(09-26-2023 08:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 08:02 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The G5 have temporary leverage for the next 2 years because the current contract needs unanimous consent to change 6+6 and there’s no real reason for the G5 to give that up.

On the other hand, the G5 (or G5) have pretty much zero leverage beyond 2025. The choice is either 5+7 or top 12, so they need to take what they can get.

Yes perhaps it would be good to bargain for 5+7 long term in exchange for early modification

I think there will be a strong faction pushing for top 12

Honestly, I think it would just be the SEC there and it’s more that Sankey is just using the format issue as leverage for what they really care about: getting even a larger share of the revenue than before. The Big Ten has always put a lot more weight on conference championships. Also, the value of the P4 CCGs goes up a lot when there’s a top 4 conference champ bye at stake, which is a point that a lot of people miss when they’re so focused on the playoff format itself.

Ross Dellenger pointed this out on his podcast a couple of weeks ago: the 5+7 format at least beyond 2025 seems pretty settled. The format discussion is a red herring for fans to debate. Instead, the SEC and Big Ten care MUCH more about getting a larger share of the money compared to a token playoff spot for the G5.

The new 18 team B1G will have an even greater incentive than the SEC to go to an all at-large makeup. Using today's AP poll, the SEC would have 2 teams and the B1G would have SIX in a 12 team CFP if this was 2024.

(09-26-2023 09:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 09:03 AM)GoBuckeyes1047 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:05 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  6+6 is huge for '24, especially for the PAC/MWC. I suspect we could end up with a completely different format after '26 though. They want to trial run this thing.

I know I've beat this drum a lot, but I'll still beat it. I still think we should end up with a 5+10 (4+6) format where we have the top 5 champs + top 4 CCG losers + 6 at-large. Adds an additional round and layer of the CFP without the risk of team playing 18 games in a season (excludes teams playing @ Hawaii, but will already be the case with 6+6) since the top 4 champs get a double bye to the quarterfinals, the 5th champ (persumably G5 champ) and 4 CCG losers (5-9 seeds) get a single bye since they played in a CCG, and the top 6 at-large play a play-in game (10-15 seeds) while leaving a standalone slot for Army-Navy, who likely only makes the CFP as a G5 champion.

To me, it just makes way too much sense for all parties involved. I don't mind staying at 6+6 for a year or 2 to playout the current contract, but I think the P4 will want to trade in 1 autobid for at least 4 at-large spots in 2026. This format keeps CCGs relevant and adds incentive for conference semis for the top 4, if they desire (I think we can learn more after 2024). It avoids cannibalizing playoff games and expanding the season beyond what 6+6 will do. G5 still gets a spot and maybe a home game. ND still has 6 at-larges with a strong shot at a home game, and in the event ND is ranked top while seeded 10th, it keep ND from meeting the other top 2 ranked team before the championship game (a neat, unintended consequence of this format).

Once again, I think people are concentrating too much on the playoff field itself and not enough on the impact on the regular season and CCGs.

To me, just allowing the CCG losers to get into the playoff automatically (effectively an automatic mulligan for everyone) devalues the CCGs way too much. Sure, there are going to be a lot of years where many or even all of the P4 CCG losers are likely to get in as at-larges, but not having a *guaranteed* safety net is a huge deal in how a viewer watches that game.

We’re also getting into hypotheticals that get talked a lot on message boards (such as the concept of conference semifinals) that haven’t gotten any traction in the “real world” at all. Personally, I’d love to see conference semifinals, but I’ve never seen a single person in the powers that be ever suggest that it’s a possibility.

IMHO, the 6+6 (or future 5+7) format is clear, concise, provides logical incentives (e.g. a bye for the top 4 conference champs that inherently needed to win an additional high stakes CCG), fits into the available TV windows (a major practical issue due to NFL conflicts and how TV networks *don’t* want playoff games during Christmas week), and can be explained to a third grader.

Like I’ve said, the format is the easiest part of all of this to resolve. Instead, the real fight is about the money. The Big Ten and SEC are going to be coming for more of the G5’s share (and they’re going to do it on the NCAA Tournament side, too).

Neither the B1G nor SEC are even top 3 NCAA BBall Conferences, will be interesting to see how they plan to try to get an outsized share vs the ACC, BE, and Big 12. Or are you saying that all of the P4 in Fooball and P5 in basketball will work together to do that?

(09-26-2023 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 05:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 03:35 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm sure that's what they'll want to do and it will be interesting to see how that goes. They certainly are the 2 most powerful conferences, but they probably also want a larger split than the other P leagues so the voting on that is going to be interesting.

About the bolded, this is what I have been thinking. IMO the SEC and B1G likely care more about getting more $$$ out of the P-percentage than getting more away from the G-percentage.

Two scenarios:

I. PAC reconstitutes, MW remains, so we now have a P4/G6.

P-share is currently 80%, G-share is 20%. With this scenario, I think the SEC and B1G would push for something like ....

G6 .... 23% (slight boost because there is one more G mouth to feed).

P4 ..... SEC and B1G ..... 25% each.

ACC and Big 12 ............ 13.5% each.


II. PAC absorbs the MW or MW absorbs OS and WS, so we have a P4 and G5 ...

G5 ..... 20% each like now

P4 ...... SEC and B1G ..... 26% each

ACC and Big 12 ............. 14% each


Something like that. But in each case, the Gs are relatively unscathed, it is the ACC and B12 who lose big percentages.

Just MO.

There is no rationale for such a radical change in CFP-12 payouts.

