(03-17-2014 01:02 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Could there be unintended consequences of this? Like conferences who feel too bloated at 12 or 14 teams dropping a few members? The initial ACC proposal, as I understood it, was only to allow conferences their own autonomy to decide who played in a CCG. Now that it has XII backing, it seems that it has changed somewhat to even eliminate the 12-team requirement, which is something the XII proposed last year but was rebuffed by the membership. It really makes me think the XII is nervous about not having a CCG, considering that this is the second consecutive year that they are lobbying a proposal to hold one without having 12 teams. If they're so confident about their place in the world at 10 teams and no CCG, why even bother lobbying to change the rules about it?

Just to have flexibility should circumstances change in the future. It is part of this "deregulation" theme we've seen in college sports the last few years. Leagues want more flexibility.

(03-17-2014 01:08 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:02 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Could there be unintended consequences of this? Like conferences who feel too bloated at 12 or 14 teams dropping a few members? The initial ACC proposal, as I understood it, was only to allow conferences their own autonomy to decide who played in a CCG. Now that it has XII backing, it seems that it has changed somewhat to even eliminate the 12-team requirement, which is something the XII proposed last year but was rebuffed by the membership. It really makes me think the XII is nervous about not having a CCG, considering that this is the second consecutive year that they are lobbying a proposal to hold one without having 12 teams. If they're so confident about their place in the world at 10 teams and no CCG, why even bother lobbying to change the rules about it?

Just to have flexibility should circumstances change in the future. It is part of this "deregulation" theme we've seen in college sports the last few years. Certain leagues want more revenue without having to share it with more members.

FIFY.

(03-17-2014 12:55 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  If you are a 10 team league then a CCG makes absolutely no sense

Not sure it makes "no" sense, as it would mean a new revenue source, but the costs definitely outweigh the benefits by most estimates.

The Big 12 signed onto this not because it wants one, but because it wants the right to have one if circumstances change.

My question is why would the other leagues care if it has one or doesn't have one? Seems to me the only way it affects other leagues is if there is an impact on the playoff and I don't really see how they (other leagues) could get hurt with a Big 12 playoff. If anything, a championship game might hurt the Big 12 chances at increased representation in the playoff (one more loss by one of its top teams).

(03-17-2014 01:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:00 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  There is nothing "necessary" about a football title game in a conference with 12 or more, and there should be nothing "forbidden" about a football title game in a conference of less than 12.

Part of me wishes they thought that 10 yrs ago.

Or 20 years ago. Would a lot of these things have turned out differently without the 12-team football title game rule? Maybe, without that rule, the SEC decides, once they were not able to get FSU, UT, or TAMU, to not expand to 12 schools. Maybe Arkansas then ends up joining UT and TAMU in the Big 12.

Maybe, but it's too late to think that way. Conference networks need markets and content. Things will get bigger before they reduce again. In the cycles of conference expansion the economy has always been a catalyst, just as today. If playoffs expand the Conference Championship games will go away. If we become a P4 instead of a P5 then the conference championship will have an extra round of games. Either way the net increase will be about the same (1 extra round of playoffs). The needs of the conference networks will now trump the CCG in economic importance. So it is the network that will either enhance the CCG or eliminate it. There won't be a move for smaller conferences.

(03-17-2014 01:11 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:08 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:02 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Could there be unintended consequences of this? Like conferences who feel too bloated at 12 or 14 teams dropping a few members? The initial ACC proposal, as I understood it, was only to allow conferences their own autonomy to decide who played in a CCG. Now that it has XII backing, it seems that it has changed somewhat to even eliminate the 12-team requirement, which is something the XII proposed last year but was rebuffed by the membership. It really makes me think the XII is nervous about not having a CCG, considering that this is the second consecutive year that they are lobbying a proposal to hold one without having 12 teams. If they're so confident about their place in the world at 10 teams and no CCG, why even bother lobbying to change the rules about it?

Just to have flexibility should circumstances change in the future. It is part of this "deregulation" theme we've seen in college sports the last few years. Certain leagues want more revenue without having to share it with more members.

FIFY.

Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

Remember, this suggestion is the ACC's doing that the Big 12 signed onto. The 14 team leagues are the ones really benefiting.

