(05-08-2015 07:32 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 07:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 06:08 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:30 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  Ah, so if you weren't playing "big" football 70, 50 or 30 years ago you have no right to now? Seems legit.

Missing the point entirely. If you didn't pay big football 30 years ago, you aren't generating the revenue because few have heard of you. Boise, yes, but very few of the rest. The P5 get more than 10 times the TV revenue. They only get about 3 times the playoff revenue. So the G5 gets more than a fair share based on what they generate.

so then why does the NFL give the Tennessee Titans the same league revenue share as the Dallas Cowboys? that doesn't fit your definition of "fair", does it?

and if we're going on individual worth, explain to us why a league contract that runs from 2014-2026 is designed to give the team with a winning percentage of .813 over the life of the previous league contract 4X LESS than a team with a winning percentage of .277.

nothing about a league revenue share of 80/20 based on conference affiliation has anything to do with individual value or fairness.

You're right. Its negotiated. And if not for issues like fairness and governance issues, the P5 would take all of it. And they would have earned nearly all of it. If all the G5 dropped football tomorrow, the playoff wouldn't make one dime less. None of the networks would care if the Sun Belt or CUSA or MAC dropped down to FCS or dropped football. And they wouldn't care much if the MWC and AAC did the same.

The point is, the same could be said for a portion of the P5. What does Wale do for the ACC, if they suddenly don't exist does the conference revenue take a substantial hit or a hit at all? What about Texas tech, Washington state?

Not really.

Its true about 20 schools provide the lion's share of the value and dominate the top of the rankings. But the next 20 are pretty solid-schools like Clemson and West Virginia. WVU got $9 million just for their Tier III (licensing, TV, etc.). Some schools don't get that much for everything. And the next 20 have some brand value and are more valuable than almost all of the G5. NCSU would fit in there and they got over $4 million for their Tier III licensing. Imagine a conference with the bottom football programs in the east-Kansas, Iowa St., Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Duke, Wake Forest. You've got 4 of the top 6 college basketball programs and 6 schools who have been to BCS or CFPP major bowls.

There are some G5 schools who could substitute for the bottom third. But not that many, a dozen or so, all in the MWC or AAC. Boise could be in that 2nd third for football only. Maybe Air Force for football only as well. But no other G5 conference member fits in that category.

If the P5 could make the same or money without the G5 they would do it. But they can't, so they won't.

The key to the P5's charade of excellence is their ability to keep half of the league so financially disadvantaged that they cannot compete with the P5. That is the key.

The SEC will play 112 games during the regular season, 56 will be conference match ups and 56 will be against non conference opponents. 45 of those 56 OOC games will be vs non-P5 teams that don't have the financial resources to keep up with the P5 and are forced into agreeing to buyout games with a P5 with no return date because they need the money and won't get any respect if they don't play a P5 team.

A full 40% of all games played by the SEC will be vs non-P5 competition. Other P5s have similar numbers. They have completely stacked the deck in their favor and keeping the G5 in their league is a huge part of that.

The P5 needs the G5 more than the G5 needs the P5.

(05-05-2015 08:14 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

Quote:With only Cincinnati, South Florida and Connecticut (and Temple, at times) having been full members during the time period the conference was an automatic-qualifier under the BCS and receiving higher amounts of revenue

I'm fairly certain that Temple, Houston, SMU, UCF, and Memphis were all "full" members while the conference was still an automatic-qualifier, but good article Kristi...

That depends on whether "the conference" he is talking about is the BigEast or the AAC. Houston, SMU, UCF and Memphis never played in the BigEast. The year with the auto-qualifier was under the name "AAC". I know its a technicality to some AAC fans - but the writer might be taking that approach.

(05-05-2015 01:05 PM)Bull Wrote:  Is it even appropriate to compare the Big East to the AAC? I know that the AAC is 'officially' the Big East... but all the other conferences largely remained intact, with a few additions or subtractions. The Big East lost 5/8 football members (Cuse, Pitt, WV, LV, Rutgers and technically TCU), plus lost the entire C7 as basketball members (and NotreDame). That leaves 3 schools. Expecting any carry forward of income levels is ridiculous.

The American is essentially a brand new conference, and should be evaluated as such. Frankly, it's a bit undervalued also, since the dramatic instability occurred right as it was negotiating the TV deal (literally, didn't even have a NAME for the conference during the negotiations).

