CoastalJuan
Business Drunk
Posts: 6,949
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 522
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeach |
RE: American's Letter to the Autonomous 5.
(06-25-2021 06:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (06-22-2021 12:30 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (06-20-2021 07:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (06-17-2021 11:09 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: (06-17-2021 06:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote: I agree that the A5 want the G5 around. But still, in 2014 or whenever it was, the A5 insisted on being separate from the G5 in the sense of "autonomy". So that's why the whole A/Non-A thing struck me as a compromise. The deal was "OK, we will not leave the NCAA, but only if we, the P5 get more control via Autonomy". If the P5 didn't object to the G5 in a political sense at all back then, if their only concern was getting voted down by FCS and lower divisions, then the G5 would have been included in Autonomy as well. But they weren't, which leads me to believe the P5 wanted it that way. So if the G5 - all or some - start to push the autonomy thing and demand its dissolution, that could reopen the whole deal that was negotiated in 2013. And the danger is the Ps could split entirely.
As for the G5 thing, I do not see why the other 9 conferences would bend over backwards to accommodate the AAC's complaining about being with the Gs. No other conference has ever expressed sympathy for this, so it seems highly unlikely to me that it will drive these negotiations.
I can't imagine that the Ps would agree to the same base money for everyone. If they did that, they might as well dissolve "FBS" and put the playoffs under the auspices of the NCAA, because that's basically the NCAA model - nobody has any greater guarantee than anyone else, differences in payouts are strictly based on tournament performance. If the MAC happens to put more teams in the tournament and win more games in it than the SEC, then the MAC makes more from the tournament than does the SEC that year.
Since I don't think the P5 want that, I expect that the same division of money will underlie this deal as did the CFP and BCS deals - the Ps get about 80% of the money guaranteed, the Gs will get 20%. That's the difference in brand value between the groups.
And I don't see why any other G would stand by and allow the AAC to grab a bigger share of money than themselves. It just beggars belief to me that they would allow that. If you are the MAC commissioner, why would you sign on to a deal that gives the AAC more money? So I do not think that will happen. Everyone has the same "nuclear button", so nobody can enforce their will on anyone else.
The one most willing to push the button always has the advantage. The AAC has literally been preaching since their very inception that they dont belong with the G4. They have the leverage to end the G5 stuff. I think they mean it and will blow up the deal if they are lumped in as part of the "G5".
Frankly, its not a big ask. They have earned more money under the existing CFP deal than any other G5. At this point----based on contracts----it is a demonstrable fact that the AAC has substantially more TV value than any of the other G5's (and that gap is MUCH larger than it was in 2012). Why would anyone think it's ok for the G4 to decide that the AAC has to negotiate its compensation as part of their group or that the AAC must make the exact same amount as each of the less valuable G4 conferences? Frankly, I dont think the P5 cares if the AAC negotiates its share value individually and I dont see any reason why the MAC, CUSA, SB, and MW cant be granted the same courtesy to individually negotiate their shares of pie as well. Im absolutely fine with that---and Im sure Aresco would be too. If every G5 conference is allowed to negotiate their share value as an individual conference---that seems pretty reasonable and fair. Honestly--the one thing the AAC really cares about in this negotiation is not being part of any of this "G5" mess---and this is probably the only chance they have to change it in the next decade or two. So--yes---I think they are more willing to push the button than anyone else at the table this time around.
I have no reason to believe that the AAC is more willing to push the nuclear button than anyone else. Heck, from press statements, it seems the PAC would be most willing. Aresco has just gone on the record gushing praise for the proposal, so it would look kind of bad if he started raising a ruckus about money. If that was going to be his play, his response about the PAC should have been more measured, as in "we strongly disagree with P5 autobids and endorse the top-six aspect of the proposal, but we also believe the AAC should receive yada yada yada in the upcoming negotiations".
Yes, the AAC wants to be regarded as separate. But so what? I don't see why a MAC commissioner will say to themselves "well the AAC has been publicly pushing for this for years and years, so by golly let's give it to them" especially when doing that will harm my conference both symbolically and financially (because the P5 isn't going to give up some of their share for the AAC's extra dough).