(03-17-2014 01:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:11 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:08 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:02 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Could there be unintended consequences of this? Like conferences who feel too bloated at 12 or 14 teams dropping a few members? The initial ACC proposal, as I understood it, was only to allow conferences their own autonomy to decide who played in a CCG. Now that it has XII backing, it seems that it has changed somewhat to even eliminate the 12-team requirement, which is something the XII proposed last year but was rebuffed by the membership. It really makes me think the XII is nervous about not having a CCG, considering that this is the second consecutive year that they are lobbying a proposal to hold one without having 12 teams. If they're so confident about their place in the world at 10 teams and no CCG, why even bother lobbying to change the rules about it?

Just to have flexibility should circumstances change in the future. It is part of this "deregulation" theme we've seen in college sports the last few years. Certain leagues want more revenue without having to share it with more members.

FIFY.

Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

(03-17-2014 01:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:11 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:08 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:02 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Could there be unintended consequences of this? Like conferences who feel too bloated at 12 or 14 teams dropping a few members? The initial ACC proposal, as I understood it, was only to allow conferences their own autonomy to decide who played in a CCG. Now that it has XII backing, it seems that it has changed somewhat to even eliminate the 12-team requirement, which is something the XII proposed last year but was rebuffed by the membership. It really makes me think the XII is nervous about not having a CCG, considering that this is the second consecutive year that they are lobbying a proposal to hold one without having 12 teams. If they're so confident about their place in the world at 10 teams and no CCG, why even bother lobbying to change the rules about it?

Just to have flexibility should circumstances change in the future. It is part of this "deregulation" theme we've seen in college sports the last few years. Certain leagues want more revenue without having to share it with more members.

FIFY.

Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

But most of those issues are in place regardless of the championship game question. The presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game is almost meaningless in the big picture revenue-wise. It isn't some financial windfall now that so much revenue is coming from TV rights and the playoff.

I actually could see the bias of other leagues to require a championship game, as I think CG will end up hurting leagues more than help in terms of getting a team (or two) playoffs. If the Big 12 sneaks in a 11-1 second team a couple of years in lieu of a CG loser from another conference, it will start to be seen as an advantage not to have one.

(03-17-2014 01:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:11 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:08 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:02 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Could there be unintended consequences of this? Like conferences who feel too bloated at 12 or 14 teams dropping a few members? The initial ACC proposal, as I understood it, was only to allow conferences their own autonomy to decide who played in a CCG. Now that it has XII backing, it seems that it has changed somewhat to even eliminate the 12-team requirement, which is something the XII proposed last year but was rebuffed by the membership. It really makes me think the XII is nervous about not having a CCG, considering that this is the second consecutive year that they are lobbying a proposal to hold one without having 12 teams. If they're so confident about their place in the world at 10 teams and no CCG, why even bother lobbying to change the rules about it?

Just to have flexibility should circumstances change in the future. It is part of this "deregulation" theme we've seen in college sports the last few years. Certain leagues want more revenue without having to share it with more members.

FIFY.

Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

Bob there is another issue here that isn't being considered. We talk about going to a larger NC playoff structure. However, if the conferences each controlled this internally then conferences like the SEC and Big 10 stand to make even more revenue. Why split the revenue from the extra rounds when you can simply keep it internally. For the SEC the inducement to do so would be the number of eyes on the event nationally. For other conferences it is the guarantee of having their teams in the extra round. If each conference moves to a 4 team playoff for their championship and each champion is then included in a 4 team championship then the financial and exposure motivation to move to a P4 setup is obvious. Each surviving P4 earns a 1/4 share of the eliminated conference's estimated $125 million share, they get the added content and market value of the schools they add to get to 16, and they keep and split the revenue from the two extra playoff games to determine their own champion. For the SEC, Big 10 and ACC the added expense of 2 schools each is little to pay for the extra boosts. The PAC is the only conference that has some serious math to do before they consider a move.

(03-17-2014 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:11 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:08 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Just to have flexibility should circumstances change in the future. It is part of this "deregulation" theme we've seen in college sports the last few years. Certain leagues want more revenue without having to share it with more members.

FIFY.

Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

Bob there is another issue here that isn't being considered. We talk about going to a larger NC playoff structure. However, if the conferences each controlled this internally then conferences like the SEC and Big 10 stand to make even more revenue. Why split the revenue from the extra rounds when you can simply keep it internally. For the SEC the inducement to do so would be the number of eyes on the event nationally. For other conferences it is the guarantee of having their teams in the extra round. If each conference moves to a 4 team playoff for their championship and each champion is then included in a 4 team championship then the financial and exposure motivation to move to a P4 setup is obvious. Each surviving P4 earns a 1/4 share of the eliminated conference's estimated $125 million share, they get the added content and market value of the schools they add to get to 16, and they keep and split the revenue from the two extra playoff games to determine their own champion. For the SEC, Big 10 and ACC the added expense of 2 schools each is little to pay for the extra boosts. The PAC is the only conference that has some serious math to do before they consider a move.