Apples and Oranges.

I added the NotreDame loss to the synopsis. Otherwise, I agree - except that it isn't "officially" the BigEast by any stretch (as supported by the rest of what you said).

The AAC/BigEast connection is basically 2 C-USA-I/BigEast-II (Cincinnati & USF), and 1 very recent move-up to FBS (UConn) and a program so bad it got kicked out of the BigEast-I (Temple). What made the BigEast what it was is largely NOT in the AAC.

The rest of the AAC is C-USA I/II (ECU, UCF, Houston, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis) and Temple (and soon Navy). It has almost no resemblance to the BigEast.

(05-08-2015 01:02 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  If the P5 could make the same or money without the G5 they would do it. But they can't, so they won't.

The key to the P5's charade of excellence is their ability to keep half of the league so financially disadvantaged that they cannot compete with the P5. That is the key.

The SEC will play 112 games during the regular season, 56 will be conference match ups and 56 will be against non conference opponents. 45 of those 56 OOC games will be vs non-P5 teams that don't have the financial resources to keep up with the P5 and are forced into agreeing to buyout games with a P5 with no return date because they need the money and won't get any respect if they don't play a P5 team.

A full 40% of all games played by the SEC will be vs non-P5 competition. Other P5s have similar numbers. They have completely stacked the deck in their favor and keeping the G5 in their league is a huge part of that.

The P5 needs the G5 more than the G5 needs the P5.

Too that point, they will never split totally or at the very least they'll take the AAC and MWC with them bc the ACC doesn't want to become the MAC of the power division. The power conferences need someone to fluff their records with. So they can sell their 6-6 seasons as progress to wealthy donors.

(05-05-2015 01:28 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(05-05-2015 01:05 PM)Bull Wrote:  Is it even appropriate to compare the Big East to the AAC? I know that the AAC is 'officially' the Big East... but all the other conferences largely remained intact, with a few additions or subtractions. The Big East lost 5/8 football members (Cuse, Pitt, WV, LV, Rutgers and technically TCU), plus lost the entire C7 as basketball members. That leaves 3 schools. Expecting any carry forward of income levels is ridiculous.

The American is essentially a brand new conference, and should be evaluated as such. Frankly, it's a bit undervalued also, since the dramatic instability occurred right as it was negotiating the TV deal (literally, didn't even have a NAME for the conference during the negotiations).

Apples and Oranges.

Ship of Theseus. Still the BE, just sold the name to the BB schools.

Guess that depends on your definition of 'same'.....

(05-08-2015 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-08-2015 07:32 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 07:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 06:08 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 04:51 PM)bullet Wrote:  Missing the point entirely. If you didn't pay big football 30 years ago, you aren't generating the revenue because few have heard of you. Boise, yes, but very few of the rest. The P5 get more than 10 times the TV revenue. They only get about 3 times the playoff revenue. So the G5 gets more than a fair share based on what they generate.

so then why does the NFL give the Tennessee Titans the same league revenue share as the Dallas Cowboys? that doesn't fit your definition of "fair", does it?

and if we're going on individual worth, explain to us why a league contract that runs from 2014-2026 is designed to give the team with a winning percentage of .813 over the life of the previous league contract 4X LESS than a team with a winning percentage of .277.

nothing about a league revenue share of 80/20 based on conference affiliation has anything to do with individual value or fairness.

You're right. Its negotiated. And if not for issues like fairness and governance issues, the P5 would take all of it. And they would have earned nearly all of it. If all the G5 dropped football tomorrow, the playoff wouldn't make one dime less. None of the networks would care if the Sun Belt or CUSA or MAC dropped down to FCS or dropped football. And they wouldn't care much if the MWC and AAC did the same.

The point is, the same could be said for a portion of the P5. What does Wale do for the ACC, if they suddenly don't exist does the conference revenue take a substantial hit or a hit at all? What about Texas tech, Washington state?

Not really.

Its true about 20 schools provide the lion's share of the value and dominate the top of the rankings. But the next 20 are pretty solid-schools like Clemson and West Virginia. WVU got $9 million just for their Tier III (licensing, TV, etc.). Some schools don't get that much for everything. And the next 20 have some brand value and are more valuable than almost all of the G5. NCSU would fit in there and they got over $4 million for their Tier III licensing. Imagine a conference with the bottom football programs in the east-Kansas, Iowa St., Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Duke, Wake Forest. You've got 4 of the top 6 college basketball programs and 6 schools who have been to BCS or CFPP major bowls.