Until 2026, they’re committed to the formal CFP-4 distribution scheme…83.3% to Power 5 teams, and the remaining 16.7% share to the G5. Furthermore, the P5 also already agreed to divide the payouts equally on a per team basis during the final 2 years of the original CFP term. The CFP-4 distribution scheme is justified on “contract” bowl arrangements…it received broad consensus amongst all major FBS parties. The only uncertainty is what happens to the PAC during the next two years (do WSU & OSU get P5-level shares only if they maintain the PAC? Can WSU & OSU invite new members into the PAC, at P5-level shares, in the next two years?).

Maybe the parties are willing to move a greater share of distributions into a performance sharing pool…getting larger compensation for winning CFP games. Conference leaders have been very conservative financially. They have been historically shy of variable compensation. Regardless, CFP distributions require consensus and the B1G and SEC don’t want to set precedents that could hurt them in the future.

We’ll see.

The way I see it, the justification would be the IMO much greater brand value of the B1G and SEC, which has come about due to the recent realignment.

To me, this means that in a brand-sense, we have a P2 and an M2. And since contract bowl ties with conferences will I believe be gone, that brand value is a good basis for making the distinction in pay.

Also, I agree that for 2024 and 2025, the current pay scheme will be in effect, equal shares among the P5, with the only issue being the status of the PAC depending on whether it still exists as of 2024 or not. So what I am talking about with regard to the M2 making significantly less then the P2 is for 2026 and beyond. I should have stated that in the last post.

Just MO, like you said, we shall see.

There's no way to measure that. And the M2 would fight that with a passion. And as Frank says about hogs....

They will try to attain it with incentive based pay. A larger portion will be based on CFP appearances than today.

I don't think they will try to attain it with incentive/appearance pay. Or if they do, I think that would be a mistake for them. If I was an SEC/B1G honcho I would not assume that because we've dominated CFP bids in the past that this will hold going forward.

Because the way I see it, regardless of which teams make the playoffs in a given year, it is IMO the SEC and B1G brands that drive interest in the thing on a continual basis. But with incentive pay, if the SEC has a bad year (like it is right now) and the ACC a good one, the ACC could end up raking in more CFP money that year, which if I was the SEC I'd never want to see happen. I want guaranteed $$$ and more of it, always.

Also, IMO the SEC and B1G can easily beat the M2 if the M2 scream. IMO the SEC and B1G have far more brand value, as indicated by their TV deals, so they should get more pay. With the "contract bowl" issue now moot, I think TV deals can be a good 'objective' measure of how much a conference gets paid by the CFP. To me, the M2 have IMO almost no leverage no matter how much they object.

In contrast, if they try to get more by cutting the Gs, the Gs already collectively only get about 20%, so I don't think there is that much money to get out of them to begin with. I think there is more $$$ to be gained by cutting the M2.

I could very well be wrong, of course, we'll see.

This stuff will get figured out pretty soon, hopefully.

(09-27-2023 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 05:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 03:35 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  About the bolded, this is what I have been thinking. IMO the SEC and B1G likely care more about getting more $$$ out of the P-percentage than getting more away from the G-percentage.

Two scenarios:

I. PAC reconstitutes, MW remains, so we now have a P4/G6.

P-share is currently 80%, G-share is 20%. With this scenario, I think the SEC and B1G would push for something like ....

G6 .... 23% (slight boost because there is one more G mouth to feed).

P4 ..... SEC and B1G ..... 25% each.

ACC and Big 12 ............ 13.5% each.


II. PAC absorbs the MW or MW absorbs OS and WS, so we have a P4 and G5 ...

G5 ..... 20% each like now

P4 ...... SEC and B1G ..... 26% each

ACC and Big 12 ............. 14% each


Something like that. But in each case, the Gs are relatively unscathed, it is the ACC and B12 who lose big percentages.

Just MO.

There is no rationale for such a radical change in CFP-12 payouts.

Until 2026, they’re committed to the formal CFP-4 distribution scheme…83.3% to Power 5 teams, and the remaining 16.7% share to the G5. Furthermore, the P5 also already agreed to divide the payouts equally on a per team basis during the final 2 years of the original CFP term. The CFP-4 distribution scheme is justified on “contract” bowl arrangements…it received broad consensus amongst all major FBS parties. The only uncertainty is what happens to the PAC during the next two years (do WSU & OSU get P5-level shares only if they maintain the PAC? Can WSU & OSU invite new members into the PAC, at P5-level shares, in the next two years?).

Maybe the parties are willing to move a greater share of distributions into a performance sharing pool…getting larger compensation for winning CFP games. Conference leaders have been very conservative financially. They have been historically shy of variable compensation. Regardless, CFP distributions require consensus and the B1G and SEC don’t want to set precedents that could hurt them in the future.

We’ll see.

The way I see it, the justification would be the IMO much greater brand value of the B1G and SEC, which has come about due to the recent realignment.

To me, this means that in a brand-sense, we have a P2 and an M2. And since contract bowl ties with conferences will I believe be gone, that brand value is a good basis for making the distinction in pay.

Also, I agree that for 2024 and 2025, the current pay scheme will be in effect, equal shares among the P5, with the only issue being the status of the PAC depending on whether it still exists as of 2024 or not. So what I am talking about with regard to the M2 making significantly less then the P2 is for 2026 and beyond. I should have stated that in the last post.

Just MO, like you said, we shall see.

There's no way to measure that. And the M2 would fight that with a passion. And as Frank says about hogs....

They will try to attain it with incentive based pay. A larger portion will be based on CFP appearances than today.