That's an interesting theory, and one I like to think is plausible, IF the P5 were seriously considering cannibalizing one of their own. I don't see much evidence to that effect, though, at least not yet. I do agree that if the CFP were to expand, there will only be expansion through an avenue in which the P5 (or P4) get to keep the supermajority of the revenue guaranteed. That is the only reason why we have the CFP system we have now - the P5 get 80%+ of the revenue guaranteed. They know damn well that expanded playoff would be a huge revenue source, but they need assurances that they will keep that lion's share of it. Your suggestion is one way they can accomplish that.

(03-17-2014 01:52 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:11 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  FIFY.

Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

Bob there is another issue here that isn't being considered. We talk about going to a larger NC playoff structure. However, if the conferences each controlled this internally then conferences like the SEC and Big 10 stand to make even more revenue. Why split the revenue from the extra rounds when you can simply keep it internally. For the SEC the inducement to do so would be the number of eyes on the event nationally. For other conferences it is the guarantee of having their teams in the extra round. If each conference moves to a 4 team playoff for their championship and each champion is then included in a 4 team championship then the financial and exposure motivation to move to a P4 setup is obvious. Each surviving P4 earns a 1/4 share of the eliminated conference's estimated $125 million share, they get the added content and market value of the schools they add to get to 16, and they keep and split the revenue from the two extra playoff games to determine their own champion. For the SEC, Big 10 and ACC the added expense of 2 schools each is little to pay for the extra boosts. The PAC is the only conference that has some serious math to do before they consider a move.

That's an interesting theory, and one I like to think is plausible, IF the P5 were seriously considering cannibalizing one of their own. I don't see much evidence to that effect, though, at least not yet. I do agree that if the CFP were to expand, there will only be expansion through an avenue in which the P5 (or P4) get to keep the supermajority of the revenue guaranteed. That is the only reason why we have the CFP system we have now - the P5 get 80%+ of the revenue guaranteed. They know damn well that expanded playoff would be a huge revenue source, but they need assurances that they will keep that lion's share of it. Your suggestion is one way they can accomplish that.

And, if we handled it that way then each of the P4 conferences would keep a vastly enhanced fan participation deep into the season as fans of the 4 teams likely to make the playoffs stay energized, plus another 4 or more schools' fan bases whose teams remain viable for 1 of those 4 spots much deeper into the season remain energized as well. The networks would be particularly interested in that effect as it directly relates to the kind of interest boost that adds to their ad rates. In addition it benefits all 4 conferences equally, keeps all four regions of the country energized through the national semi-finals, and provides a clear and understandable path to the national championship which will appeal to fans.

(03-17-2014 01:52 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:11 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  FIFY.

Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

Bob there is another issue here that isn't being considered. We talk about going to a larger NC playoff structure. However, if the conferences each controlled this internally then conferences like the SEC and Big 10 stand to make even more revenue. Why split the revenue from the extra rounds when you can simply keep it internally. For the SEC the inducement to do so would be the number of eyes on the event nationally. For other conferences it is the guarantee of having their teams in the extra round. If each conference moves to a 4 team playoff for their championship and each champion is then included in a 4 team championship then the financial and exposure motivation to move to a P4 setup is obvious. Each surviving P4 earns a 1/4 share of the eliminated conference's estimated $125 million share, they get the added content and market value of the schools they add to get to 16, and they keep and split the revenue from the two extra playoff games to determine their own champion. For the SEC, Big 10 and ACC the added expense of 2 schools each is little to pay for the extra boosts. The PAC is the only conference that has some serious math to do before they consider a move.

That's an interesting theory, and one I like to think is plausible, IF the P5 were seriously considering cannibalizing one of their own. I don't see much evidence to that effect, though, at least not yet. I do agree that if the CFP were to expand, there will only be expansion through an avenue in which the P5 (or P4) get to keep the supermajority of the revenue guaranteed. That is the only reason why we have the CFP system we have now - the P5 get 80%+ of the revenue guaranteed. They know damn well that expanded playoff would be a huge revenue source, but they need assurances that they will keep that lion's share of it. Your suggestion is one way they can accomplish that.