There are some G5 schools who could substitute for the bottom third. But not that many, a dozen or so, all in the MWC or AAC. Boise could be in that 2nd third for football only. Maybe Air Force for football only as well. But no other G5 conference member fits in that category.

I think some FCS could fit like Eastern Washington, North Dakota State, Jacksonville State and some others who fans do travel. I think that is why the northern PAC 12 schools like to have Eastern Washington, Montana and Weber State on their schedule since their fans help fill the empty seats. Plus, they play them for cost savings as well. Some of the PAC 12 schools athletic departments were in the hole at times. California was dropping sports including dropping baseball when they got a backlash. Vanderbilt at one time a few years ago was in the hole in money, and they could have dropped football. The question would be the small private schools, and could they survive in college football today? Do they need to up their student enrollments and all that?

(05-07-2015 01:07 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 07:27 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 05:20 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  In 2014 the total revenue College Football Playoff revenue was $402,939,299. Rather than split the revenue equally amongst the 10 members of FBS it was decided that 5 conferences would receive 80% of the revenue, and the other 5 wold receive 20%. That means the P5 received $321,867,698 and the G5 received $81,071,601.

At this rate, over the 12 year lifespan of the CFP contract the P5 are on pace to earn $2,889,553,164 MORE than the G5. That's $2.9 Billion. with a "B". Remember that the next time the P5 complains about the G5 holding them back from offering additional financial benefits to student athletes.

This contract insures that the rich stays rich, but more importantly, it insures that the poor stays poor.

Since the P5 conferences generate probably 90% of the revenue and interest in college football, the CFP contract is actually rather socialistic, redistributes revenue from the Haves to the Have Nots (G5), so the G5 should be grateful.

I think the point is that the perceived higher value of the P5 is contributed to greatly by them being able to pick up relatively easy wins against the G5. They do not create all that revenue in a vacuum. This unfair distribution ...

The perceived higher value of the P5 has nothing to do with wins versus G5. That value has been built up over decades, in many cases more than a century. Teams like Notre Dame and Michigan and Alabama and USC could lose all their G5 games and they would still have far more massive fan bases and TV interest than any G5 schools.

For that reason the CFP distribution is not at all unfair, it just reflects who is generating the revenue. If anything it gives the G5 more than they earn.

and the Yankees generate substantially more revenue compared to the Marlins, or the Cowboys compared to the Bengals, or the Lakers compared to the Pelicans... and yet all of those sports leagues understand that sharing league revenue on a 80/20 destroys competitiveness and any sense of fair sportsmanship. But keep telling yourself that 60 teams in a league don't deserve a chance to be competitive with the other 60 or even sniff an opportunity to play for that league's championship. Because that's what's best for amateur student-athletes, right?

A few salient differences:

1) The leagues that share revenue do so because they are all creations of their leagues. E.g., the Dallas Cowboys and Miami Dolphins exist only because their leagues, the NFL and AFL, created those franchises. They don't exist independent of the league.

In contrast, schools like Alabama and Notre Dame are not creations of the NCAA, to the contrary they created their governing body, the NCAA, and while they may not have created their conferences (some, like Alabama, did, others like FSU did not), they all exist independent of those conferences as well.

A lot of sharing DOES take place, it just takes place at the conference level (Alabama shares with Ole Miss; UNC shares with Wake Forest), not the FBS level, which makes sense since the CFP is a creation of the 10 FBS conferences, it is not a creation of the NCAA and is not the NCAA FBS championship.

2) To the extent that those leagues do share revenue, it's because the richer teams do recognize that it is in their interest to do so. That is, the Lakers know that if small market teams like the Bucks are so poor that they can't field competitive teams, than that will eventually hurt Lakers revenue because while Lakers fans want to see their team win, they also want to see competitive basketball. Importantly, there are only 30 other franchises so you can't have a bunch of them be relatively impoverished.

In contrast, it doesn't matter to Alabama if a bunch of G5 schools like Temple or Marshall have no chance of competing with them, they don't care because there will always be enough that are competitive - in the SEC and outside - for them to build schedules that hold fan interest and make winning their conference and the national title meaningful.

3) "Sportsmanship" is a term you are invoking to mean "Haves giving to Have-Nots" for no good economic reason. It's economically laughable.

