I sincerely think the G5 conferences should receive $5 million* per team per year for TV contract revenues.

* $5 million per year per team based on that being 20% of the revenue ($25 million) that the Big Ten gets. This is fair value considering we have 20% of the attendance of the Big Ten, have 20% of the TV ratings of the Big Ten, and the new College Football Playoff money values the MAC 20% of what the Big Ten gets ($18 million). So why shouldn't the MAC and the other G5 conferences get at least 20% of the same TV money?


based on those figures, either the G5 is grossly undervalued or the P5 is grossly overvalued.

I think once the communist ESPN and SEC Channel, Big Ten Channel forced subscriber rates fall apart and people are no longer forced to pay for channels they don't give a crap about and never watch, then the P5 conferences TV revenue will either have to fall hard to a level that their fans "will" pay for OR their fans will have to pay like $100 a month or higher to generate the revenue needed for their $25 million per year payouts.

Otherwise the G5 conferences numbers value them at 20%, or $5 million, payouts.

Discuss.

.

(03-15-2014 03:30 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I sincerely think the G5 conferences should receive $5 million* per team per year for TV contract revenues.

* $5 million per year per team based on that being 20% of the revenue ($25 million) that the Big Ten gets. This is fair value considering we have 20% of the attendance of the Big Ten, have 20% of the TV ratings of the Big Ten, and the new College Football Playoff money values the MAC 20% of what the Big Ten gets ($18 million). So why shouldn't the MAC and the other G5 conferences get at least 20% of the same TV money?


based on those figures, either the G5 is grossly undervalued or the P5 is grossly overvalued.

I think once the communist ESPN and SEC Channel, Big Ten Channel forced subscriber rates fall apart and people are no longer forced to pay for channels they don't give a crap about and never watch, then the P5 conferences TV revenue will either have to fall hard to a level that their fans "will" pay for OR their fans will have to pay like $100 a month or higher to generate the revenue needed for their $25 million per year payouts.

Otherwise the G5 conferences numbers value them at 20%, or $5 million, payouts.

Discuss.

.

Valuations are not linear. There is a baseball sabermetric stat called VORP, Value Over Replacement Player. The same concept applies to media rights, except it is Value Over Replacement Programming. Let's say the MAC does deliver 20% of the TV ratings that the B1G does. The question is, what other programming does ESPN own or could it acquire that could deliver the same ratings. The NHL learned this the hard way during the lockout year, when ESPN easily replaced the ratings points with alternative programming including reruns of Poker. Your value is not your rating minus zero, it's your rating versus the rating achieved by replacing you with another edition of SportsCenter or whatever.

Also, P5 TV contracts are not overvalued. I posted previously that the ACC delivered far more ratings points for ESPN than MLB for an equivalent number of games, yet ESPN pays $700 million/year for MLB compared to $290 million for the ACC. There are strategic reasons for this, but it shows that college rights are actually a good value.

(03-15-2014 03:30 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I sincerely think the G5 conferences should receive $5 million* per team per year for TV contract revenues.

* $5 million per year per team based on that being 20% of the revenue ($25 million) that the Big Ten gets. This is fair value considering we have 20% of the attendance of the Big Ten, have 20% of the TV ratings of the Big Ten, and the new College Football Playoff money values the MAC 20% of what the Big Ten gets ($18 million). So why shouldn't the MAC and the other G5 conferences get at least 20% of the same TV money?


based on those figures, either the G5 is grossly undervalued or the P5 is grossly overvalued.

I think once the communist ESPN and SEC Channel, Big Ten Channel forced subscriber rates fall apart and people are no longer forced to pay for channels they don't give a crap about and never watch, then the P5 conferences TV revenue will either have to fall hard to a level that their fans "will" pay for OR their fans will have to pay like $100 a month or higher to generate the revenue needed for their $25 million per year payouts.

Otherwise the G5 conferences numbers value them at 20%, or $5 million, payouts.

Discuss.

.

LOL....wishful thinking

Here is the problem.

The revenue stream of ESPN, BTN, SECN, etc., is primarily built on carriage fees.

