Don't you think its been ruined already?
But I would counter that the greed of FCS callups hasnt helped either.

(03-13-2024 09:02 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:35 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 03:39 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 01:39 AM)C2__ Wrote:  The only problem is it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and catch-22. The big boys are good and rich because the big boys are good and rich.

That has certainly been true in the past. But what's really ironic about the P2's forceful push for institutionalized supremacy is that it's based on the premise that this truism will remain true. Effectively the P2 are saying "We deserve the most money because we'll continue to be the best." Whereas the reality is that, with the upheaval being caused by the liberalized transfer portal and lack of restrictions on NIL, past performance is likely to become less predictive of future results than ever.

Alabama in particular may be in for a rude awakening in the next few years. Saban is gone, and there will probably be better NIL opportunities for the top talent elsewhere. I believe fear of becoming less good and less rich in a truly performance-driven system is what's really fueling the P2 push for a protectionist CFP.

I think the P2 have sort of alluded to this already: part of the reason why they want more AQs as opposed to at-large bids with the selection committee is whether they’ll recognize the tougher schedules that can result in more losses for the top teams in the Big Ten and SEC.

Also, I’ve long said that guarantees are what the powerful want as opposed to performance-based incentives. Think of our own lives: people would generally rather have a confirmed and stable $200,000 per year salary as opposed to total variable compensation where it is $300,000 in a great year and $100,000 in a bad year even though it might average out the same as the stable salary. This also applies to schools and frankly any business: smooth predictable year-over-year revenue is more desirable than lumpy unpredictable year-to-year revenue.

To the extent that there is “fear”, though (and I’ve said that “fear” is an overused word in college sports), it’s when (not if) athletes are deemed to be employees and how much that’s going to cost. That figure is totally opaque and unpredictable. If it’s a matter that each school needs to pay something around minimum wage like it does to student cafeteria workers (while the big money remains with NIL), I think the Jim Phillips concern about non-revenue sports evaporating overnight won’t come to pass. If schools need to start having more intricate revenue sharing arrangements with players, though, it becomes really expensive very quickly even for the Ohio States and Alabamas of the world. So, the P2 are hoarding resources like a bear about to go into hibernation while they know they can do so.

I think you just don't like the word fear. This is obviously being done out out fear. Fear drives most decisions. Fear of loss, fear of being left out, fear of what somebody thinks, fear of failure etc.

Think of Florida State. They have 100% admitted they fear being left behind. What word would you have us use instead?

Fair enough.

Maybe to clarify, I think decisions borne out of a fear of losing games (e.g. playing a particular school on the road) is overstated by fans. Fans often gravitate to, “Are they just too scared to play X?” and I don’t think that’s really the “fear” that drives college sports decisions.

The fear of losing money, power, and/or status, on the other hand, is quite real in college sports and I’d agree on that point.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I don't use it in those instances. It's just a lose-lose in most cases. For instance, why would LSU play a rising program like McNeese State? If they win, they're supposed to. If they lose, it's terrible and embarrassing because it shouldn't happen.

(03-13-2024 09:10 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:35 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 08:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think the P2 have sort of alluded to this already: part of the reason why they want more AQs as opposed to at-large bids with the selection committee is whether they’ll recognize the tougher schedules that can result in more losses for the top teams in the Big Ten and SEC.

Also, I’ve long said that guarantees are what the powerful want as opposed to performance-based incentives. Think of our own lives: people would generally rather have a confirmed and stable $200,000 per year salary as opposed to total variable compensation where it is $300,000 in a great year and $100,000 in a bad year even though it might average out the same as the stable salary. This also applies to schools and frankly any business: smooth predictable year-over-year revenue is more desirable than lumpy unpredictable year-to-year revenue.

To the extent that there is “fear”, though (and I’ve said that “fear” is an overused word in college sports), it’s when (not if) athletes are deemed to be employees and how much that’s going to cost. That figure is totally opaque and unpredictable. If it’s a matter that each school needs to pay something around minimum wage like it does to student cafeteria workers (while the big money remains with NIL), I think the Jim Phillips concern about non-revenue sports evaporating overnight won’t come to pass. If schools need to start having more intricate revenue sharing arrangements with players, though, it becomes really expensive very quickly even for the Ohio States and Alabamas of the world. So, the P2 are hoarding resources like a bear about to go into hibernation while they know they can do so.

I think you just don't like the word fear. This is obviously being done out out fear. Fear drives most decisions. Fear of loss, fear of being left out, fear of what somebody thinks, fear of failure etc.