Most important, the lion's share of the revenue gap between the Haves and Have-Nots is NOT the result of a failure to share CFP and media revenue. It is a product of revenue generated in-conference and on-campus.

For example, this year, LSU will receive about $5 million from the CFP, while ECU will receive about $1 million from the CFP. That's a $4 million gap.

But LSU will also get about $25 million from the SEC for its share of its media deal and bowl games, while ECU will maybe get $4 million from the AAC. That's a $22 million gap.

But most hugely, LSU will get about $75 million from on-campus revenues - ticket sales, donations, parking - while East Carolina might make $20 million from that. That's a $55 million gap.

So of the enormous $85 million gap between LSU's $120m athletic budget and ECU's $35m athletic budget, only the slightest fraction is from that 80/20 CFP revenue disparity that you refer to.

Bottom line: If ECU wants to close that $$$ gap, it will have to build its brand and fan base.

(05-09-2015 08:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 01:07 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 07:27 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Since the P5 conferences generate probably 90% of the revenue and interest in college football, the CFP contract is actually rather socialistic, redistributes revenue from the Haves to the Have Nots (G5), so the G5 should be grateful.

I think the point is that the perceived higher value of the P5 is contributed to greatly by them being able to pick up relatively easy wins against the G5. They do not create all that revenue in a vacuum. This unfair distribution ...

The perceived higher value of the P5 has nothing to do with wins versus G5. That value has been built up over decades, in many cases more than a century. Teams like Notre Dame and Michigan and Alabama and USC could lose all their G5 games and they would still have far more massive fan bases and TV interest than any G5 schools.

For that reason the CFP distribution is not at all unfair, it just reflects who is generating the revenue. If anything it gives the G5 more than they earn.

and the Yankees generate substantially more revenue compared to the Marlins, or the Cowboys compared to the Bengals, or the Lakers compared to the Pelicans... and yet all of those sports leagues understand that sharing league revenue on a 80/20 destroys competitiveness and any sense of fair sportsmanship. But keep telling yourself that 60 teams in a league don't deserve a chance to be competitive with the other 60 or even sniff an opportunity to play for that league's championship. Because that's what's best for amateur student-athletes, right?

A few salient differences:

1) The leagues that share revenue do so because they are all creations of their leagues. E.g., the Dallas Cowboys and Miami Dolphins exist only because their leagues, the NFL and AFL, created those franchises. They don't exist independent of the league.

In contrast, schools like Alabama and Notre Dame are not creations of the NCAA, to the contrary they created their governing body, the NCAA, and while they may not have created their conferences (some, like Alabama, did, others like FSU did not), they all exist independent of those conferences as well.

A lot of sharing DOES take place, it just takes place at the conference level (Alabama shares with Ole Miss; UNC shares with Wake Forest), not the FBS level, which makes sense since the CFP is a creation of the 10 FBS conferences, it is not a creation of the NCAA and is not the NCAA FBS championship.

2) To the extent that those leagues do share revenue, it's because the richer teams do recognize that it is in their interest to do so. That is, the Lakers know that if small market teams like the Bucks are so poor that they can't field competitive teams, than that will eventually hurt Lakers revenue because while Lakers fans want to see their team win, they also want to see competitive basketball. Importantly, there are only 30 other franchises so you can't have a bunch of them be relatively impoverished.

In contrast, it doesn't matter to Alabama if a bunch of G5 schools like Temple or Marshall have no chance of competing with them, they don't care because there will always be enough that are competitive - in the SEC and outside - for them to build schedules that hold fan interest and make winning their conference and the national title meaningful.

3) "Sportsmanship" is a term you are invoking to mean "Haves giving to Have-Nots" for no good economic reason. It's economically laughable.

Most important, the lion's share of the revenue gap between the Haves and Have-Nots is NOT the result of a failure to share CFP and media revenue. It is a product of revenue generated in-conference and on-campus.

For example, this year, LSU will receive about $5 million from the CFP, while ECU will receive about $1 million from the CFP. That's a $4 million gap.

But LSU will also get about $25 million from the SEC for its share of its media deal and bowl games, while ECU will maybe get $4 million from the AAC. That's a $22 million gap.

But most hugely, LSU will get about $75 million from on-campus revenues - ticket sales, donations, parking - while East Carolina might make $20 million from that. That's a $55 million gap.