I don't think they will try to attain it with incentive/appearance pay. Or if they do, I think that would be a mistake for them. If I was an SEC/B1G honcho I would not assume that because we've dominated CFP bids in the past that this will hold going forward.

Because the way I see it, regardless of which teams make the playoffs in a given year, it is IMO the SEC and B1G brands that drive interest in the thing on a continual basis. But with incentive pay, if the SEC has a bad year (like it is right now) and the ACC a good one, the ACC could end up raking in more CFP money that year, which if I was the SEC I'd never want to see happen. I want guaranteed $$$ and more of it, always.

Also, IMO the SEC and B1G can easily beat the M2 if the M2 scream. IMO the SEC and B1G have far more brand value, as indicated by their TV deals, so they should get more pay. With the "contract bowl" issue now moot, I think TV deals can be a good 'objective' measure of how much a conference gets paid by the CFP. To me, the M2 have IMO almost no leverage no matter how much they object.

In contrast, if they try to get more by cutting the Gs, the Gs already collectively only get about 20%, so I don't think there is that much money to get out of them to begin with. I think there is more $$$ to be gained by cutting the M2.

I could very well be wrong, of course, we'll see.

Like I said, it is hard to measure. As Frank said about hogs getting slaughtered. Just really bad business to try to use their power against the M2 and get something they don't earn on the field. I don't think the SEC worries about earning it.

When the Pac 16 fell apart, the R5 had offered guaranteed money to Texas/OU/A&M to stay. When they came back, Texas and OU refused it. They said it wasn't part of their calculations and it wasn't really fair. In fact, they voluntarily switched to even revenue distribution. The previous uneven allocation was earned based on appearances. OU was tops most of the time. KU was tops at least one year.
Of course, USC and UCLA insisted on guaranteed money (but the contract was high enough that clause didn't take effect) and A&M whined when OU and UT refused the guaranteed money. But I just don't see the Big 10 and SEC pushing something that can't be earned.

simply going to a 5+7 model seems the easiest fix keeping the intent of the 6+6 model intact.

(09-27-2023 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 05:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 03:35 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  There is no rationale for such a radical change in CFP-12 payouts.

Until 2026, they’re committed to the formal CFP-4 distribution scheme…83.3% to Power 5 teams, and the remaining 16.7% share to the G5. Furthermore, the P5 also already agreed to divide the payouts equally on a per team basis during the final 2 years of the original CFP term. The CFP-4 distribution scheme is justified on “contract” bowl arrangements…it received broad consensus amongst all major FBS parties. The only uncertainty is what happens to the PAC during the next two years (do WSU & OSU get P5-level shares only if they maintain the PAC? Can WSU & OSU invite new members into the PAC, at P5-level shares, in the next two years?).

Maybe the parties are willing to move a greater share of distributions into a performance sharing pool…getting larger compensation for winning CFP games. Conference leaders have been very conservative financially. They have been historically shy of variable compensation. Regardless, CFP distributions require consensus and the B1G and SEC don’t want to set precedents that could hurt them in the future.

We’ll see.

The way I see it, the justification would be the IMO much greater brand value of the B1G and SEC, which has come about due to the recent realignment.

To me, this means that in a brand-sense, we have a P2 and an M2. And since contract bowl ties with conferences will I believe be gone, that brand value is a good basis for making the distinction in pay.

Also, I agree that for 2024 and 2025, the current pay scheme will be in effect, equal shares among the P5, with the only issue being the status of the PAC depending on whether it still exists as of 2024 or not. So what I am talking about with regard to the M2 making significantly less then the P2 is for 2026 and beyond. I should have stated that in the last post.

Just MO, like you said, we shall see.

There's no way to measure that. And the M2 would fight that with a passion. And as Frank says about hogs....

They will try to attain it with incentive based pay. A larger portion will be based on CFP appearances than today.

I don't think they will try to attain it with incentive/appearance pay. Or if they do, I think that would be a mistake for them. If I was an SEC/B1G honcho I would not assume that because we've dominated CFP bids in the past that this will hold going forward.

Because the way I see it, regardless of which teams make the playoffs in a given year, it is IMO the SEC and B1G brands that drive interest in the thing on a continual basis. But with incentive pay, if the SEC has a bad year (like it is right now) and the ACC a good one, the ACC could end up raking in more CFP money that year, which if I was the SEC I'd never want to see happen. I want guaranteed $$$ and more of it, always.

Also, IMO the SEC and B1G can easily beat the M2 if the M2 scream. IMO the SEC and B1G have far more brand value, as indicated by their TV deals, so they should get more pay. With the "contract bowl" issue now moot, I think TV deals can be a good 'objective' measure of how much a conference gets paid by the CFP. To me, the M2 have IMO almost no leverage no matter how much they object.

In contrast, if they try to get more by cutting the Gs, the Gs already collectively only get about 20%, so I don't think there is that much money to get out of them to begin with. I think there is more $$$ to be gained by cutting the M2.

I could very well be wrong, of course, we'll see.

Like I said, it is hard to measure. As Frank said about hogs getting slaughtered. Just really bad business to try to use their power against the M2 and get something they don't earn on the field. I don't think the SEC worries about earning it.

When the Pac 16 fell apart, the R5 had offered guaranteed money to Texas/OU/A&M to stay. When they came back, Texas and OU refused it. They said it wasn't part of their calculations and it wasn't really fair. In fact, they voluntarily switched to even revenue distribution. The previous uneven allocation was earned based on appearances. OU was tops most of the time. KU was tops at least one year.
Of course, USC and UCLA insisted on guaranteed money (but the contract was high enough that clause didn't take effect) and A&M whined when OU and UT refused the guaranteed money. But I just don't see the Big 10 and SEC pushing something that can't be earned.

