instead of thinking they gain something by getting the snot knocked out of them by good teams

and if you are a top team in the conference you schedule YOUR OOC to make the playoffs and then look for your fellow conference members to schedule to get the most wins....be it wins against top teams or wins against bad teams until they make more bowl games, recruit better, gain traction for their program and start to schedule better in the OOC

doing the opposite will just make what is already a bad situation much worse for lower level conference teams and for deciding who should be in the playoffs

Todge, the move to all P games won't have a thing to do with conference perception. It will have everything to do with putting a consistent stream of must see games before the public to drive ratings and advertising dollars. The name of the game now is money, and only an imbecile ignores that (tossed in because your world view calls everyone a moron who doesn't agree with your position).

So far conferences have realigned for what? More money. Schools have abandoned historic rivals for what? More money and sometimes out of fear of being left behind where they couldn't make more money.

Right now smaller schools are worried about declining revenue because of declining enrollment because they can't stay solvent without, you guessed it, more money.

When realignment is essentially over the networks will only pay more money for better quality match ups (translated as more P games). Conferences will do this for more money. Spring games will be better attended and monetized by becoming preseason games and all of that will be for more money.

Right now the only reason there are 8 conference games with several rent-a-kills is because the networks haven't completely bought us out of the beauty pageant days but they will because they hate soft schedule weekends because it hurts their revenue.

The P conferences will eventually be a closed subset that only plays games among itself. If that adds to losses and makes things more competitive that's not really a bad thing. Even fans don't turn out for buy games now. Your way of thinking is passe and profit and public interest are the two things we are chasing. Even Texas fans complain about the quality of the schedule.

So whether you like it or not it's coming. And the smart conferences will always keep a sprinkling of basketball first schools around to provide the closest thing to a buy game they are going to have in the future. Schools like Duke, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, and Kansas will serve a football purpose, and even though some of those are far from being an easy win they will represent the only disparity between the top and bottom that the fans will accept. The days of running it up against an FCS or poorer G5 will be over.

And by the way, in the era of paying top coaches between 5 - 7 million a year, playing for more money ain't going away!

I’m for standardizing scheduling but I don’t think it should stop there. I think all leagues should be required to have the same amount of teams — be it 14 or 16 or whatever. I don’t get these half measures.

I am not for eliminating some perceived advantages for others while retaining some perceived advantages for yourself. That’s not going to work

I like the idea because it creates more opportunities for schools to play schools they wouldn't normally play.

(06-23-2019 09:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I’m for standardizing scheduling but I don’t think it should stop there. I think all leagues should be required to have the same amount of teams — be it 14 or 16 or whatever. I don’t get these half measures.

I am not for eliminating some perceived advantages for others while retaining some perceived advantages for yourself. That’s not going to work

Standardizing everything would be ideal. But I don't see us getting there until we've gone full circle and sell our rights as 1 group rather than 4 or 5. As long as there are schools doubling others up in revenue there will be no collective standard. Revenue will be the excuse to have more or less schools per conference and disparity between conferences a justification for perks for the more lucrative ones.

Assuming the ideal is 4 sixteen school conferences, in order to make that work the revenue needs to be as close to equal as it can be made. I see no way of doing that without collectivizing.

(06-23-2019 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 09:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I’m for standardizing scheduling but I don’t think it should stop there. I think all leagues should be required to have the same amount of teams — be it 14 or 16 or whatever. I don’t get these half measures.

I am not for eliminating some perceived advantages for others while retaining some perceived advantages for yourself. That’s not going to work

Standardizing everything would be ideal. But I don't see us getting there until we've gone full circle and sell our rights as 1 group rather than 4 or 5. As long as there are schools doubling others up in revenue there will be no collective standard. Revenue will be the excuse to have more or less schools per conference and disparity between conferences a justification for perks for the more lucrative ones.

Assuming the ideal is 4 sixteen school conferences, in order to make that work the revenue needs to be as close to equal as it can be made. I see no way of doing that without collectivizing.

Per the last two years' gross revenue data (from EADA), 36 schools currently earn $100 million.

Last four in (barely $100 million)- Duke, Oregon, Ole Miss, Virginia
First four not at $100 million - Baylor, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina

I think the top 36 revenue schools will be the shoe-ins once things become standardized, and any school below that will need a compelling reason (probably filling our regional divisions, state representation, etc.). 48 schools is about where the $90 million schools land (Illinois, Arizona, and the like), and most below that are smaller schools in a duplicate market, weak football programs, and lower earning private schools. We'll see.

(06-23-2019 12:40 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 10:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-23-2019 09:27 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I’m for standardizing scheduling but I don’t think it should stop there. I think all leagues should be required to have the same amount of teams — be it 14 or 16 or whatever. I don’t get these half measures.

I am not for eliminating some perceived advantages for others while retaining some perceived advantages for yourself. That’s not going to work

Standardizing everything would be ideal. But I don't see us getting there until we've gone full circle and sell our rights as 1 group rather than 4 or 5. As long as there are schools doubling others up in revenue there will be no collective standard. Revenue will be the excuse to have more or less schools per conference and disparity between conferences a justification for perks for the more lucrative ones.

Assuming the ideal is 4 sixteen school conferences, in order to make that work the revenue needs to be as close to equal as it can be made. I see no way of doing that without collectivizing.

Per the last two years' gross revenue data (from EADA), 36 schools currently earn $100 million.