So of the enormous $85 million gap between LSU's $120m athletic budget and ECU's $35m athletic budget, only the slightest fraction is from that 80/20 CFP revenue disparity that you refer to.

Bottom line: If ECU wants to close that $$$ gap, it will have to build its brand and fan base.

How convenient. I don't disagree that teams like ECU need to build their brand, but then the system is rigged to prevent such a team from doing so isn't it? We have terms like BCS, power conferences, and autonomy that segregate and serve a specific group. Power conferences require their members to play each other and the marquee post season is reserved for said teams. It makes it nearly impossible to do what you've said they must.

(05-07-2015 11:08 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 07:27 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 06:01 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 05:20 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  In 2014 the total revenue College Football Playoff revenue was $402,939,299. Rather than split the revenue equally amongst the 10 members of FBS it was decided that 5 conferences would receive 80% of the revenue, and the other 5 wold receive 20%. That means the P5 received $321,867,698 and the G5 received $81,071,601.

At this rate, over the 12 year lifespan of the CFP contract the P5 are on pace to earn $2,889,553,164 MORE than the G5. That's $2.9 Billion. with a "B". Remember that the next time the P5 complains about the G5 holding them back from offering additional financial benefits to student athletes.

This contract insures that the rich stays rich, but more importantly, it insures that the poor stays poor.

Since the P5 conferences generate probably 90% of the revenue and interest in college football, the CFP contract is actually rather socialistic, redistributes revenue from the Haves to the Have Nots (G5), so the G5 should be grateful.

I think the point is that the perceived higher value of the P5 is contributed to greatly by them being able to pick up relatively easy wins against the G5. They do not create all that revenue in a vacuum. This unfair distribution ...

The perceived higher value of the P5 has nothing to do with wins versus G5. That value has been built up over decades, in many cases more than a century. Teams like Notre Dame and Michigan and Alabama and USC could lose all their G5 games and they would still have far more massive fan bases and TV interest than any G5 schools.

For that reason the CFP distribution is not at all unfair, it just reflects who is generating the revenue. If anything it gives the G5 more than they earn.

The rub though Ouo is that not all or even a majority of the P5 schools have "far more massive fan bases and TV interest." You use Notre Dame and Michigan as examples, but what about Wake Forest, Boston College, Washington St. Oregon St., TCU, Texas Tech? These programs have marginally more national interest or fan base than many G5 programs. If the top 30 football programs leave and form a semi pro division fine, but don't sit here and try to justify propping up Wake forest and Boston College bc Florida state is a national football brand. Its BS.

Further, their interest/brand value is reflected in their TV contracts. The post season is a different animal and should be delved out in-part equal measure and in-part reward for actual accomplishment (a la NCAA credits). Sure certain teams draw more eyes but post season ratings are a collective result of nationwide interest in the sport/event. Not solely and specifically the teams involved.

I am perfectly fine with the P5 conferences getting TV contracts that they're worth. It is completely farcical for them to leverage 80% of the post season take.

Responding to the bolded points you made:

1) I am not trying to "justify propping up Wake Forest". They don't need to be propped up, they have nothing to apologize for, nor do fans of schools like ECU have any grounds of complaint.

So this point just reeks of jealousy. It's like two girls who grew up together in a trailer park and have no job skills and no income potential, but then one of them meets a wealthy guy and marries him, and now lives in a big house and rides around in a BMW while the other is still single, stuck on welfare in the trailer park, and snarls about how "unfair" and "BS" it is that the married girl now has a far better life, as if the government should do something about that. It's not unfair. The wealthy guy decided of his own free will to share HIS money with the one he married, so nothing about her situation or the contrast with the poor girl's situation needs to be "justified", it is completely legitimate and "fair".

Similarly, UNC and Texas have agreed to share their brand value and money-making power with Wake Forest and Iowa State, not with schools like ECU and Marshall, so there is no "injustice" in any of that.

2) I think you are wrong about "interest in the post-season", meaning the CFP, being a result of "collective nationwide interest". While that is largely true of the NCAA tournament, which truly does include the entirety of Division I in its scope, the CFP is different. It is just a 4-team event, and since its structure basically ensures that only P5 teams will be in it, it is pretty obvious that the great bulk of national interest in the CFP comes from watching the various P5 teams and conferences jockey for position throughout the season for inclusion. Interest in the G5 has virtually nothing to do with it, so an 80/20 split is probably very generous to the G5.