The number of people who will get mad and change providers for lack of their team's games for the G5 is less significant (at least on a conference by conference basis) which means they do less for the advancement of generating carriage fee revenue. Now a high concentration of teams within a region could make it possible for a league to have that sort of leverage with a regional sports net but let's take Fox Sports Ohio for example. With the Reds, Cavs, Blue Jackets, and Crew they presumably have already pushed their leverage as far as they can in Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland and the Ohio MAC schools would permit only a small if any increase and they would need an alternate outlet to go to.

The disparity in G5 and P5 TV revenue isn't a measure of the disparity in support but rather a measure of the disparity in leverage that their support produces. If I buy or sell stock it isn't likely to have any impact on the price. Warren Buffet on the other hand can send a price spiraling up or crash it if he chooses.

The G5 leagues are doomed to that disparity in revenue being permanent because they insist on copying the P5 model despite not having the same set of tools.

The G5 fail to recognize they are in essentially the same market position the P5 were in circa 1984. Because the primary broadcast windows on the more desired networks are not available they face roughly the same situation. The P5 are working with a vast array of good outlets today. In 1984 there was a single ESPN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, Fox had not even launched yet. The broadcast nets cleared very few games nationally, regional distribution dominated.

So if you man up and acknowledge that your situation is more akin to the 1984 power conferences than the 2014 power conference situation you reject copying the 2014 model and instead copy the 1984 model.

What was the 1984 model?
National distribution was under the CFA television contract. One entity negotiating on behalf of all. The entity negotiated two prices. One was a basic fee for the right to carry on a specific network or networks within specified windows. The second price was a per game price. ABC 2:30 national? Pay this. ABC 2:30 regional? Pay less. WTBS 7:00 pm? Pay even less.

The same model can be adopted to consolidate TV negotiation. If ESPN has bought the right for X number of Saturday 2:30 games, the price will dictate that they take mostly AAC and MWC games.

MAC schools might look at the price for Tuesday night and conclude it's not worth their trouble.

THAT happened under the CFA deal. There were times when the contract partner would call and ask the home team to change a kickoff time and the school would say no. If schools don't like the Tuesday price ESPN either has to increase the price or use cheaper programming that draws fewer viewers.

The other hallmark of the old model was the 11:00 am Saturday window. Companies like Raycom and Mizlou aggregated games to group of broadcast stations. When Comcast came to the SEC a few years ago offering to start an SEC Network, ESPN offered a blockbuster deal to reduce interest but the presidents and AD's were expressing their concern over the potential loss of the free viewer and the basic cable basic satellite viewer. The money has finally swept them over.

BUT

There are critical differences in local TV today vs. 1984.

With the digital sub-channel, the market that had four commercial stations in 1984 (ABC, CBS, NBC and an independent) now potentially has 12 channels on those same sticks with sub-channels and probably a couple low power or new full power stations have been licensed since then. The smaller broadcast radius of digital allows many markets to have added stations because interference is less of a concern.

And today many stations (most) receive a carriage fee. While their network programming is valuable, the viewer can spend the cost of a McDonald's meal each month and watch that programming on Hulu or wait a few months and see it on Netflix or Amazon. What makes local tv valuable is LOCAL programming and programming of local interest not available elsewhere.

The MAC isn't as valuable in Cleveland as the Indians, Cavs, Browns, Ohio State and I presume maybe the Blue Jackets but Cleveland broadcast TV cannot afford any of those rights. It can afford to open a 3.5 hour window for (at least initially) free programming that only requires they give up a set number of ad minutes.

If they are in a dispute with Dish over fees during games they can crawl the number for people to call Dish or as a Little Rock station did, give out the numbers for local cable and Direct.

So with a combined national contract improving compensation and regional OTA raising the profile of programs, the G5 can build larger but the cooperation won't happen.

(03-15-2014 03:58 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 03:30 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I sincerely think the G5 conferences should receive $5 million* per team per year for TV contract revenues.