Last four in (barely $100 million)- Duke, Oregon, Ole Miss, Virginia
First four not at $100 million - Baylor, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina

I think the top 36 revenue schools will be the shoe-ins once things become standardized, and any school below that will need a compelling reason (probably filling our regional divisions, state representation, etc.). 48 schools is about where the $90 million schools land (Illinois, Arizona, and the like), and most below that are smaller schools in a duplicate market, weak football programs, and lower earning private schools. We'll see.

I get hoots when I talk about 48, but I consider that much more likely of a number in the end than any above or below it. As for ease of ameliorating TV revenues there is no better way than for the SEC and Big 10 to both eventually reach 24 members.

In 2007 there was a major dividing line around the 72nd position and another around 48th. Today it's the same way only the gaps have grown. If the SEC and Big 10 do become the centerpieces of a true consolidation there will be a few sheltered programs. So the consolidation won't be strictly along revenue lines, but those who are added will be.

The contributing factors to this will be shrinking state budgets, shrinking pools of high school football players to recruit, and high dollar offers for weekly tilts between well recognized programs and two conferences (leagues) with natural rivalry between them. I don't think it will impact basketball very much, but the scope of college football will shrink in number of participants at the highest level, but probably be more visible than ever before.

I think the people hoping for college football to contract and consolidate power should be very careful what they wish for. Basically, you are hoping that college football essentially becomes a minor-league version of the NFL. Are you sure you want that? Don’t get me wrong, I get that it serves as a de facto minor-league system right now. However, are you sure you would want to institutionalize that?

That seems bonkers to me.

When people talk about things like duplicating markets and all the rest of it, I think they often don’t really understand what they’re talking about. In some cases that is true. However, every case is definitely different than each other. Do UCLA and USC duplicate the LA market? What about Cal? Would that too own the Los Angeles market because Los Angeles is in the state of California?

Would Florida State or Florida own the Miami market? That’s completely ludicrous – they are each at least 5+ hours away from that city.

It’s a very complex landscape is all I’m saying and I think the idea of consolidating is straight out of a science-fiction novel. It’s a fun idea but that’s only because it is beyond far-fetched. I don’t think any of us will ever see anything like that in any of our lifetimes. Similarly, I don’t think we’re ever going to see the four conferences of 16 teams in our respective lifetimes. There’s nothing in the history of college football that suggests that any new solution will ever be neat and tidy, or even practical. That’s just not how the whole system works.

(06-23-2019 02:18 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think the people hoping for college football to contract and consolidate power should be very careful what they wish for. Basically, you are hoping that college football essentially becomes a minor-league version of the NFL. Are you sure you want that? Don’t get me wrong, I get that it serves as a de facto minor-league system right now. However, are you sure you would want to institutionalize that?

That seems bonkers to me.

When people talk about things like duplicating markets and all the rest of it, I think they often don’t really understand what they’re talking about. In some cases that is true. However, every case is definitely different than each other. Do UCLA and USC duplicate the LA market? What about Cal? Would that too own the Los Angeles market because Los Angeles is in the state of California?

Would Florida State or Florida own the Miami market? That’s completely ludicrous – they are each at least 5+ hours away from that city.

It’s a very complex landscape is all I’m saying and I think the idea of consolidating is straight out of a science-fiction novel. It’s a fun idea but that’s only because it is beyond far-fetched. I don’t think any of us will ever see anything like that in any of our lifetimes. Similarly, I don’t think we’re ever going to see the four conferences of 16 teams in our respective lifetimes. There’s nothing in the history of college football that suggests that any new solution will ever be neat and tidy, or even practical. That’s just not how the whole system works.

Yinz, it's not what I want. But it is what I see happening. By 2025 the SEC and Big 10 will be making almost double what the ACC and PAC 12 are making in TV revenue. If Texas or Oklahoma move to either or both it will be double. That will be a lot of money on the table to ignore even at a 20 million dollar a year difference which essentially is what the Big 10 enjoys over the ACC now.

And we aren't talking Gross Revenue advantages from size of venue and ticket prices x attendance.

What I find specious is the that college football which has undergone nothing but change and realignment in its rich history is going to somehow stop changing. And that was before it was impacted by large amounts of money these past 25 years or so. The change since then has been unprecedented, and will continue.

I'd be perfectly happy back at 10 core SEC schools. But outside dynamics dictated otherwise and the balance has been tipped way beyond any equilibrium since. It has a momentum, augmented by other social and economic changes, that indicates it is nowhere near finished changing. The gaps have widened exponentially, the cost of play is too much for more and more schools, and winnowing has only begun.

I told the board in 2012 the nature of the corporate involvement. Nobody believed it then and now the notion is commonly recognized. I spoke at the same time about the coming downturn in enrollment and the shrinking state dollars leading to a downsizing in higher education. Many laughed. Now we have threads dedicated to the reality of it and it has only just begun to be realized.

Football at the college level has priced itself, with the aid of TV money, into an arms race that can only grow by subtraction. The more chips pushed all in the more hands will fold. In other words it is consuming itself and it won't stop until the top players holler 'nuff.

I notice a lot of P5's that have 7 home games. I'm sure some of them would lose their minds if they did.

(06-25-2019 04:44 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  I notice a lot of P5's that have 7 home games. I'm sure some of them would lose their minds if they did.

7 home games is important for sure