Think of Florida State. They have 100% admitted they fear being left behind. What word would you have us use instead?

Goals.

No program that sustains top-level goals can afford to stay for long now in a medium-level league. Your own goals make it a priority for you to forge relationships that enable you to realise them.

Then don't sign 20 year contracts lol

Yes, 1000 times yes!

(03-12-2024 09:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:57 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 07:40 PM)b2b Wrote:  It's not about "the sport". Never has been. If you care so much about "the sport" there are high schools in your home town where you can watch for free or next to it.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

You haven't been to a high school game in a while, have you?

I'm not sure what you mean. Here in Concord, NC I can get a pass for literally every sporting event at my local HS for $150. If you only care about football it's $30-50 for every game depending JV or Varsity. That's really cheap if all you really care about is "the game". Of court that's not really what people mean when they say that.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

You have a different concept of "next to free" than I do.

What else can you do for $5 or less per ticket? It doesn't get much cheaper than that

(03-13-2024 09:26 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  Don't you think its been ruined already?
But I would counter that the greed of FCS callups hasnt helped either.

I don't call FCS callups as greed. I called that to survive the changing landscape.

I think that it's very important that we realize that the CFP is not a true "National Championship Tournament" in the way that the NCAAT is. We had a split National Title in the BCS era in 2003, and we could have had one this past year if FSU had hammered Georgia (instead of being hammered themselves) while one of the 1 loss schools won the "CFP Title". Heck, FSU could have won both the AP and Coach's titles, with the CFP "Champion" relegated to an afterthought in history.

The CFP is a tournament designed to make money. Lot's of it. Billion$ of dollar$ of it. If it helps determine a National Champ? Great! If it causes controversy so everyone talks about it in the offseason ala the NFL? Great!

When you recognize the CFP for what it is, then it's really difficult to make a case for giving any voice at all to the little guys. 10% for the g5 and a guaranteed spot is HUGE for them. They'll be lucky to get 5% and not end up needing a top 20 ranking to keep their spot every year. The M2 have more clout ofc, quite a bit more for now b/c the ACC still has some good programs, so they're getting much more consideration. But, make no mistake about it, we could have a CFP without either or both of the Big 12 and ACC, but we couldn't do it without either of the P2. It's all about money, remember? Some of the Big 12 and ACC schools, some of the time, bring a bunch of value in a given season. The actual schools vary by year, but as a group, they're worth something significant. However, MANY of the schools in the P2 bring a lot of value a lot of the time, and a whole lot of people would tune in to the "B1G-SEC Challenge Cup" if we decided to have our own year-end tournament.

I'm not in favor of 3-3-2-2-1-3 or double the revenues for the P2, I'd prefer to evenly split the money 4 ways and go with a 5/9 format, but it's easy to see what Sankey and Petitti are thinking right now, and it's very hard to criticize them for taking advantage of their dominant position. They COULD run their own tournament, but they're graciously allowing others to also participate, with many others guaranteed an 8 figure yearly payout. That's not ruining college sports, that's making it stronger.

(03-13-2024 10:41 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I think that it's very important that we realize that the CFP is not a true "National Championship Tournament" in the way that the NCAAT is. We had a split National Title in the BCS era in 2003, and we could have had one this past year if FSU had hammered Georgia (instead of being hammered themselves) while one of the 1 loss schools won the "CFP Title". Heck, FSU could have won both the AP and Coach's titles, with the CFP "Champion" relegated to an afterthought in history.

The CFP is a tournament designed to make money. Lot's of it. Billion$ of dollar$ of it. If it helps determine a National Champ? Great! If it causes controversy so everyone talks about it in the offseason ala the NFL? Great!

When you recognize the CFP for what it is, then it's really difficult to make a case for giving any voice at all to the little guys. 10% for the g5 and a guaranteed spot is HUGE for them. They'll be lucky to get 5% and not end up needing a top 20 ranking to keep their spot every year. The M2 have more clout ofc, quite a bit more for now b/c the ACC still has some good programs, so they're getting much more consideration. But, make no mistake about it, we could have a CFP without either or both of the Big 12 and ACC, but we couldn't do it without either of the P2. It's all about money, remember? Some of the Big 12 and ACC schools, some of the time, bring a bunch of value in a given season. The actual schools vary by year, but as a group, they're worth something significant. However, MANY of the schools in the P2 bring a lot of value a lot of the time, and a whole lot of people would tune in to the "B1G-SEC Challenge Cup" if we decided to have our own year-end tournament.