* $5 million per year per team based on that being 20% of the revenue ($25 million) that the Big Ten gets. This is fair value considering we have 20% of the attendance of the Big Ten, have 20% of the TV ratings of the Big Ten, and the new College Football Playoff money values the MAC 20% of what the Big Ten gets ($18 million). So why shouldn't the MAC and the other G5 conferences get at least 20% of the same TV money?


based on those figures, either the G5 is grossly undervalued or the P5 is grossly overvalued.

I think once the communist ESPN and SEC Channel, Big Ten Channel forced subscriber rates fall apart and people are no longer forced to pay for channels they don't give a crap about and never watch, then the P5 conferences TV revenue will either have to fall hard to a level that their fans "will" pay for OR their fans will have to pay like $100 a month or higher to generate the revenue needed for their $25 million per year payouts.

Otherwise the G5 conferences numbers value them at 20%, or $5 million, payouts.

Discuss.

.

Valuations are not linear. There is a baseball sabermetric stat called VORP, Value Over Replacement Player. The same concept applies to media rights, except it is Value Over Replacement Programming. Let's say the MAC does deliver 20% of the TV ratings that the B1G does. The question is, what other programming does ESPN own or could it acquire that could deliver the same ratings. The NHL learned this the hard way during the lockout year, when ESPN easily replaced the ratings points with alternative programming including reruns of Poker. Your value is not your rating minus zero, it's your rating versus the rating achieved by replacing you with another edition of SportsCenter or whatever.

Also, P5 TV contracts are not overvalued. I posted previously that the ACC delivered far more ratings points for ESPN than MLB for an equivalent number of games, yet ESPN pays $700 million/year for MLB compared to $290 million for the ACC. There are strategic reasons for this, but it shows that college rights are actually a good value.

Exactly. The P5 isn't priced based on drawing X times the alternative but on the economic impact of some percentage of viewers being willing to change providers if that content is not available or paying an added fee to get the tier the programming is placed on.

If the business model were simply ad revenue from viewers the prices of the leagues would percentages of the rights fees paid the P5 in near proportion to fan base size.

(03-15-2014 04:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Here is the problem.

The revenue stream of ESPN, BTN, SECN, etc., is primarily built on carriage fees.

The number of people who will get mad and change providers for lack of their team's games for the G5 is less significant (at least on a conference by conference basis) which means they do less for the advancement of generating carriage fee revenue. Now a high concentration of teams within a region could make it possible for a league to have that sort of leverage with a regional sports net but let's take Fox Sports Ohio for example. With the Reds, Cavs, Blue Jackets, and Crew they presumably have already pushed their leverage as far as they can in Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland and the Ohio MAC schools would permit only a small if any increase and they would need an alternate outlet to go to.

The disparity in G5 and P5 TV revenue isn't a measure of the disparity in support but rather a measure of the disparity in leverage that their support produces. If I buy or sell stock it isn't likely to have any impact on the price. Warren Buffet on the other hand can send a price spiraling up or crash it if he chooses.

The G5 leagues are doomed to that disparity in revenue being permanent because they insist on copying the P5 model despite not having the same set of tools.

The G5 fail to recognize they are in essentially the same market position the P5 were in circa 1984. Because the primary broadcast windows on the more desired networks are not available they face roughly the same situation. The P5 are working with a vast array of good outlets today. In 1984 there was a single ESPN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, Fox had not even launched yet. The broadcast nets cleared very few games nationally, regional distribution dominated.

So if you man up and acknowledge that your situation is more akin to the 1984 power conferences than the 2014 power conference situation you reject copying the 2014 model and instead copy the 1984 model.

What was the 1984 model?
National distribution was under the CFA television contract. One entity negotiating on behalf of all. The entity negotiated two prices. One was a basic fee for the right to carry on a specific network or networks within specified windows. The second price was a per game price. ABC 2:30 national? Pay this. ABC 2:30 regional? Pay less. WTBS 7:00 pm? Pay even less.

The same model can be adopted to consolidate TV negotiation. If ESPN has bought the right for X number of Saturday 2:30 games, the price will dictate that they take mostly AAC and MWC games.

MAC schools might look at the price for Tuesday night and conclude it's not worth their trouble.

