(10-30-2016 03:44 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  When looking across the college football landscape, it becomes incredibly apparent that the bottom conferences in the FBS don't have the brand the others do, and the top conferences in the FCS are close in quality to said bottom FBS conferences. Therefore, I suggest a three-tiered Division 1.

1-A: B1G, Big 12, ACC, Pac-12, SEC, American, MW, Notre Dame, BYU, Army
12-game regular season, CCGs, 4-team playoff, 5 power conferences, 2 mid-majors

1-AA: MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, UMass, Big Sky, MVFC, Southland, CAA, OVC, Southern
12-game regular season, 16-team playoff

1-AAA: Big South, Ivy League, Patriot, NEC, MEAC, Pioneer, Southwestern
11-game regular season, 12-team playoff

At least half of the AAC and MWC shouldn't be 1-A. The Big 12 looked at a bunch of schools from those two conferences and said "no", and while the Big 12 might be hopelessly dysfunctional, it's still a pretty telling leading indicator. And Army definitely shouldn't be top tier, not the Army of 2016 at least.

Most of the teams in the FCS conferences in your I-AA shouldn't be there either. There's a big 'ol gap between Southern Miss and Western Carolina, or Northern Illinois and Austin Peay.

If you wanted to do a third subdivision, it should be for limited/non-scholarship programs. As structured, the Big South and non-Georgetown Patriot would have a huge advantage.

I really don't see any changes coming in the D-I structure. But if the AAC and the MWC were to break away from the pack with the P5 and become a separate division, then there would be a P5 and a G2 in that division. So, what's the point?

Half of the AAC and MWC? Name them...SJSU, SMU maybe, Tulane and who else?

Never will happen.

G5 have too much clout to pull the pants down on the whole money structure. That's why they get a seat at a table, and enough of a taste, to keep the circus going.

(10-31-2016 03:07 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Half of the AAC and MWC? Name them...SJSU, SMU maybe, Tulane and who else?

His proposed I-A, not FBS (fka I-A), if that was what you were thinking.

If not, then it'd be easier to list the schools that *should* be seriously considered for the top-tier of a three-division football pyramid: Houston, Cincinnati, UCF, USF, Boise State, Colorado State, San Diego State. East Carolina on the periphery. The rest play pattycake with the rest of the second tier.

(10-30-2016 03:50 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Eventually the bottom two would merge. We're not gonna fully concede we're inferior, not without a fight.

I don't really like the idea, but I don't think the bottom two would merge. There is a huge difference between the G5 schools and the middle and lower tiers of FCS, both in facilities and fanbase size.

I think that's part of the reason why you have seen so many FCS programs want to move up to D1. Schools like JMU, App, Georgia Southern, Montana, NDSU, and others have no business playing in a division with non-scholarship programs that have the equivalent of high school stadiums.

In my opinion, the best metric to use when sorting and classifying teams is coaching salaries.

No other number has the freedom to move up and down so easily, and is so dependent on the immediate financial support that a team can muster from all sources, as well as the pressure from competing teams.

A - Big 10, SEC, ACC, Pac??

B - AAC, Big 12 leftovers, MWC, MAC

C - CUSA, SB, Big Sky, CAA, ?????

(10-31-2016 09:45 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 08:36 AM)Artifice Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 08:18 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(10-30-2016 04:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  ESPN will do the split economically.

They will continue to pay the P4 handsomely while everyone else will slowly but surely be given less and less to make up for the shifting cable cutters

How so? They already did that. Nowhere to cut left at the G5 level. The P5 is going to start to see pay cuts that provide a payout closer to what the market can actually bear.

The gap is going to close because the P5 payouts are not sustainable at current levels with the current broadcast model. Cord cutters are going to kill all the profiteering that the P5 schools are currently engaged in. The smart ones will tie the networks up for as long as they can, but a reckoning is coming, absent another revenue model replacing what is being lost.

The P5 payouts are completely sustainable at current levels. For all the doom and gloom surrounding the traditional cable industry, ESPN continues to be wildly profitable and the SEC Network has been a huge success. Much of the doom and gloom has to do with the end of the perpetual growth cycle that ESPN had been in as it moves into a more mature business phase. However, it does so having had a 100% gross margin last quarter, i.e., its revenues were double its operating expenses. That's so ridiculously profitable it's hard to believe. Further, the individual conference contracts are a relative bargain to ESPN as compared to what they pay for the NFL, MLB and NBA.