I guess my POV is that I don't believe the SEC and B1G view the ACC, and especially the B12, as their "peers" anymore. I imagine they view them as something less, tweeners between themselves and the G5. What some have been calling the M2.

In the current 2014-present regime, the P2 have no qualms about claiming a much larger CFP share than the Gs get without earning it, so if they have changed their POV on the ACC and B12, then IMO it stands to reason they will take the same tack with them now.

We'll see.

(09-27-2023 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 05:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The way I see it, the justification would be the IMO much greater brand value of the B1G and SEC, which has come about due to the recent realignment.

To me, this means that in a brand-sense, we have a P2 and an M2. And since contract bowl ties with conferences will I believe be gone, that brand value is a good basis for making the distinction in pay.

Also, I agree that for 2024 and 2025, the current pay scheme will be in effect, equal shares among the P5, with the only issue being the status of the PAC depending on whether it still exists as of 2024 or not. So what I am talking about with regard to the M2 making significantly less then the P2 is for 2026 and beyond. I should have stated that in the last post.

Just MO, like you said, we shall see.

There's no way to measure that. And the M2 would fight that with a passion. And as Frank says about hogs....

They will try to attain it with incentive based pay. A larger portion will be based on CFP appearances than today.

I don't think they will try to attain it with incentive/appearance pay. Or if they do, I think that would be a mistake for them. If I was an SEC/B1G honcho I would not assume that because we've dominated CFP bids in the past that this will hold going forward.

Because the way I see it, regardless of which teams make the playoffs in a given year, it is IMO the SEC and B1G brands that drive interest in the thing on a continual basis. But with incentive pay, if the SEC has a bad year (like it is right now) and the ACC a good one, the ACC could end up raking in more CFP money that year, which if I was the SEC I'd never want to see happen. I want guaranteed $$$ and more of it, always.

Also, IMO the SEC and B1G can easily beat the M2 if the M2 scream. IMO the SEC and B1G have far more brand value, as indicated by their TV deals, so they should get more pay. With the "contract bowl" issue now moot, I think TV deals can be a good 'objective' measure of how much a conference gets paid by the CFP. To me, the M2 have IMO almost no leverage no matter how much they object.

In contrast, if they try to get more by cutting the Gs, the Gs already collectively only get about 20%, so I don't think there is that much money to get out of them to begin with. I think there is more $$$ to be gained by cutting the M2.

I could very well be wrong, of course, we'll see.

Like I said, it is hard to measure. As Frank said about hogs getting slaughtered. Just really bad business to try to use their power against the M2 and get something they don't earn on the field. I don't think the SEC worries about earning it.

When the Pac 16 fell apart, the R5 had offered guaranteed money to Texas/OU/A&M to stay. When they came back, Texas and OU refused it. They said it wasn't part of their calculations and it wasn't really fair. In fact, they voluntarily switched to even revenue distribution. The previous uneven allocation was earned based on appearances. OU was tops most of the time. KU was tops at least one year.
Of course, USC and UCLA insisted on guaranteed money (but the contract was high enough that clause didn't take effect) and A&M whined when OU and UT refused the guaranteed money. But I just don't see the Big 10 and SEC pushing something that can't be earned.

I guess my POV is that I don't believe the SEC and B1G view the ACC, and especially the B12, as their "peers" anymore. I imagine they view them as something less, tweeners between themselves and the G5. What some have been calling the M2.

In the current 2014-present regime, the P2 have no qualms about claiming a much larger CFP share than the Gs get without earning it, so if they have changed their POV on the ACC and B12, then IMO it stands to reason they will take the same tack with them now.

We'll see.

Well the G5 was kind of invited in as a courtesy. They weren't a part before. And there were political, legal and perception problems in keeping them out. Probably none of those stopping them, but combined they were a serious headache.

And with what is going on in the courts, its just a really horrible look. Of course, they know the latest realignment, especially the Big 10's, is a bad look and that hasn't stopped them.

(09-27-2023 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  There's no way to measure that. And the M2 would fight that with a passion. And as Frank says about hogs....

They will try to attain it with incentive based pay. A larger portion will be based on CFP appearances than today.

I don't think they will try to attain it with incentive/appearance pay. Or if they do, I think that would be a mistake for them. If I was an SEC/B1G honcho I would not assume that because we've dominated CFP bids in the past that this will hold going forward.

Because the way I see it, regardless of which teams make the playoffs in a given year, it is IMO the SEC and B1G brands that drive interest in the thing on a continual basis. But with incentive pay, if the SEC has a bad year (like it is right now) and the ACC a good one, the ACC could end up raking in more CFP money that year, which if I was the SEC I'd never want to see happen. I want guaranteed $$$ and more of it, always.

Also, IMO the SEC and B1G can easily beat the M2 if the M2 scream. IMO the SEC and B1G have far more brand value, as indicated by their TV deals, so they should get more pay. With the "contract bowl" issue now moot, I think TV deals can be a good 'objective' measure of how much a conference gets paid by the CFP. To me, the M2 have IMO almost no leverage no matter how much they object.

In contrast, if they try to get more by cutting the Gs, the Gs already collectively only get about 20%, so I don't think there is that much money to get out of them to begin with. I think there is more $$$ to be gained by cutting the M2.

I could very well be wrong, of course, we'll see.

Like I said, it is hard to measure. As Frank said about hogs getting slaughtered. Just really bad business to try to use their power against the M2 and get something they don't earn on the field. I don't think the SEC worries about earning it.