THAT happened under the CFA deal. There were times when the contract partner would call and ask the home team to change a kickoff time and the school would say no. If schools don't like the Tuesday price ESPN either has to increase the price or use cheaper programming that draws fewer viewers.

The other hallmark of the old model was the 11:00 am Saturday window. Companies like Raycom and Mizlou aggregated games to group of broadcast stations. When Comcast came to the SEC a few years ago offering to start an SEC Network, ESPN offered a blockbuster deal to reduce interest but the presidents and AD's were expressing their concern over the potential loss of the free viewer and the basic cable basic satellite viewer. The money has finally swept them over.

BUT

There are critical differences in local TV today vs. 1984.

With the digital sub-channel, the market that had four commercial stations in 1984 (ABC, CBS, NBC and an independent) now potentially has 12 channels on those same sticks with sub-channels and probably a couple low power or new full power stations have been licensed since then. The smaller broadcast radius of digital allows many markets to have added stations because interference is less of a concern.

And today many stations (most) receive a carriage fee. While their network programming is valuable, the viewer can spend the cost of a McDonald's meal each month and watch that programming on Hulu or wait a few months and see it on Netflix or Amazon. What makes local tv valuable is LOCAL programming and programming of local interest not available elsewhere.

The MAC isn't as valuable in Cleveland as the Indians, Cavs, Browns, Ohio State and I presume maybe the Blue Jackets but Cleveland broadcast TV cannot afford any of those rights. It can afford to open a 3.5 hour window for (at least initially) free programming that only requires they give up a set number of ad minutes.

If they are in a dispute with Dish over fees during games they can crawl the number for people to call Dish or as a Little Rock station did, give out the numbers for local cable and Direct.

So with a combined national contract improving compensation and regional OTA raising the profile of programs, the G5 can build larger but the cooperation won't happen.

I like the plan to a degree. It solves the problem of networks playing one conference against another to get G5 content cheaply. What it fails to do it generate exposure for the conference on a national basis. There are 2 places that the G5 are simply devalued to the point of not mattering. One is exposure and the other is having no real reward for winning the conference.

In order to increase the value of the G5 over time the product has to be exposed nationally to build an audience and the G5 champs have to have a post season destination that matters so the season has context.

My feeling is that the only way to solve that is via cooperation between the 5 G5 conferences. The first step would be to establish a national G5 network. Some of the CFP money would have to be set aside for this purpose. Each conference would place 4 games into the G5-Network inventory. The network chooses the games so the quality is solid. The network would be dirt cheap to the cable carriers---maybe .25 cents a subscriber. The idea would be to be a basic tier network that would have the kind of reach that ESPN enjoys. This way you have a 98 million home network with prime time slots for exposure.

A G5 Network will have G5 geared pre-game shows, a one hour talking head program a week for each conference. It could purchase 3rd tier games to fill its additional programming needs. Plus there would be plenty of volleyball, soccer, lacross, baseball, to fill the many hours of the day. The digital rights to games would roll to Netflix once the game is over so they could be viewd later much like ESPN-3. Some unsold 3rd tier games could be shown live on Netflix nationally to increase the total rights fee the network gets from Netflix.

That solves the major exposure problem. If the conferences wanted to throw the rest of their inventory into a CFA type organization, I see no reason why that wouldn't work as long as the G5-Network was done outside of this setup. As mentioned earlier, unsold games could go live to Netflix if there was no buyer. I figure the network would make 25 million or so in carriage fees, Netflix rights fees, plus ad sales. Lets say, after expenses it only makes 12 million. Ten million goes into the G5-Bowl fund, the rest is split evenly between the conferences.


The other problem is a destination for the G5 champs. The only decent destination is G5-BCS slot. Thats where the G5-Bowl Fund comes in. The 10 million for the bowl fund will go to create 3 G5 owned bowls to provide quality post season destinations for the champions of other 4 G5 conferences that don't go to the BCS. There would be---


Bowl #1 G5 #2 (pays 1 mil) vs P5 selection #3-5 (pays 3 mil)

Bowl #2 G5 #3 (pays 1 mil) vs P5 selection #3-5 (pays 3 mil)

Bowl #3 G5 #4 vs G5 #5 (pays 1 mil apiece)


This gives the G5 champs a solid respectable post season bowl destination EVERY year. This gives the football season for each G5 conference context and importance. It makes every G5 championship valuable and important. Those qualities are very important in building value. If done right, the bowls may end up making money that will flow back to the G5-network (which is then split among the G5 conferences). Over time, as the product becomes more popular--hopefully the carriage rate for G5 network can be increased and the growing popularity of the G5 can win the group greater inclusion in the post season.