The question in my mind is would a move to a P4 by cannibalizing one of the current P5 enable them to move to a playoff system that excludes everybody not in the P4. That is to say, would they be in a better position to separate themselves completely from the NCAA, thus allowing them to keep 100% of the playoff revenue instead of just 80%? From their perspective today, they are just giving up that 20% out of the goodness of their hearts, since those fringe schools and conferences don't have any impact on how much the networks will pay for the tournament.

(03-17-2014 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:52 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

Bob there is another issue here that isn't being considered. We talk about going to a larger NC playoff structure. However, if the conferences each controlled this internally then conferences like the SEC and Big 10 stand to make even more revenue. Why split the revenue from the extra rounds when you can simply keep it internally. For the SEC the inducement to do so would be the number of eyes on the event nationally. For other conferences it is the guarantee of having their teams in the extra round. If each conference moves to a 4 team playoff for their championship and each champion is then included in a 4 team championship then the financial and exposure motivation to move to a P4 setup is obvious. Each surviving P4 earns a 1/4 share of the eliminated conference's estimated $125 million share, they get the added content and market value of the schools they add to get to 16, and they keep and split the revenue from the two extra playoff games to determine their own champion. For the SEC, Big 10 and ACC the added expense of 2 schools each is little to pay for the extra boosts. The PAC is the only conference that has some serious math to do before they consider a move.

That's an interesting theory, and one I like to think is plausible, IF the P5 were seriously considering cannibalizing one of their own. I don't see much evidence to that effect, though, at least not yet. I do agree that if the CFP were to expand, there will only be expansion through an avenue in which the P5 (or P4) get to keep the supermajority of the revenue guaranteed. That is the only reason why we have the CFP system we have now - the P5 get 80%+ of the revenue guaranteed. They know damn well that expanded playoff would be a huge revenue source, but they need assurances that they will keep that lion's share of it. Your suggestion is one way they can accomplish that.

The question in my mind is would a move to a P4 by cannibalizing one of the current P5 enable them to move to a playoff system that excludes everybody not in the P4. That is to say, would they be in a better position to separate themselves completely from the NCAA, thus allowing them to keep 100% of the playoff revenue instead of just 80%? From their perspective today, they are just giving up that 20% out of the goodness of their hearts, since those fringe schools and conferences don't have any impact on how much the networks will pay for the tournament.

No, the P5 is giving up that 20% as an inducement to keep the G5 in FBS and maintain the P5's relatively inexpensive supply of non-conference games, the bulk of which are P5 home games.

(03-17-2014 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:52 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

Bob there is another issue here that isn't being considered. We talk about going to a larger NC playoff structure. However, if the conferences each controlled this internally then conferences like the SEC and Big 10 stand to make even more revenue. Why split the revenue from the extra rounds when you can simply keep it internally. For the SEC the inducement to do so would be the number of eyes on the event nationally. For other conferences it is the guarantee of having their teams in the extra round. If each conference moves to a 4 team playoff for their championship and each champion is then included in a 4 team championship then the financial and exposure motivation to move to a P4 setup is obvious. Each surviving P4 earns a 1/4 share of the eliminated conference's estimated $125 million share, they get the added content and market value of the schools they add to get to 16, and they keep and split the revenue from the two extra playoff games to determine their own champion. For the SEC, Big 10 and ACC the added expense of 2 schools each is little to pay for the extra boosts. The PAC is the only conference that has some serious math to do before they consider a move.

That's an interesting theory, and one I like to think is plausible, IF the P5 were seriously considering cannibalizing one of their own. I don't see much evidence to that effect, though, at least not yet. I do agree that if the CFP were to expand, there will only be expansion through an avenue in which the P5 (or P4) get to keep the supermajority of the revenue guaranteed. That is the only reason why we have the CFP system we have now - the P5 get 80%+ of the revenue guaranteed. They know damn well that expanded playoff would be a huge revenue source, but they need assurances that they will keep that lion's share of it. Your suggestion is one way they can accomplish that.

The question in my mind is would a move to a P4 by cannibalizing one of the current P5 enable them to move to a playoff system that excludes everybody not in the P4. That is to say, would they be in a better position to separate themselves completely from the NCAA, thus allowing them to keep 100% of the playoff revenue instead of just 80%? From their perspective today, they are just giving up that 20% out of the goodness of their hearts, since those fringe schools and conferences don't have any impact on how much the networks will pay for the tournament.