When the Pac 16 fell apart, the R5 had offered guaranteed money to Texas/OU/A&M to stay. When they came back, Texas and OU refused it. They said it wasn't part of their calculations and it wasn't really fair. In fact, they voluntarily switched to even revenue distribution. The previous uneven allocation was earned based on appearances. OU was tops most of the time. KU was tops at least one year.
Of course, USC and UCLA insisted on guaranteed money (but the contract was high enough that clause didn't take effect) and A&M whined when OU and UT refused the guaranteed money. But I just don't see the Big 10 and SEC pushing something that can't be earned.

I guess my POV is that I don't believe the SEC and B1G view the ACC, and especially the B12, as their "peers" anymore. I imagine they view them as something less, tweeners between themselves and the G5. What some have been calling the M2.

In the current 2014-present regime, the P2 have no qualms about claiming a much larger CFP share than the Gs get without earning it, so if they have changed their POV on the ACC and B12, then IMO it stands to reason they will take the same tack with them now.

We'll see.

Well the G5 was kind of invited in as a courtesy. They weren't a part before. And there were political, legal and perception problems in keeping them out. Probably none of those stopping them, but combined they were a serious headache.

And with what is going on in the courts, its just a really horrible look. Of course, they know the latest realignment, especially the Big 10's, is a bad look and that hasn't stopped them.

What you say about these headaches is a big reason why I think the P2 will aim at the M2 money not the G5. Messing with the G5 share, small as it already is, is IMO fraught with more possible public relations and political problems than aiming at the M2. The G5 have the mantle of the "little guy" and can garner a lot of sympathy if it looks like the big bad B1G and SEC are cutting back on their already meagre bowls of gruel.

The M2 doesn't have that kind of public relations protection, IMO.

(09-26-2023 06:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 05:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 12:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 11:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I'm sure that's what they'll want to do and it will be interesting to see how that goes. They certainly are the 2 most powerful conferences, but they probably also want a larger split than the other P leagues so the voting on that is going to be interesting.

About the bolded, this is what I have been thinking. IMO the SEC and B1G likely care more about getting more $$$ out of the P-share than getting more away from the Gs.

Two scenarios:

I. PAC reconstitutes, MW remains, so we now have a P4/G6.

P-share is currently 80%, G-share is 20%. With this scenario, I think the SEC and B1G would push for something like ....

G6 .... 23% (slight boost because there is one more G mouth to feed).

P4 ..... SEC and B1G ..... 25% each.

ACC and Big 12 ............ 13.5% each.


II. PAC absorbs the MW or MW absorbs OS and WS, so we have a P4 and G5 ...

G5 ..... 20% each like now

P4 ...... SEC and B1G ..... 26% each

ACC and Big 12 ............. 14% each


Something like that. But in each case, the Gs are relatively unscathed, it is the ACC and B12 who lose big percentages.

Just MO.

I think that’s wishful thinking from the G5. The P2 knows that they can basically take whatever they want from the G5 by getting all of the P4 plus ND to band together with their supermajority power. The Big Ten and SeC aren’t really bothered by the Big 12 and ACC making similar money… and even if they were bothered by it in reality, it’s still simply the path of least resistance that they can use the P4 plus ND supermajority power to impose whatever they want on the G5 than try to fight those within the supermajority club.

I just think that if I was an SEC or B1G honcho, I don't see why my share of the CFP pie should be the same as the B12 and ACC when we have far greater brand value thanks to the recent realignment. The G5 share I would view as similar to how I viewed it during the past 10 years, kind of a necessary thing so that we can call it the champ of "FBS" football.

But I would want to get more of the P-share as IMO it would be my league that has the brands that are driving the overall value among the Ps. I would make the case that we really have a P2 and M2 now, so pay should be adjusted accordingly.

Then again, nobody at the SEC or B1G has ever contacted me about being a honcho, so I could well be wrong about how they think.

We'll see.

I think the Big Ten and SEC believe that they’re worth more than the ACC and Big 12 (because it’s true), but they also know that they have complete control of the CFP - including the financial distributions - if all of the P4 and ND vote together. That is worth more than trying to squeeze more money out of each other.

We’ve seen the history of conference realignment since the dawn of the BCS era - the power conferences keep raiding each other and even destroyed each other in the cases of the Big East and Pac-12, but the power conferences left standing always ended up treating each other equally when it came to postseason revenue (even if they would end up raising each other again a few years later). Whatever differences the power leagues might have between each other, they’re unified in wanting to ensure they’re taking the lion’s share of revenue as opposed to the G5. They don’t see the G5 as the same as before - they see Houston, UCF, Cincinnati and BYU all moved up and out of that group, so the P4 view the G5 as worth even less than before. It’s a barely concealed secret that they want to do this with the NCAA Tournament money, too.

Good point about the history. That does point against my argument.

(09-27-2023 07:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I don't think they will try to attain it with incentive/appearance pay. Or if they do, I think that would be a mistake for them. If I was an SEC/B1G honcho I would not assume that because we've dominated CFP bids in the past that this will hold going forward.

Because the way I see it, regardless of which teams make the playoffs in a given year, it is IMO the SEC and B1G brands that drive interest in the thing on a continual basis. But with incentive pay, if the SEC has a bad year (like it is right now) and the ACC a good one, the ACC could end up raking in more CFP money that year, which if I was the SEC I'd never want to see happen. I want guaranteed $$$ and more of it, always.

Also, IMO the SEC and B1G can easily beat the M2 if the M2 scream. IMO the SEC and B1G have far more brand value, as indicated by their TV deals, so they should get more pay. With the "contract bowl" issue now moot, I think TV deals can be a good 'objective' measure of how much a conference gets paid by the CFP. To me, the M2 have IMO almost no leverage no matter how much they object.