I also think the P5 would be reluctant to open a can of worms by giving the AAC substantially more based on media value, as the B1G is worth about $30 million more in media value each year than is the ACC or PAC.
Also, as I pointed out in another thread, the current CFP distribution model for the Gs does already have a pretty significant variable component. In 2017, the AAC got $25 million from the CFP, while the Sun Belt got $14 million. That's about 70% more for the AAC, a non-trivial amount.
So in the end, I expect a distribution model pretty similar to what we have now. Regardless of whether all five Gs sit down at the table as a group, or each is called in one by one to make its case. Which btw I think has no real value even symbolically.
But hey, I've been wrong before - e.g., I didn't think a 12 team playoff would be worth a lot more than the current CFP to TV and apparently it will be, and when Aresco signed the TV deal in 2019, I said I thought it almost surely would be enough to keep UConn from leaving. So we'll see.
This was posted before in another thread, but I just recently got around to actually listening to it. Its an interview with Karl Benson, former Sunbelt/WAC Commissioner. From the prospective of someone who was actually in the room (he basically was in the role Thompson has this time around), he describes the last CFP negotiations and the current dynamic in the current CFP negotiation with respect to the value of the G5.
Three things you might find interesting.
1) He says there are 3 groups negotiating this time around. The P5, the G4, and the AAC.
2) He seems somewhat pessimistic about the G5 doing as well financially in this negotiation as they did in 2012. He suggests this is probably one of the reasons the AAC is negotiating on an independent track this time around.
3) He indicates that the G5 was very much simply a quiet spectator in the room during the 2012 negotiations. Basically they had no power and no real input. To paraphrase---he said they werent going to oppose anything the P5 came up with---they were just "hoping" they would be included in whatever the P5 developed.
That is interesting. What happened in 2012 doesn't surprise me at all. That's why Aresco, who IIRC made a lot of noise during the CFP talks about "adding a seventh bowl" for the G5 did not get that. The P5 just decided what they were going to do, and giving the G5 an access spot in an existing NY6 bowl was a foregone conclusion given the bad publicity and antitrust saber-rattling in the Senate in the years leading up to that deal.
I suspect the same thing will happen this time around - the G5 will not get a percentage improvement. Maybe a small one but not much. Still, the G5 will do a lot better overall, simply because there seems that that there will be a lot more money. P5 are talking about their money tripling, so I expect G5 dollars to triple as well. Everyone will gain along the lines of their proportions from the CFP deal, with maybe a small percentage increase for the Gs.
I do not expect the AAC to cut a separate deal, as I see no reason why the P5 would want to give them a separate - meaning better - deal.
We shall see.
I honestly don't know enough about the current setup. This is what the CFP Wikipedia page says:
In 2012, ESPN reportedly agreed to pay about $7.3 billion over 12 years for broadcasting rights to all seven games, an average of about $608 million per year. That includes $215 million per year which was already committed to the Rose, Sugar and Orange bowls,[71] plus $470–475 million annually for the rest of the package.[72] By comparison, the most recent contract with the BCS and the Rose Bowl had paid approximately $155 million per year for five games.[73]
The average revenue to the new system over 12 years is to be about $500 million per year. After $125–150 million in expenses, the Power Five conferences split about 71.5 percent of the remaining money, for an approximate average payout of $250 million a year ($50 million per league) over the life of the contract. The "Group of Five" conferences split 27 percent, about $90 million a year ($18 million per league). Notre Dame receives around one percent, about $3.5-4 million, and other FBS independents get about 0.5 percent of the deal.[74][75]
I guess my question is, when they say the P5 split "about 71.5%", is that just a flat percentage payout that was agreed upon, or is that based on participation in the playoff/NY6 bowls, etc?
Just wondering if, in a new system where there presumably won't be the garbage NY6 bowls that don't matter, the money would be paid out through those bowls to the conferences that participate. Obviously the P5 would get more because they'd be placed in more, but didn't know if we'd have a flexible system based on appearances vs. the P5/G5 just getting a flat percentage to divvy out evenly among their conferences.
|
|
That's exactly what the Pac-12 is trying to do. 