Post-season is a different yet related part of the puzzle.

Under the BCS I used to argue that the biggest mistake the non-AQ made was agreeing to "just" take a check and should have held out for BCS designation of three more bowl games (say Liberty, Las Vegas, and St Pete). Call them BCS and then funnel the BCS check to the conference through the game and call it a payout.

No reason the G5 couldn't create/take over 5 bowls with each league guaranteed two spots and then boost the announced payout by $6 million using the CFP money. Those who pay attention would know it's a sham but the bulk of fans would marvel at Houston and AState playing in Dallas for $6 million each.

(03-15-2014 06:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Post-season is a different yet related part of the puzzle.

Under the BCS I used to argue that the biggest mistake the non-AQ made was agreeing to "just" take a check and should have held out for BCS designation of three more bowl games (say Liberty, Las Vegas, and St Pete). Call them BCS and then funnel the BCS check to the conference through the game and call it a payout.

No reason the G5 couldn't create/take over 5 bowls with each league guaranteed two spots and then boost the announced payout by $6 million using the CFP money. Those who pay attention would know it's a sham but the bulk of fans would marvel at Houston and AState playing in Dallas for $6 million each.

I like this idea. Under the CFP, there is one guaranteed Access Bowl slot for 5 conferences. Incorporate 2 more bowls that could take he 4 conference champions not selected for the Access Bowl. The $90 million annual payout for the G5 could be listed as part of the payout for these bowl slots, to which the tv money for the additional games could be added.

Great ideas here for structuring TV for G5 conferences.

I love attackcoog's bowl structure, hardest part would be getting the P5 conferences to send their 3,4,or5 team to it. Competitively it makes perfect sense. I don't like the ideas where any of the top three G5 teams don't play a P5 bowl opponent.

(03-15-2014 06:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Post-season is a different yet related part of the puzzle.

Under the BCS I used to argue that the biggest mistake the non-AQ made was agreeing to "just" take a check and should have held out for BCS designation of three more bowl games (say Liberty, Las Vegas, and St Pete). Call them BCS and then funnel the BCS check to the conference through the game and call it a payout.

No reason the G5 couldn't create/take over 5 bowls with each league guaranteed two spots and then boost the announced payout by $6 million using the CFP money. Those who pay attention would know it's a sham but the bulk of fans would marvel at Houston and AState playing in Dallas for $6 million each.

I don't think the G5 payout is important. Whats important is the payout to the P5. A 3-4 million dollar payout equals a quality P5 opponent and that is what is needed to make these 2 or 3 extra bowl games important post season destinations for the G5 conference champs. If you notice with my plan, the games only paid the G5 participants 1 million each. The P5 participants were making 3 million each. Since these bowl games are G5 owned, the real payoff would come from bowl game profits (media rights, ticket sales, naming rights, etc.). The million dollar G5 team payout is just to make sure the teams are not losing money.

(03-15-2014 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 06:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Post-season is a different yet related part of the puzzle.

Under the BCS I used to argue that the biggest mistake the non-AQ made was agreeing to "just" take a check and should have held out for BCS designation of three more bowl games (say Liberty, Las Vegas, and St Pete). Call them BCS and then funnel the BCS check to the conference through the game and call it a payout.

No reason the G5 couldn't create/take over 5 bowls with each league guaranteed two spots and then boost the announced payout by $6 million using the CFP money. Those who pay attention would know it's a sham but the bulk of fans would marvel at Houston and AState playing in Dallas for $6 million each.