In contrast, if they try to get more by cutting the Gs, the Gs already collectively only get about 20%, so I don't think there is that much money to get out of them to begin with. I think there is more $$$ to be gained by cutting the M2.

I could very well be wrong, of course, we'll see.

Like I said, it is hard to measure. As Frank said about hogs getting slaughtered. Just really bad business to try to use their power against the M2 and get something they don't earn on the field. I don't think the SEC worries about earning it.

When the Pac 16 fell apart, the R5 had offered guaranteed money to Texas/OU/A&M to stay. When they came back, Texas and OU refused it. They said it wasn't part of their calculations and it wasn't really fair. In fact, they voluntarily switched to even revenue distribution. The previous uneven allocation was earned based on appearances. OU was tops most of the time. KU was tops at least one year.
Of course, USC and UCLA insisted on guaranteed money (but the contract was high enough that clause didn't take effect) and A&M whined when OU and UT refused the guaranteed money. But I just don't see the Big 10 and SEC pushing something that can't be earned.

I guess my POV is that I don't believe the SEC and B1G view the ACC, and especially the B12, as their "peers" anymore. I imagine they view them as something less, tweeners between themselves and the G5. What some have been calling the M2.

In the current 2014-present regime, the P2 have no qualms about claiming a much larger CFP share than the Gs get without earning it, so if they have changed their POV on the ACC and B12, then IMO it stands to reason they will take the same tack with them now.

We'll see.

Well the G5 was kind of invited in as a courtesy. They weren't a part before. And there were political, legal and perception problems in keeping them out. Probably none of those stopping them, but combined they were a serious headache.

And with what is going on in the courts, its just a really horrible look. Of course, they know the latest realignment, especially the Big 10's, is a bad look and that hasn't stopped them.

What you say about these headaches is a big reason why I think the P2 will aim at the M2 money not the G5. Messing with the G5 share, small as it already is, is IMO fraught with more possible public relations and political problems than aiming at the M2. The G5 have the mantle of the "little guy" and can garner a lot of sympathy if it looks like the big bad B1G and SEC are cutting back on their already meagre bowls of gruel.

The M2 doesn't have that kind of public relations protection, IMO.

Do we think the Big Ten and SEC will try to squeeze more money out of the M2, or out of the G5?

The G5 conferences combined get about 20% of the CFP pie. The P5 conferences each get about 16%.

Would Willie Sutton go after the 20%, or the 32%?

You can always come up with some kind of a formula (using top 25 or top 50 or top 100 finishes based on some amalgamation of computer rankings, keep running the spreadsheets until they come up with answers you're happy with and pick that formula for dividing CFP revenue.)

(09-25-2023 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Aresco is such a pain in the rear. He still acts like he’s running a league that’s nipping at the heels of the P5——the AAC isn’t even the clear cut best G-league this year.

I mean his literal job is to do this.

(09-26-2023 09:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  ... Neither the B1G nor SEC are even top 3 NCAA BBall Conferences, will be interesting to see how they plan to try to get an outsized share vs the ACC, BE, and Big 12. Or are you saying that all of the P4 in Fooball and P5 in basketball will work together to do that?

For Basketball, the target isn't an outsized share versus the ACC, BE, and Big12, it's a larger share of the total Tourney media revenue going to the conferences and a smaller share going to the NCAA.

(09-27-2023 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 09:24 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 07:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-26-2023 05:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The way I see it, the justification would be the IMO much greater brand value of the B1G and SEC, which has come about due to the recent realignment.

To me, this means that in a brand-sense, we have a P2 and an M2. And since contract bowl ties with conferences will I believe be gone, that brand value is a good basis for making the distinction in pay.

Also, I agree that for 2024 and 2025, the current pay scheme will be in effect, equal shares among the P5, with the only issue being the status of the PAC depending on whether it still exists as of 2024 or not. So what I am talking about with regard to the M2 making significantly less then the P2 is for 2026 and beyond. I should have stated that in the last post.

Just MO, like you said, we shall see.

There's no way to measure that. And the M2 would fight that with a passion. And as Frank says about hogs....

They will try to attain it with incentive based pay. A larger portion will be based on CFP appearances than today.

I don't think they will try to attain it with incentive/appearance pay. Or if they do, I think that would be a mistake for them. If I was an SEC/B1G honcho I would not assume that because we've dominated CFP bids in the past that this will hold going forward.

Because the way I see it, regardless of which teams make the playoffs in a given year, it is IMO the SEC and B1G brands that drive interest in the thing on a continual basis. But with incentive pay, if the SEC has a bad year (like it is right now) and the ACC a good one, the ACC could end up raking in more CFP money that year, which if I was the SEC I'd never want to see happen. I want guaranteed $$$ and more of it, always.

Also, IMO the SEC and B1G can easily beat the M2 if the M2 scream. IMO the SEC and B1G have far more brand value, as indicated by their TV deals, so they should get more pay. With the "contract bowl" issue now moot, I think TV deals can be a good 'objective' measure of how much a conference gets paid by the CFP. To me, the M2 have IMO almost no leverage no matter how much they object.

In contrast, if they try to get more by cutting the Gs, the Gs already collectively only get about 20%, so I don't think there is that much money to get out of them to begin with. I think there is more $$$ to be gained by cutting the M2.

I could very well be wrong, of course, we'll see.

Like I said, it is hard to measure. As Frank said about hogs getting slaughtered. Just really bad business to try to use their power against the M2 and get something they don't earn on the field. I don't think the SEC worries about earning it.