Absolutely it would and I think that is the general direction it takes anyway. Just look at what it would do for basketball. The P4 could essentially take the best of the basketball only conferences with them and then more of their schools would participate in the tournament and more of the total revenue would stay in house for all concerned.

(03-17-2014 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:52 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

Bob there is another issue here that isn't being considered. We talk about going to a larger NC playoff structure. However, if the conferences each controlled this internally then conferences like the SEC and Big 10 stand to make even more revenue. Why split the revenue from the extra rounds when you can simply keep it internally. For the SEC the inducement to do so would be the number of eyes on the event nationally. For other conferences it is the guarantee of having their teams in the extra round. If each conference moves to a 4 team playoff for their championship and each champion is then included in a 4 team championship then the financial and exposure motivation to move to a P4 setup is obvious. Each surviving P4 earns a 1/4 share of the eliminated conference's estimated $125 million share, they get the added content and market value of the schools they add to get to 16, and they keep and split the revenue from the two extra playoff games to determine their own champion. For the SEC, Big 10 and ACC the added expense of 2 schools each is little to pay for the extra boosts. The PAC is the only conference that has some serious math to do before they consider a move.

That's an interesting theory, and one I like to think is plausible, IF the P5 were seriously considering cannibalizing one of their own. I don't see much evidence to that effect, though, at least not yet. I do agree that if the CFP were to expand, there will only be expansion through an avenue in which the P5 (or P4) get to keep the supermajority of the revenue guaranteed. That is the only reason why we have the CFP system we have now - the P5 get 80%+ of the revenue guaranteed. They know damn well that expanded playoff would be a huge revenue source, but they need assurances that they will keep that lion's share of it. Your suggestion is one way they can accomplish that.

The question in my mind is would a move to a P4 by cannibalizing one of the current P5 enable them to move to a playoff system that excludes everybody not in the P4. That is to say, would they be in a better position to separate themselves completely from the NCAA, thus allowing them to keep 100% of the playoff revenue instead of just 80%? From their perspective today, they are just giving up that 20% out of the goodness of their hearts, since those fringe schools and conferences don't have any impact on how much the networks will pay for the tournament.

No, the P5 is giving up that 20% as an inducement to keep the G5 in FBS and maintain the P5's relatively inexpensive supply of non-conference games, the bulk of which are P5 home games.

If the G5 broke away with them and formed a separate tier then yes. But even if they don't the money offered for those two home games will always be a lure without having to surrender playoff spots. That's just the leverage of capital.

Besides when such a structure is set up then eventually all games will be contained within the P4 anyway (as content will be the only added value that inevitably moves them in this direction)and the Spring game becomes a preseason game guaranteeing that 7th home ticket for all P4 schools.

(03-17-2014 02:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 02:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:52 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Bob there is another issue here that isn't being considered. We talk about going to a larger NC playoff structure. However, if the conferences each controlled this internally then conferences like the SEC and Big 10 stand to make even more revenue. Why split the revenue from the extra rounds when you can simply keep it internally. For the SEC the inducement to do so would be the number of eyes on the event nationally. For other conferences it is the guarantee of having their teams in the extra round. If each conference moves to a 4 team playoff for their championship and each champion is then included in a 4 team championship then the financial and exposure motivation to move to a P4 setup is obvious. Each surviving P4 earns a 1/4 share of the eliminated conference's estimated $125 million share, they get the added content and market value of the schools they add to get to 16, and they keep and split the revenue from the two extra playoff games to determine their own champion. For the SEC, Big 10 and ACC the added expense of 2 schools each is little to pay for the extra boosts. The PAC is the only conference that has some serious math to do before they consider a move.

That's an interesting theory, and one I like to think is plausible, IF the P5 were seriously considering cannibalizing one of their own. I don't see much evidence to that effect, though, at least not yet. I do agree that if the CFP were to expand, there will only be expansion through an avenue in which the P5 (or P4) get to keep the supermajority of the revenue guaranteed. That is the only reason why we have the CFP system we have now - the P5 get 80%+ of the revenue guaranteed. They know damn well that expanded playoff would be a huge revenue source, but they need assurances that they will keep that lion's share of it. Your suggestion is one way they can accomplish that.

The question in my mind is would a move to a P4 by cannibalizing one of the current P5 enable them to move to a playoff system that excludes everybody not in the P4. That is to say, would they be in a better position to separate themselves completely from the NCAA, thus allowing them to keep 100% of the playoff revenue instead of just 80%? From their perspective today, they are just giving up that 20% out of the goodness of their hearts, since those fringe schools and conferences don't have any impact on how much the networks will pay for the tournament.