I'm not in favor of 3-3-2-2-1-3 or double the revenues for the P2, I'd prefer to evenly split the money 4 ways and go with a 5/9 format, but it's easy to see what Sankey and Petitti are thinking right now, and it's very hard to criticize them for taking advantage of their dominant position. They COULD run their own tournament, but they're graciously allowing others to also participate, with many others guaranteed an 8 figure yearly payout. That's not ruining college sports, that's making it stronger.

Its real easy to criticize them and a lot of people have. They have come off some of their more ridiculous positions like 4 guaranteed bids and #1 and #2 seeds. They have been absurd in their requests. Almost surprised they didn't get people to walk out.

On your first point, the CFP champion is still an MNC. Just a little less mythical than those prior to 2014 and those prior to 1998.

When you get to 12, then you get a national champ similar to the NCAA basketball champ. Its inclusive enough.

(03-12-2024 08:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 07:21 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  https://sports.yahoo.com/will-sec-big-te...35432.html

GREAT article on Yahoo Sports by Dan Wetzel!

"...focused on vacuuming up every last crumb of money they can rather than consider what is best for the whole of the sport, including into the future."

So the latest is 29% Big, 29% SEC, 17% ACC, 14.5% Big 12.
Is this based on TV contracts? Its not based on teams in the NY6 in the CFP era. The Big 12 is slightly ahead of the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC are double those two.

Not if you look at the top 14 it isn't.

(03-13-2024 07:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 07:21 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  https://sports.yahoo.com/will-sec-big-te...35432.html

GREAT article on Yahoo Sports by Dan Wetzel!

"...focused on vacuuming up every last crumb of money they can rather than consider what is best for the whole of the sport, including into the future."

So the latest is 29% Big, 29% SEC, 17% ACC, 14.5% Big 12.
Is this based on TV contracts? Its not based on teams in the NY6 in the CFP era. The Big 12 is slightly ahead of the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC are double those two.

Not if you look at the top 14 it isn't.

The Big 12 would have 22 and the ACC 20 of the top 14.
SEC and Big 10 would both be 42. G5 10 and ND 4.

(03-13-2024 07:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 07:21 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  https://sports.yahoo.com/will-sec-big-te...35432.html

GREAT article on Yahoo Sports by Dan Wetzel!

"...focused on vacuuming up every last crumb of money they can rather than consider what is best for the whole of the sport, including into the future."

So the latest is 29% Big, 29% SEC, 17% ACC, 14.5% Big 12.
Is this based on TV contracts? Its not based on teams in the NY6 in the CFP era. The Big 12 is slightly ahead of the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC are double those two.

Not if you look at the top 14 it isn't.

The Big 12 would have 22 and the ACC 20 of the top 14.
SEC and Big 10 would both be 42. G5 10 and ND 4.

From College Football Playoff leaders close to finalizing agreement for future
"Considering future realignment moves, the SEC and Big Ten account for 72.5% of CFP participants. The SEC leads all conferences with 17 appearances in the four-team field when factoring in Oklahoma and Texas. The Big Ten is next at 12 when factoring in its four new schools. The ACC (7 teams) and Big 12 (2) follow."
- Ross Dellenger, Yahoo! Sports

Those first 4 words change everything.

(03-13-2024 10:09 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:10 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Goals.

No program that sustains top-level goals can afford to stay for long now in a medium-level league. Your own goals make it a priority for you to forge relationships that enable you to realise them.

Then don't sign 20 year contracts lol

Tell the UNC board of trustees lol

(03-13-2024 08:26 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 10:09 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 09:10 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  Goals.

No program that sustains top-level goals can afford to stay for long now in a medium-level league. Your own goals make it a priority for you to forge relationships that enable you to realise them.

Then don't sign 20 year contracts lol

Tell the UNC board of trustees lol

They don’t make any decisions lolol

Stuff like football, basketball, baseball, and softball that can generate their own revenue will likely be fine.

The more non revenue olypmic type sports, those are the ones that could take a hit. I fully expect at least 1 of the soon to be former Pac 12 schools to likely end up cutting at least 1 sport at some point within the decade. Stanford or UCLA might have no problem sending the football team on a charter flight to Boston College or Rutgers once every other year. Stuff like tennis, volleyball, cross country, etc that might have to do stuff like that multiple times every year, that's gonna get expensive and could burn a lot of student athletes and staff out.