When the Pac 16 fell apart, the R5 had offered guaranteed money to Texas/OU/A&M to stay. When they came back, Texas and OU refused it. They said it wasn't part of their calculations and it wasn't really fair. In fact, they voluntarily switched to even revenue distribution. The previous uneven allocation was earned based on appearances. OU was tops most of the time. KU was tops at least one year.
Of course, USC and UCLA insisted on guaranteed money (but the contract was high enough that clause didn't take effect) and A&M whined when OU and UT refused the guaranteed money. But I just don't see the Big 10 and SEC pushing something that can't be earned.

I guess my POV is that I don't believe the SEC and B1G view the ACC, and especially the B12, as their "peers" anymore. I imagine they view them as something less, tweeners between themselves and the G5. What some have been calling the M2.

In the current 2014-present regime, the P2 have no qualms about claiming a much larger CFP share than the Gs get without earning it, so if they have changed their POV on the ACC and B12, then IMO it stands to reason they will take the same tack with them now.

We'll see.

If in fact that comes to fruition and the ACC and Big 12 get less of the CFP pie, then it is only a matter of time until the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of the SEC and B1G gets the targets on their backs for next round.....because any one of them is interchangeable with any of the ACC/Big 12 schools.....

(09-27-2023 08:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 07:27 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 01:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-27-2023 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  Like I said, it is hard to measure. As Frank said about hogs getting slaughtered. Just really bad business to try to use their power against the M2 and get something they don't earn on the field. I don't think the SEC worries about earning it.

When the Pac 16 fell apart, the R5 had offered guaranteed money to Texas/OU/A&M to stay. When they came back, Texas and OU refused it. They said it wasn't part of their calculations and it wasn't really fair. In fact, they voluntarily switched to even revenue distribution. The previous uneven allocation was earned based on appearances. OU was tops most of the time. KU was tops at least one year.
Of course, USC and UCLA insisted on guaranteed money (but the contract was high enough that clause didn't take effect) and A&M whined when OU and UT refused the guaranteed money. But I just don't see the Big 10 and SEC pushing something that can't be earned.

I guess my POV is that I don't believe the SEC and B1G view the ACC, and especially the B12, as their "peers" anymore. I imagine they view them as something less, tweeners between themselves and the G5. What some have been calling the M2.

In the current 2014-present regime, the P2 have no qualms about claiming a much larger CFP share than the Gs get without earning it, so if they have changed their POV on the ACC and B12, then IMO it stands to reason they will take the same tack with them now.

We'll see.

Well the G5 was kind of invited in as a courtesy. They weren't a part before. And there were political, legal and perception problems in keeping them out. Probably none of those stopping them, but combined they were a serious headache.

And with what is going on in the courts, its just a really horrible look. Of course, they know the latest realignment, especially the Big 10's, is a bad look and that hasn't stopped them.

What you say about these headaches is a big reason why I think the P2 will aim at the M2 money not the G5. Messing with the G5 share, small as it already is, is IMO fraught with more possible public relations and political problems than aiming at the M2. The G5 have the mantle of the "little guy" and can garner a lot of sympathy if it looks like the big bad B1G and SEC are cutting back on their already meagre bowls of gruel.

The M2 doesn't have that kind of public relations protection, IMO.

Do we think the Big Ten and SEC will try to squeeze more money out of the M2, or out of the G5?

The G5 conferences combined get about 20% of the CFP pie. The P5 conferences each get about 16%.

Would Willie Sutton go after the 20%, or the 32%?

You can always come up with some kind of a formula (using top 25 or top 50 or top 100 finishes based on some amalgamation of computer rankings, keep running the spreadsheets until they come up with answers you're happy with and pick that formula for dividing CFP revenue.)

Tank made a telling point about history, but I still think that the P2 are going to try and squeeze the M2. I think they will push for a formula that gives each of them about 25% of the guaranteed revenue, and the B12 and ACC each about 13% of the same, with the Gs collectively splitting the last 20% or so and maybe 5% for merit.

I think the rationale would be along the lines of in the 2014 CFP, the rationale for more guarantied P5 CFP income was the "contract bowl" ties, which themselves reflected the market value of the conferences. Since those ties are now absorbed within the 2026+ CFP, a new metric will be the relative value of the TV deals each conference has, and IIRC the SEC and B1G will be making about twice as much as the ACC and B12.

I do not think there will be a large pool of "merit" money based on putting teams in the CFP. There will be a small amount of that, like in the current CFP, but the P-conferences want big guarantied money, IMO, not something that can drop dramatically downward if the conference has a tough year.

Could well be wrong, but that's what my gut tells me. We'll see.

I see that, but it f'd up the bottom half of the P2 can keep riding the coattails unscathed.

(09-28-2023 11:55 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I see that, but it f'd up the bottom half of the P2 can keep riding the coattails unscathed.

I get that. I also think that sentiment flows downward through the hierarchy. What i mean is, top-level M2 are angered that bottom-level P2 make a lot more than them. At the same time, top-level G5 rue that bottom-level M2 are "in the club" and they aren't, top-level FCS don't like that bottom-level G5 get FBS money, etc.

(09-28-2023 10:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... Tank made a telling point about history, but I still think that the P2 are going to try and squeeze the M2. I think they will push for a formula that gives each of them about 25% of the guaranteed revenue, and the B12 and ACC each about 13% of the same, with the Gs collectively splitting the last 20% or so and maybe 5% for merit.