No, the P5 is giving up that 20% as an inducement to keep the G5 in FBS and maintain the P5's relatively inexpensive supply of non-conference games, the bulk of which are P5 home games.

If the G5 broke away with them and formed a separate tier then yes. But even if they don't the money offered for those two home games will always be a lure without having to surrender playoff spots. That's just the leverage of capital.

Nobody is surrendering playoff spots now -- just giving the G5 a slice of the playoff money as an inducement to stay in FBS and keep sending their teams to Tuscaloosa or Columbus or Austin.

(03-17-2014 01:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:11 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:08 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:02 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Could there be unintended consequences of this? Like conferences who feel too bloated at 12 or 14 teams dropping a few members? The initial ACC proposal, as I understood it, was only to allow conferences their own autonomy to decide who played in a CCG. Now that it has XII backing, it seems that it has changed somewhat to even eliminate the 12-team requirement, which is something the XII proposed last year but was rebuffed by the membership. It really makes me think the XII is nervous about not having a CCG, considering that this is the second consecutive year that they are lobbying a proposal to hold one without having 12 teams. If they're so confident about their place in the world at 10 teams and no CCG, why even bother lobbying to change the rules about it?

Just to have flexibility should circumstances change in the future. It is part of this "deregulation" theme we've seen in college sports the last few years. Certain leagues want more revenue without having to share it with more members.

FIFY.

Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

But it was the SEC's choice to expand to 14, for the additional power, revenue, etc. that they decided it would bring to them as a whole. If the Big 12 were somehow able to foist undesirable teams onto other conferences and force them to split their revenue among more parties, that would make it those conferences' business. For that matter, for the SEC to conclude that the Big 12's internal process to determine a champion and/or distribute revenue is somehow detrimental to their own members is somewhat laughable given their siphoning of two of the more valuable properties from the Big 12. (And yes, I know that the moves were voluntary, and that the SEC waited to be approached - but nevertheless, I hardly think that in a comparison of the SEC and the Big 12 that the SEC is somehow an injured party.)

Ultimately, the smaller amount of inventory and the smaller amount of eyeballs in the Big 12's footprint will bring a lesser total amount of money to the conference to be divided among those fewer members in any case, so any perceived inequity would be short-lived in any case.

(03-17-2014 02:43 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:22 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:11 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(03-17-2014 01:08 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Just to have flexibility should circumstances change in the future. It is part of this "deregulation" theme we've seen in college sports the last few years. Certain leagues want more revenue without having to share it with more members.

FIFY.

Why should other leagues care? How are they negatively impacted?

I can see individual teams hoping for expansion caring, but the other leagues really aren't affected but the presence or absence of a Big 12 championship game.

They may or may not, but when the XII is splitting their 50% of the Sugar Bowl and their 20% of the P5 revenue from the CFP 10 ways vs the SEC's 14 ways, you are darn sure the SEC is paying attention to that. It's all an arms race, especially at the top and not just for schools that are hoping to catch a break into the top tier.

But it was the SEC's choice to expand to 14, for the additional power, revenue, etc. that they decided it would bring to them as a whole. If the Big 12 were somehow able to foist undesirable teams onto other conferences and force them to split their revenue among more parties, that would make it those conferences' business. For that matter, for the SEC to conclude that the Big 12's internal process to determine a champion and/or distribute revenue is somehow detrimental to their own members is somewhat laughable given their siphoning of two of the more valuable properties from the Big 12. (And yes, I know that the moves were voluntary, and that the SEC waited to be approached - but nevertheless, I hardly think that in a comparison of the SEC and the Big 12 that the SEC is somehow an injured party.)

Ultimately, the smaller amount of inventory and the smaller amount of eyeballs in the Big 12's footprint will bring a lesser total amount of money to the conference to be divided among those fewer members in any case, so any perceived inequity would be short-lived in any case.

I agree completely Phog, what the Big 12 chooses to do in regards to a CCG is irrelevant to what the SEC does or does not do and is not the SEC's or anyone else's business. Each conference should be free to do what is best in their interests. Only things that involve the greater tier like playoffs need to be a compromise or consensus decision. If the Big 12 chooses a path that later disables its ability to keep pace then I feel sure they will take a different path. As in nature the most efficient and beneficial system will survive.