Too many decisions aren't so much power conference vs everyone else so much as decisions being made with regards to football and every other sport being an afterthought, or not thought about to begin with. As long as a school like UCLA or Stanford keeps the money maker sports, nobody will give 2 cents if the womens soccer or womens volleyball teams get cut to balance the budget. But for a lot of current or prospective students, having their school no longer sponsor 1 or 2 minor olympic sports that nobody cares about pretty much does ruin the sport

(03-13-2024 08:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-13-2024 07:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 08:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 07:21 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  https://sports.yahoo.com/will-sec-big-te...35432.html

GREAT article on Yahoo Sports by Dan Wetzel!

"...focused on vacuuming up every last crumb of money they can rather than consider what is best for the whole of the sport, including into the future."

So the latest is 29% Big, 29% SEC, 17% ACC, 14.5% Big 12.
Is this based on TV contracts? Its not based on teams in the NY6 in the CFP era. The Big 12 is slightly ahead of the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC are double those two.

Not if you look at the top 14 it isn't.

The Big 12 would have 22 and the ACC 20 of the top 14.
SEC and Big 10 would both be 42. G5 10 and ND 4.

From College Football Playoff leaders close to finalizing agreement for future
"Considering future realignment moves, the SEC and Big Ten account for 72.5% of CFP participants. The SEC leads all conferences with 17 appearances in the four-team field when factoring in Oklahoma and Texas. The Big Ten is next at 12 when factoring in its four new schools. The ACC (7 teams) and Big 12 (2) follow."
- Ross Dellenger, Yahoo! Sports

Those first 4 words change everything.

You didn't read it carefully enough. That is the 4 teams in the college football playoff. I was giving you the numbers on a 12 or 14 team playoff.

(03-12-2024 07:39 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(03-12-2024 07:21 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  https://sports.yahoo.com/will-sec-big-te...35432.html

GREAT article on Yahoo Sports by Dan Wetzel!

"...focused on vacuuming up every last crumb of money they can rather than consider what is best for the whole of the sport, including into the future."

If the NCAA wasn't so toothless and had a pair of cajones, they would have stepped in a long time ago to stop this nonsense. Unfortunately, much like Congress, there's too much in-fighting and corruption to distract them from real problems like this.

The NCAA is run by member institutions and in the recent past by the P5 or the P2 going forward.

(03-13-2024 08:21 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  From College Football Playoff leaders close to finalizing agreement for future
"Considering future realignment moves, the SEC and Big Ten account for 72.5% of CFP participants. The SEC leads all conferences with 17 appearances in the four-team field when factoring in Oklahoma and Texas. The Big Ten is next at 12 when factoring in its four new schools. The ACC (7 teams) and Big 12 (2) follow."
- Ross Dellenger, Yahoo! Sports

Those first 4 words change everything.

I don't think that means they're talking about potential future picking off brands to the P2. It simply means that including Texas, Oklahoma, Washington, Oregon, etc in the P2 72.5%.

They are future moves because they haven't happened yet.

Wetzel really glanced over a fundamental issue here:

Quote:Sankey was understandably frustrated when, in response to the SEC adding Oklahoma and Texas (a deal every conference would have jumped at), the ACC, Big Ten and Pac 12 formed an “Alliance” to block a good playoff deal back in 2022.

The Alliance -- particularly the ACC -- torpedoed the original 12 team playoff that would have been much more equitable. The SEC was beyond reasonable in those negotiations, and they fell flat. We have now reached a point where something like three of the 30+ football programs in the combined ACC and Big 12 would have any expectation of finishing in the top half of the SEC.

Why should the SEC cow-tow to the likes of the Big 12 and ACC? They had their chance for a fair deal, and now instead they have Arizona State, SMU, Utah, and Cal.

(03-14-2024 09:16 AM)OneSockUp Wrote:  Wetzel really glanced over a fundamental issue here:

Quote:Sankey was understandably frustrated when, in response to the SEC adding Oklahoma and Texas (a deal every conference would have jumped at), the ACC, Big Ten and Pac 12 formed an “Alliance” to block a good playoff deal back in 2022.

The Alliance -- particularly the ACC -- torpedoed the original 12 team playoff that would have been much more equitable. The SEC was beyond reasonable in those negotiations, and they fell flat. We have now reached a point where something like three of the 30+ football programs in the combined ACC and Big 12 would have any expectation of finishing in the top half of the SEC.

Why should the SEC cow-tow to the likes of the Big 12 and ACC? They had their chance for a fair deal, and now instead they have Arizona State, SMU, Utah, and Cal.

What are you talking about? That was a continuation of the prior deal and everyone had a veto. That deal was made once the presidents got involved. The SEC didn't have a lot of leverage. They could blow it up and cost everyone money as the ACC/Big 10/Pac 12 tried to do. That was their only other choice.