(05-09-2015 08:40 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 08:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 01:07 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 07:27 PM)gassman Wrote:  I think the point is that the perceived higher value of the P5 is contributed to greatly by them being able to pick up relatively easy wins against the G5. They do not create all that revenue in a vacuum. This unfair distribution ...

The perceived higher value of the P5 has nothing to do with wins versus G5. That value has been built up over decades, in many cases more than a century. Teams like Notre Dame and Michigan and Alabama and USC could lose all their G5 games and they would still have far more massive fan bases and TV interest than any G5 schools.

For that reason the CFP distribution is not at all unfair, it just reflects who is generating the revenue. If anything it gives the G5 more than they earn.

and the Yankees generate substantially more revenue compared to the Marlins, or the Cowboys compared to the Bengals, or the Lakers compared to the Pelicans... and yet all of those sports leagues understand that sharing league revenue on a 80/20 destroys competitiveness and any sense of fair sportsmanship. But keep telling yourself that 60 teams in a league don't deserve a chance to be competitive with the other 60 or even sniff an opportunity to play for that league's championship. Because that's what's best for amateur student-athletes, right?

A few salient differences:

1) The leagues that share revenue do so because they are all creations of their leagues. E.g., the Dallas Cowboys and Miami Dolphins exist only because their leagues, the NFL and AFL, created those franchises. They don't exist independent of the league.

In contrast, schools like Alabama and Notre Dame are not creations of the NCAA, to the contrary they created their governing body, the NCAA, and while they may not have created their conferences (some, like Alabama, did, others like FSU did not), they all exist independent of those conferences as well.

A lot of sharing DOES take place, it just takes place at the conference level (Alabama shares with Ole Miss; UNC shares with Wake Forest), not the FBS level, which makes sense since the CFP is a creation of the 10 FBS conferences, it is not a creation of the NCAA and is not the NCAA FBS championship.

2) To the extent that those leagues do share revenue, it's because the richer teams do recognize that it is in their interest to do so. That is, the Lakers know that if small market teams like the Bucks are so poor that they can't field competitive teams, than that will eventually hurt Lakers revenue because while Lakers fans want to see their team win, they also want to see competitive basketball. Importantly, there are only 30 other franchises so you can't have a bunch of them be relatively impoverished.

In contrast, it doesn't matter to Alabama if a bunch of G5 schools like Temple or Marshall have no chance of competing with them, they don't care because there will always be enough that are competitive - in the SEC and outside - for them to build schedules that hold fan interest and make winning their conference and the national title meaningful.

3) "Sportsmanship" is a term you are invoking to mean "Haves giving to Have-Nots" for no good economic reason. It's economically laughable.

Most important, the lion's share of the revenue gap between the Haves and Have-Nots is NOT the result of a failure to share CFP and media revenue. It is a product of revenue generated in-conference and on-campus.

For example, this year, LSU will receive about $5 million from the CFP, while ECU will receive about $1 million from the CFP. That's a $4 million gap.

But LSU will also get about $25 million from the SEC for its share of its media deal and bowl games, while ECU will maybe get $4 million from the AAC. That's a $22 million gap.

But most hugely, LSU will get about $75 million from on-campus revenues - ticket sales, donations, parking - while East Carolina might make $20 million from that. That's a $55 million gap.

So of the enormous $85 million gap between LSU's $120m athletic budget and ECU's $35m athletic budget, only the slightest fraction is from that 80/20 CFP revenue disparity that you refer to.

Bottom line: If ECU wants to close that $$$ gap, it will have to build its brand and fan base.

How convenient. I don't disagree that teams like ECU need to build their brand, but then the system is rigged to prevent such a team from doing so isn't it? We have terms like BCS, power conferences, and autonomy that segregate and serve a specific group. Power conferences require their members to play each other and the marquee post season is reserved for said teams. It makes it nearly impossible to do what you've said they must.

This is like me wanting to open a pizza delivery business, but claiming that the pizza business is "rigged" against me because there are existing huge businesses like Pizza Hut and Dominos that have huge brand-name recognition that they can use against me to lure consumers, huge revenue streams they can use to out-advertise me, greater buying power and thus the ability to buy their supplies cheaper in bulk than I can, and Oh My how the Government should intervene to create a "level playing field" for me to succeed, never mind that Pizza Hut and Dominos once were small struggling firms but built themselves up via hard and smart work.

