(12-13-2014 10:25 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  The AAC schools are done if we don't start making the Access Bowl every year.

The AAC schools are already "done." They either don't know it or refuse to admit it. But the game for the "G5" schools is already over.

The revenue split for P5/G5 is 70/27 but that's before the bonuses kick in because technically a G5 conference could earn some of that. "Technically."

Over the 12yr life cycle of this deal the P5 will get, by conservative estimates, $900m more than the G5, wouldn't be surprised if it hits $1 billion. MORE.

Can you imagine if the NFL was set up where the NFC/AFC split league revenue 70/27 and the AFC wasn't guaranteed a playoff spot, and there was no salary cap? And the playoff teams were decided by a committee? AFC teams like Houston, Cincinnati, and Buffalo would have about as much of a chance of ever being competitive as G5 teams Houston, Cincinnati and Buffalo. And the whole time Detroit is getting 3X the $$$ as New England and its justified because the Lions were one of the original NFL teams 100 yrs ago.. it would be insanity.

(12-13-2014 11:23 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 09:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 07:12 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 06:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 06:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Perhaps, neither are as stable as the other three conferences.

But the big picture item here is that the SEC and BiG will not let this gap where the B12 is an edge up due to only having 10 teams for much longer. B12 got blessed with an overpriced TV contract that still included a CCG value that no longer exists and lucked out that the SEC chose them as partner for the Sugar.

ACC needed ESPN to renegotiate their undervalued TV contract using the additions of SU and Pitt (and we see how little value both of those teams have brought to TV in terms of football so far) and then increased again with the ND deal. Then basically had to beg the SEC/BiG to joint partner with them in the Orange in order to have a contract bowl.

I don't think the SEC and the BiG want the B12 getting stronger by addition, I actually feel they would want them to get weaker.

But time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

IIRC, the Big East had this same structural advantage under the BCS system. After the 2003-2004 ACC raids, the Big East had only 8 football members, so was making about $3.8 million per school from the BCS automatic bid compared to a million less than that for the B1G and SEC. But they tolerated that.

They did? First thing they did after the 2003 raid of the BE by the ACC is initiate a BCS auto-bid calculation analysis that the Big East had to meet to retain its bid (and for another conference not already an auto bid to get one), which they probably thought they would never meet at the end of a 4 year trial run. And that took them through 2008 to recognize the Big East was still "good" enough to qualify.

Yes, the Big East was subject to thinly-veiled threats of objective criteria by which to take away their bid and the like, but the bottom line is that in the end, the B1G and SEC didn't do anything drastic, they tolerated the rump 8-team Big East keeping that bid all the way through to the end of the BCS. Heck, that bid actually outlived the Big East as a football conference.

So I meant 'tolerate' in that barest-bones sense, but that is still a crucial sense, because the bottom line is the Big East did keep that bid all the way through.

The real bottom line is the BE kept the bid initially because there was a signed contract in hand. A qualification analysis formula was created that only applied to the Big East in terms of potentially losing the auto bid. Two years after that was when the conference expansion chaos began. If anyone couldn't see that the Big East was doomed at that point, they are deluding themselves.

Well of course. That's why the Big East kept the bid not just initially but for the entirety of the BCS era.

Certainly, the 2011 ACC and Big 12 raids on the Big East doomed it. No way was the new lineup sans Pitt, Cuse, TCU and WVU going to keep an automatic bid under the new contract.

(12-13-2014 06:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 06:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 05:23 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 03:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 12:35 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  That is one of the reasons they will not be expanding with any G5 school.

And, imho, quo vadis' post is one of the reasons why the rest of the P5 will eventually put a stop to this nonsense and either force them to expand at least to 12 teams or risk being raided again.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

With the differential in money between the Big12 and the ACC, I suspect the Big12 would do the raiding.... from the ACC.........FSU and Clemson?

Perhaps, neither are as stable as the other three conferences.

But the big picture item here is that the SEC and BiG will not let this gap where the B12 is an edge up due to only having 10 teams for much longer. B12 got blessed with an overpriced TV contract that still included a CCG value that no longer exists and lucked out that the SEC chose them as partner for the Sugar.

ACC needed ESPN to renegotiate their undervalued TV contract using the additions of SU and Pitt (and we see how little value both of those teams have brought to TV in terms of football so far) and then increased again with the ND deal. Then basically had to beg the SEC/BiG to joint partner with them in the Orange in order to have a contract bowl.

I don't think the SEC and the BiG want the B12 getting stronger by addition, I actually feel they would want them to get weaker.

But time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

IIRC, the Big East had this same structural advantage under the BCS system. After the 2003-2004 ACC raids, the Big East had only 8 football members, so was making about $3.8 million per school from the BCS automatic bid compared to a million less than that for the B1G and SEC. But they tolerated that.

And I'm not sure either the B1G or SEC considers the Big 12 to be a real threat. Both have shown that they can poach Big 12 members when they want, and the Big 12 doesn't overlap with either, save in Iowa (which the B1G could hardly care less about) and Texas (which is Big 12 country that the SEC has invaded, not the core of the SEC).

In contrast, both have bigger reasons to have a more aggressive posture towards the ACC. The ACC and B1G are butting heads over the lucrative northeast corridor between Washington and Boston, while the ACC and SEC overlap along the southeast coastal states, and Louisville is like a blister in the hide of both.

As you say, nobody knows what is going to happen, but I'm not sure there's much animus towards the Big 12 at SEC or B1G headquarters.

I forget the name of the guy who was the temporary commissioner of the Big 12 in 2011-2012, but he did an amazing job, not only pulling them back from the brink of dismemberment, but then signing massive TV deals with FOX and ESPN, nicely playing them off against each other, and then signing the big Sugar deal with the SEC that validated the new 10-team Big 12. It was the best job of crisis commissionership I can remember.

His name is Chuck Nineas....former Big8 commissioner

(12-13-2014 11:17 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 10:27 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  The big difference for Big12 is tier 3 money. Some schools make jack, but as a whole not so much. SEC, B1G and PAC conference channels as cash cows...

If Tier 3 is such a bonus that some maintain, why is the conference commissioner all bent out of shape about the LHN preventing the conference from moving forward with its own type of conference network utilizing the new modes of media delivery?

Cheers,
Neil

Which Big12 commissioner are you talking about?