I don't think the G5 payout is important. Whats important is the payout to the P5. A 3-4 million dollar payout equals a quality P5 opponent and that is what is needed to make these 2 or 3 extra bowl games important post season destinations for the G5 conference champs. If you notice with my plan, the games only paid the G5 participants 1 million each. The P5 participants were making 3 million each. Since these bowl games are G5 owned, the real payoff would come from bowl game profits (media rights, ticket sales, naming rights, etc.). The million dollar G5 team payout is just to make sure the teams are not losing money.

Announced payout is extremely important. Doesn't matter that the money will actually flow on to the league.

If it didn't matter the smaller bowls would announce $100,000 to $350,000 payouts and not count the vast block of tickets sent in lieu of cash as payout and wouldn't have the G5 paying "marketing fees" to the bowl which is then returned in the form of payout.

Remember the Las Vegas suggested that the ticket requirement be lowered significantly and the payout reduced, the Pac-12 rejected the idea because they wanted an announced $1 million.

The websites and the newspapers when they list the bowls they list payout, that number impacts the perception of those games.

It costs nothing to turn the MAC vs. Sun Belt GoDaddy Bowl into a $6.75 million per team bowl game.

(03-15-2014 10:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 06:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Post-season is a different yet related part of the puzzle.

Under the BCS I used to argue that the biggest mistake the non-AQ made was agreeing to "just" take a check and should have held out for BCS designation of three more bowl games (say Liberty, Las Vegas, and St Pete). Call them BCS and then funnel the BCS check to the conference through the game and call it a payout.

No reason the G5 couldn't create/take over 5 bowls with each league guaranteed two spots and then boost the announced payout by $6 million using the CFP money. Those who pay attention would know it's a sham but the bulk of fans would marvel at Houston and AState playing in Dallas for $6 million each.

I don't think the G5 payout is important. Whats important is the payout to the P5. A 3-4 million dollar payout equals a quality P5 opponent and that is what is needed to make these 2 or 3 extra bowl games important post season destinations for the G5 conference champs. If you notice with my plan, the games only paid the G5 participants 1 million each. The P5 participants were making 3 million each. Since these bowl games are G5 owned, the real payoff would come from bowl game profits (media rights, ticket sales, naming rights, etc.). The million dollar G5 team payout is just to make sure the teams are not losing money.

Announced payout is extremely important. Doesn't matter that the money will actually flow on to the league.

If it didn't matter the smaller bowls would announce $100,000 to $350,000 payouts and not count the vast block of tickets sent in lieu of cash as payout and wouldn't have the G5 paying "marketing fees" to the bowl which is then returned in the form of payout.

Remember the Las Vegas suggested that the ticket requirement be lowered significantly and the payout reduced, the Pac-12 rejected the idea because they wanted an announced $1 million.

The websites and the newspapers when they list the bowls they list payout, that number impacts the perception of those games.

It costs nothing to turn the MAC vs. Sun Belt GoDaddy Bowl into a $6.75 million per team bowl game.

That's my point. The payout is just a number that the typical fan doesn't even know. If the Boca Bowl is Lousiana Monroe vs Kent State nobody is going to watch or care because the game pays 3 million each. The fans are looking for recognizable names and interesting matchups. They don't know how much each bowl pays.

If the game is Louisiana Monroe vs #4 ACC finisher Florida St you have a game that's an exciting matchup for a conference champ. Massively improving the quality of the opponent makes the bowl a worthy post season destination. The pay off is important in that it makes the bowl attractive to a P5 #3-4 selection. The perception of the G5 schools being important doesn't come from money because most people can't tell you league payouts. People do know who the better teams are in the power leagues. Having those better P5 teams playing your G5 champs means WAY more than a skewing the numbers to make the bowl payoff appear bigger.

(03-15-2014 03:30 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  I sincerely think the G5 conferences should receive $5 million* per team per year for TV contract revenues.

* $5 million per year per team based on that being 20% of the revenue ($25 million) that the Big Ten gets. This is fair value considering we have 20% of the attendance of the Big Ten, have 20% of the TV ratings of the Big Ten, and the new College Football Playoff money values the MAC 20% of what the Big Ten gets ($18 million). So why shouldn't the MAC and the other G5 conferences get at least 20% of the same TV money?

