(01-06-2024 04:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote: RUMOR.
Ain't got this pinned down from anyone I consider high level but we know the current CFP agreement only covers the 2024-25 and 2025-26 seasons. The agreement going forward is not done.
Bids are currently being solicited for TV for upcoming years and already the rumor mill says that Fox and Turner are saber rattling that they are going to go big for a cut of the 11 game package. ESPN has indicated that they'd like to do a split deal where they and another broadcaster each get two opening round games, two quarterfinal games, one semi-final and rotate the championship.
The CFP operates on a series of contracts for set periods of time. Pac-12 is using the NCAA grace period to try to stay at the table but the probability is there are likely on 9 conferences when the next deal comes around.
They've got to sort the revenue distribution for the next deal. Currently G5 take either 27% or 23% I can't remember which. The P5 were sending hard signals that the G5 share would be cut even though the money they take home would be less. Obviously 20% of 100 isn't as good as 15% of 200 even though the percentage went down. The monkey wrench is will there be a P5 or P4.
Back to the rumor.
The rumor is P5 are willing to agree to a much heftier revenue distribution to the G5 than they had previously indicated by eliminating the Pac-12 spot among the big revenue share group. CFP revenue is currently in three pools. One is making it in the NY6, so 11 of 12 payouts go to P5. One is tied to things like academic performance, then the big money is the money for existing. Each P5 gets like 14% of the revenue. The G5 has the performance based system instead each league taking like 5% they do (by their own choice) the distribution based on performance is 5 shares for finishing at the top, 4 for second, 3 for third, 2 for fourth and 1 for last.
Supposedly the P5 are looking to allocate more dollars per game played like the NCAA Tournament but the money for just existing, the new P4 would each take a portion of the share allocated to Pac-12 and put the rest into the G5 pool. Potentially HUGE increase in money.
So the leverage being #1. Hey we ain't turning the MWC into the Pac-12 and seating them at the table. #2. Not only will the share to G5 grow, the money to be divided is going to be HUGE as we move from 7 games and only three part of the playoff to 11 games leading to a champion.
But that hinges on G5 conceding an auto bid. If not then well you want a deal you take a smaller cut and we feel confident that if you don't sign on to the new deal that the ESPN/Fox/Turner money is still going to be there for those who do sign on.
That’s cute but that’s a no go.
There's no real disincentive for any of the group of five, let alone the top two conference commissioners, to vote a no against this current five plus seven model going forward. Think about it:
For starters, Keith Gill and Sun Belt have the consistent data, both from the computer sheet and then what we have on terms of the eye test in bowl games and in regular season games, that should tell anyone there that the SBC point blank is the best group of five conference out there. Now of course with the information given, that would lead anyone pretty much anyone to ask: “well if the sun belt conference is consistently the best, especially after the whole SMU situation then you really shouldn’t have an issue locking up the playoff spot right?“ Having the second playoff spot basically guarantees that the SBC gets sent to disallow any Fuckery with the committee picking more sexier/statement teams (see liberty vs Oregon) or giving them wiggle room to keep us out because due to our conference being TOUGH a champ having a 1-2 loss record from being outside looking in because a one loss MWC or AAC getting in.
If I was also
Gloria Nevarez of the MWC: There's also no reason for me to vote yes for this. For starters, the potential revenue alone could upgrade some schools like Hawaii and New Mexico and whatnot to uplift the brand. Furthermore, you'd get money to easily pay for expansion targets like Montana and Montana State to come into the league, which would overall boost your record. Not to mention, if you're Oregon State/Washington State, this would straight up give you the ability to, at least for two years, get myself into the playoff spot again to at least restore some semblance of identity in terms of being a Power 5 school. Also, there's the fact that you're also a major West Coast FBS league that's in the West. That’s a selling point, and that’s a population reality that if the MWC gets in that’s a Boon for the league to argue it belongs. And besides my speculation, she’s pretty much given off the Vibe/indication that she’s going to actively pursue bettering the conference in interviews.
In terms of the backlash from the P2 boogeymen That I keep hearing about on the r/college football subreddit, semi-informed casuals, and whatnot, is that if we were to do a power play here, we would basically be asking to either A, be kicked out of any postseason discussions going forward (despite us easily suing for anti-trust) and B, the P2 to go ahead and form their own subdivision because for starters, they've already let the cat out of the bag. If the P5, or really in this case the P2, were trying to do this in secret, then yeah, that would be something to use in the cards, but now since the landscape, general energy and vibe, and even statements from the new president have been pointing to this, the group of 5 loses nothing if they do a power play. Because, simply put, we already know what's coming in the future. And then furthermore, group of 5 games, even bowl games, still generate about a million plus views every year. We get millions of views on TV every year regardless, collectively, from ESPN, so it's not like ESPN, despite basically being rebelled against, is shooting itself in the foot for giving us more playoff spots. Furthermore, half of the duo that would be doing a power play isn't even owned, media rights-wise, by ESPN. And even with the Sunbelt, the media rights negotiation is in like 6 years. So it's not like we're really losing anything.
/
This is Gills one shot at doing the absolute best thing