I think the rationale would be along the lines of in the 2014 CFP, the rationale for more guarantied P5 CFP income was the "contract bowl" ties, which themselves reflected the market value of the conferences.

However, the thing abut using the contract bowl test is that only the test was written into the CFP contracts ... it was the bowl committees as formally independent business entities that decided which conferences were worth offering a contract to. So the defense against it being an anti-competitive contract clause is that "any conference can compete in the market to be valuable enough to be offered a contract".

Quote: Since those ties are now absorbed within the 2026+ CFP, a new metric will be the relative value of the TV deals each conference has, and IIRC the SEC and B1G will be making about twice as much as the ACC and B12.

IANDL, so I don't know if that flies as a defensible market test, but it's a headache to codify in a way that pays the SEC and Big Ten the same share.

By contrast, in the "QF affiliate" approach, conferences are given the right to pick their QF bowl, and so bowls have the ability to pay for the promise to pick them when they are QF bowls, and there "just so happens" (by coincidence) to be four conferences which get offered affiliate deals, and it just so happens that two of the affiliate deals pay more than the other two.

Quote: I do not think there will be a large pool of "merit" money based on putting teams in the CFP. There will be a small amount of that, like in the current CFP, but the P-conferences want big guarantied money, IMO, not something that can drop dramatically downward if the conference has a tough year.

But the strongest non-discriminatory way to grab more for the P2 is to ramp up the share that goes for being selected. A full unit for being selected for the QF bye, a 60% unit for being selected for the first round host, a 40% unit for being selected for the first round visitor.

And we already know the way to prevent big swings in those revenues from one year to the next ... pool units over multiple years. The size of the selection money pool can ramp up by thirds in 2024, 2025 and 2026, with two years units in 2025 and three years units in 2026 and going ahead.

Put 30% of the revenue into that pool for the full 24 units ... 10% in 2024, 20% in 2025 ... and the greater revenue share for the P2 is, to be sure, not a formal guarantee, but as close to guaranteed as you can get without writing a larger share for the P2 straight into the contract terms.

Because they want guaranteed money, to be sure, but what they really want is exactly the kind of discriminatory contract terms in restraint of trade that those with market power always want to use to leverage their market power into a larger guaranteed flow of money. And so they have to dance around what they really want to figure out how to get as close as possible to what they want without getting so close that they risk getting burned.

(09-29-2023 08:12 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 10:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... Tank made a telling point about history, but I still think that the P2 are going to try and squeeze the M2. I think they will push for a formula that gives each of them about 25% of the guaranteed revenue, and the B12 and ACC each about 13% of the same, with the Gs collectively splitting the last 20% or so and maybe 5% for merit.

I think the rationale would be along the lines of in the 2014 CFP, the rationale for more guarantied P5 CFP income was the "contract bowl" ties, which themselves reflected the market value of the conferences.

However, the thing abut using the contract bowl test is that only the test was written into the CFP contracts ... it was the bowl committees as formally independent business entities that decided which conferences were worth offering a contract to. So the defense against it being an anti-competitive contract clause is that "any conference can compete in the market to be valuable enough to be offered a contract".

Quote: Since those ties are now absorbed within the 2026+ CFP, a new metric will be the relative value of the TV deals each conference has, and IIRC the SEC and B1G will be making about twice as much as the ACC and B12.

IANDL, so I don't know if that flies as a defensible market test, but it's a headache to codify in a way that pays the SEC and Big Ten the same share.

By contrast, in the "QF affiliate" approach, conferences are given the right to pick their QF bowl, and so bowls have the ability to pay for the promise to pick them when they are QF bowls, and there "just so happens" (by coincidence) to be four conferences which get offered affiliate deals, and it just so happens that two of the affiliate deals pay more than the other two.

Quote: I do not think there will be a large pool of "merit" money based on putting teams in the CFP. There will be a small amount of that, like in the current CFP, but the P-conferences want big guarantied money, IMO, not something that can drop dramatically downward if the conference has a tough year.

But the strongest non-discriminatory way to grab more for the P2 is to ramp up the share that goes for being selected. A full unit for being selected for the QF bye, a 60% unit for being selected for the first round host, a 40% unit for being selected for the first round visitor.

And we already know the way to prevent big swings in those revenues from one year to the next ... pool units over multiple years. The size of the selection money pool can ramp up by thirds in 2024, 2025 and 2026, with two years units in 2025 and three years units in 2026 and going ahead.

Put 30% of the revenue into that pool for the full 24 units ... 10% in 2024, 20% in 2025 ... and the greater revenue share for the P2 is, to be sure, not a formal guarantee, but as close to guaranteed as you can get without writing a larger share for the P2 straight into the contract terms.

Because they want guaranteed money, to be sure, but what they really want is exactly the kind of discriminatory contract terms in restraint of trade that those with market power always want to use to leverage their market power into a larger guaranteed flow of money. And so they have to dance around what they really want to figure out how to get as close as possible to what they want without getting so close that they risk getting burned.

That's logical.

(09-29-2023 08:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-28-2023 11:55 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I see that, but it f'd up the bottom half of the P2 can keep riding the coattails unscathed.

I get that. I also think that sentiment flows downward through the hierarchy. What i mean is, top-level M2 are angered that bottom-level P2 make a lot more than them. At the same time, top-level G5 rue that bottom-level M2 are "in the club" and they aren't, top-level FCS don't like that bottom-level G5 get FBS money, etc.

Well the top level G5 have been pretty much stripped off. Nobody has much of a complaint. The only G5 schools spending anywhere in the range of P5 are UConn, USF, Temple, Memphis, Colorado St. and San Diego St. And none of them are having Boise level performance.