The market is there for 5 million per school payments to the G5. You can see the value there with the 3.5 million per school TV contract the BE picked up. That is for a conference containing no football and only 3 real name basketball schools in Georgetown, Xavier and Villanova.

Part of what is retarding growth is the AAC. This is due to the contractual loop hole that forced a low ball offer onto them and also there incessant desire to be on ESPN as a group of schools that are largely trying to stay in the game and build some momentum for a P5 invite. Instead they should have been able to make a move like the BE did for more $$$ on a non-ESPN network.

TV cash for the G5 is probably more important at this juncture in the game than exposure. 5 million may not seem much when the power conferences are making 25 million but its enough to pay for an FBS football program. Between that and another 2 million from the CFP that is a very significant sum of cash.

The MAC should try to offer ESPN just its Midweek football package and go NBC or Fox for everything else. One idea I see is trying to get a MAC on NBC Sports network to broadcast basketball, baseball, football, wrestling, volleyball to fill up programming times.

It was the conferences that were ahead of the curve in basketball programming like the old BE that had the edge as sport tastes changed. The G5 has the potential to build a presence with the networks when the P5 is gradually transitioning to dedicated channels and possibly pay per view.

Take Fox wanting to become a major player with slices of the PAC, B12 and ownership of the B1G network....it might make sense to go in big with ONE G5 conference to fill out programming holes. CUSA is a good candidate for them because they have FBS football, decent basketball, good baseball. You may not see them on FS1 but as long as alumni can find the stations and recruits get the game videos it doesn't matter too much whether or not they are on ESPN.

(03-15-2014 07:02 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 06:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Post-season is a different yet related part of the puzzle.

Under the BCS I used to argue that the biggest mistake the non-AQ made was agreeing to "just" take a check and should have held out for BCS designation of three more bowl games (say Liberty, Las Vegas, and St Pete). Call them BCS and then funnel the BCS check to the conference through the game and call it a payout.

No reason the G5 couldn't create/take over 5 bowls with each league guaranteed two spots and then boost the announced payout by $6 million using the CFP money. Those who pay attention would know it's a sham but the bulk of fans would marvel at Houston and AState playing in Dallas for $6 million each.

I like this idea. Under the CFP, there is one guaranteed Access Bowl slot for 5 conferences. Incorporate 2 more bowls that could take he 4 conference champions not selected for the Access Bowl. The $90 million annual payout for the G5 could be listed as part of the payout for these bowl slots, to which the tv money for the additional games could be added.

You're forgetting one part of this that G5 conferences when they earn that access bowl want it to be against a top 12 opponent.

They don't want to get in a situation where there is 12 CFP bowls and they end up going undefeated and playing #23 Oregon in the Sun Bowl or an invite to some other mid tier bowl when the bigger games don't want their tiny fan base.

With the principal that everything follows the money, the best place to enhance CFP dollars would be if they could move the semifinal games to non-bowl site, getting the chance to test the waters for major post season games in markets like New York, Chicago and DC. The six CFP bowls would then remain pushing the total amount of participants to 16.

Create more value in the college post season at the top of the system and have it trickle down to the G5. Going to 16 participants with more markets represented can double the payout for all of those involved. With the Top 16 assured a bid that would basically assure any conference champion with 1 loss or less an access bowl because at 12-1 it would be tough to deny them over a 9-3 P5 team that didn't even win its division.

(03-16-2014 12:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 10:54 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 09:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-15-2014 06:41 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Post-season is a different yet related part of the puzzle.

Under the BCS I used to argue that the biggest mistake the non-AQ made was agreeing to "just" take a check and should have held out for BCS designation of three more bowl games (say Liberty, Las Vegas, and St Pete). Call them BCS and then funnel the BCS check to the conference through the game and call it a payout.

No reason the G5 couldn't create/take over 5 bowls with each league guaranteed two spots and then boost the announced payout by $6 million using the CFP money. Those who pay attention would know it's a sham but the bulk of fans would marvel at Houston and AState playing in Dallas for $6 million each.