(05-09-2015 08:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 08:40 AM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 08:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-07-2015 01:07 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(05-06-2015 09:45 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  The perceived higher value of the P5 has nothing to do with wins versus G5. That value has been built up over decades, in many cases more than a century. Teams like Notre Dame and Michigan and Alabama and USC could lose all their G5 games and they would still have far more massive fan bases and TV interest than any G5 schools.

For that reason the CFP distribution is not at all unfair, it just reflects who is generating the revenue. If anything it gives the G5 more than they earn.

and the Yankees generate substantially more revenue compared to the Marlins, or the Cowboys compared to the Bengals, or the Lakers compared to the Pelicans... and yet all of those sports leagues understand that sharing league revenue on a 80/20 destroys competitiveness and any sense of fair sportsmanship. But keep telling yourself that 60 teams in a league don't deserve a chance to be competitive with the other 60 or even sniff an opportunity to play for that league's championship. Because that's what's best for amateur student-athletes, right?

A few salient differences:

1) The leagues that share revenue do so because they are all creations of their leagues. E.g., the Dallas Cowboys and Miami Dolphins exist only because their leagues, the NFL and AFL, created those franchises. They don't exist independent of the league.

In contrast, schools like Alabama and Notre Dame are not creations of the NCAA, to the contrary they created their governing body, the NCAA, and while they may not have created their conferences (some, like Alabama, did, others like FSU did not), they all exist independent of those conferences as well.

A lot of sharing DOES take place, it just takes place at the conference level (Alabama shares with Ole Miss; UNC shares with Wake Forest), not the FBS level, which makes sense since the CFP is a creation of the 10 FBS conferences, it is not a creation of the NCAA and is not the NCAA FBS championship.

2) To the extent that those leagues do share revenue, it's because the richer teams do recognize that it is in their interest to do so. That is, the Lakers know that if small market teams like the Bucks are so poor that they can't field competitive teams, than that will eventually hurt Lakers revenue because while Lakers fans want to see their team win, they also want to see competitive basketball. Importantly, there are only 30 other franchises so you can't have a bunch of them be relatively impoverished.

In contrast, it doesn't matter to Alabama if a bunch of G5 schools like Temple or Marshall have no chance of competing with them, they don't care because there will always be enough that are competitive - in the SEC and outside - for them to build schedules that hold fan interest and make winning their conference and the national title meaningful.

3) "Sportsmanship" is a term you are invoking to mean "Haves giving to Have-Nots" for no good economic reason. It's economically laughable.

Most important, the lion's share of the revenue gap between the Haves and Have-Nots is NOT the result of a failure to share CFP and media revenue. It is a product of revenue generated in-conference and on-campus.

For example, this year, LSU will receive about $5 million from the CFP, while ECU will receive about $1 million from the CFP. That's a $4 million gap.

But LSU will also get about $25 million from the SEC for its share of its media deal and bowl games, while ECU will maybe get $4 million from the AAC. That's a $22 million gap.

But most hugely, LSU will get about $75 million from on-campus revenues - ticket sales, donations, parking - while East Carolina might make $20 million from that. That's a $55 million gap.

So of the enormous $85 million gap between LSU's $120m athletic budget and ECU's $35m athletic budget, only the slightest fraction is from that 80/20 CFP revenue disparity that you refer to.

Bottom line: If ECU wants to close that $$$ gap, it will have to build its brand and fan base.

How convenient. I don't disagree that teams like ECU need to build their brand, but then the system is rigged to prevent such a team from doing so isn't it? We have terms like BCS, power conferences, and autonomy that segregate and serve a specific group. Power conferences require their members to play each other and the marquee post season is reserved for said teams. It makes it nearly impossible to do what you've said they must.

This is like me wanting to open a pizza delivery business, but claiming that the pizza business is "rigged" against me because there are existing huge businesses like Pizza Hut and Dominos that have huge brand-name recognition that they can use against me to lure consumers, huge revenue streams they can use to out-advertise me, greater buying power and thus the ability to buy their supplies cheaper in bulk than I can, and Oh My how the Government should intervene to create a "level playing field" for me to succeed, never mind that Pizza Hut and Dominos once were small struggling firms but built themselves up via hard and smart work.

I agree, somewhat. If we started from scratch in 2015, UConn would easily be a P5 school. It wouldn't be close. But we didn't get started in 1-A football until 2000 and we can't just ignore the entire 20th century.