I don't think the G5 payout is important. Whats important is the payout to the P5. A 3-4 million dollar payout equals a quality P5 opponent and that is what is needed to make these 2 or 3 extra bowl games important post season destinations for the G5 conference champs. If you notice with my plan, the games only paid the G5 participants 1 million each. The P5 participants were making 3 million each. Since these bowl games are G5 owned, the real payoff would come from bowl game profits (media rights, ticket sales, naming rights, etc.). The million dollar G5 team payout is just to make sure the teams are not losing money.

Announced payout is extremely important. Doesn't matter that the money will actually flow on to the league.

If it didn't matter the smaller bowls would announce $100,000 to $350,000 payouts and not count the vast block of tickets sent in lieu of cash as payout and wouldn't have the G5 paying "marketing fees" to the bowl which is then returned in the form of payout.

Remember the Las Vegas suggested that the ticket requirement be lowered significantly and the payout reduced, the Pac-12 rejected the idea because they wanted an announced $1 million.

The websites and the newspapers when they list the bowls they list payout, that number impacts the perception of those games.

It costs nothing to turn the MAC vs. Sun Belt GoDaddy Bowl into a $6.75 million per team bowl game.

That's my point. The payout is just a number that the typical fan doesn't even know. If the Boca Bowl is Lousiana Monroe vs Kent State nobody is going to watch or care because the game pays 3 million each. The fans are looking for recognizable names and interesting matchups. They don't know how much each bowl pays.

If the game is Louisiana Monroe vs #4 ACC finisher Florida St you have a game that's an exciting matchup for a conference champ. Massively improving the quality of the opponent makes the bowl a worthy post season destination. The pay off is important in that it makes the bowl attractive to a P5 #3-4 selection. The perception of the G5 schools being important doesn't come from money because most people can't tell you league payouts. People do know who the better teams are in the power leagues. Having those better P5 teams playing your G5 champs means WAY more than a skewing the numbers to make the bowl payoff appear bigger.

Payouts are frequently included with the list of bowls, along with the contract matchup. If the Liberty Bowl were listed, for instance, as a CFP affiliated bowl with American #1 vs. MWC #1, payout $18 million per school, that would sound a heck of a lot like an important bowl to the casual fan.

(03-16-2014 12:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That's my point. The payout is just a number that the typical fan doesn't even know.

It is a number that the sports press knows, and seems to take into account in how they cover the bowls. And when bowls are not listed by scheduled date, they are often sorted in order of payout, especially online.

However, if you press against that too hard ... if you go too far "out of the pack" in terms of the actual deal that stands behind the announced payout ... they'll cover that as an attempt to game the system, and if they do that it'll backfire.

(03-16-2014 10:09 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-16-2014 12:42 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  That's my point. The payout is just a number that the typical fan doesn't even know.

It is a number that the sports press knows, and seems to take into account in how they cover the bowls. And when bowls are not listed by scheduled date, they are often sorted in order of payout, especially online.

However, if you press against that too hard ... if you go too far "out of the pack" in terms of the actual deal that stands behind the announced payout ... they'll cover that as an attempt to game the system, and if they do that it'll backfire.

In my example the new bowls would have a payout of 4 million which is a lower upper tier non-BCS bowl. However, becuase of how the money is divided, the P5 representative would be paid as of they were splitting a payout of 6 million---which is in the upper end of non-BCS bowls payouts. That said, as G5 owned bowls, the money flows back to the G5 anyway, so you could simply give all participants 3 million each so the bowls have a announced payout of 6 million. That's a solid number similar to the Alamo Bowl and a number that would not really be a "story" for reporters. The truth is no bowl payout is what it seems, so reporters don't seem to be very interested in getting into the "inside baseball" side of bowl payouts with thier reporting.

I still maintain that the average fan has no idea how much a bowl pays. They don't care. They flip around the dial looking for a game that has recognized teams or an interesting matchup. They are rarely tuning into a bowl game based entirely on the payout. They might indirectly do that, because in general, higher payouts tend to mean better, more highly ranked, more attractive participants. In the end, it's the bowl participants that attract the viewers---not the bowl payout number.