The one contract that I would have questions about is the CFP and Contract Bowl deals. ESPN is paying something like $600 million/year for a handful of games. When that contract is up, there may be pressure to expand the playoff to 8 teams in order to maintain or grow the payout. Alternatively, the P5 may squeeze G5 harder to grab their share of the money, currently $90 million per year. However, at around $6 million/year per P5 school, this is a relatively small portion of the total TV $ paid to the P5.

How when several of Syracuse's conference mates sucks at TV ratings that under perform than many G5 schools? Miami Florida gets less than 500,000 viewers will not cut it, and it shows the lack of judgement on ESPN's part when many of the G5 on the Big 12 list including Boise State is more valuable than some of the ACC schools?

(10-31-2016 02:47 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-30-2016 03:44 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  When looking across the college football landscape, it becomes incredibly apparent that the bottom conferences in the FBS don't have the brand the others do, and the top conferences in the FCS are close in quality to said bottom FBS conferences. Therefore, I suggest a three-tiered Division 1.

1-A: B1G, Big 12, ACC, Pac-12, SEC, American, MW, Notre Dame, BYU, Army
12-game regular season, CCGs, 4-team playoff, 5 power conferences, 2 mid-majors

1-AA: MAC, C-USA, Sun Belt, UMass, Big Sky, MVFC, Southland, CAA, OVC, Southern
12-game regular season, 16-team playoff

1-AAA: Big South, Ivy League, Patriot, NEC, MEAC, Pioneer, Southwestern
11-game regular season, 12-team playoff

At least half of the AAC and MWC shouldn't be 1-A. The Big 12 looked at a bunch of schools from those two conferences and said "no", and while the Big 12 might be hopelessly dysfunctional, it's still a pretty telling leading indicator. And Army definitely shouldn't be top tier, not the Army of 2016 at least.

Most of the teams in the FCS conferences in your I-AA shouldn't be there either. There's a big 'ol gap between Southern Miss and Western Carolina, or Northern Illinois and Austin Peay.

If you wanted to do a third subdivision, it should be for limited/non-scholarship programs. As structured, the Big South and non-Georgetown Patriot would have a huge advantage.

To be fair---there is a HUGE difference between the Big12 saying none of the AAC/MW schools make the Big12 more money and saying those schools don't belong in the division. The AAC wouldnt add any of the schools in your AA division---so by your logic, that means the AAC doesn't belong with those other AA schools.

Another thing to consider when it comes to TV---those 65 or so schools of the G5 together would have a fan base and audience viewership that would dwarf ANY current power conference. Furthermore, there is little room for future growth in kingpin programs like Texas A&M, USC, Penn State, Alabama, Texas, Michigan, and Ohio St. Most of the other P5 programs are much closer to the top of their potential than the bottom. The real potential for future audience growth in college football is in the developing and rising programs of the G5---many of which are located in universities with VERY large student populations. The smartest thing for college football and the networks to do is to treat the G5 as a single P5. Do that, and you could vastly expand the viewership and interest in college football. The current set up is really not that far from doing just that. It just needs a little tweaking in the CFP and a few changes in bowl ties.

(10-30-2016 05:42 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-30-2016 04:13 PM)shizzle787 Wrote:  

(10-30-2016 04:06 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:1-A: B1G, Big 12, ACC, Pac-12, SEC, American, MW, Notre Dame, BYU, Army

I like the idea of 3 divisions for D1, each with a playoff. Bowls are more understandable with a pseudo-playoff for winner of Top 2 bowls, due to so many (128) teams.

But ARMY in Top D1? Lol. Also -- the MW going that is barely better than the MAC? I can understand AAC in there + BYU, loosening it up -- but I don't think that'd be good for the overall picture.

You're basically making a stronger D1AA by throwing the MAC/CUSA/SunBelt down there and shoving the bad half of D1AA to a 3rd sector.

I would say:
- D1A: All P5 teams + Notre Dame
- D1AA: All G5 teams + All independents, except for Notre Dame + Missouri Valley Conference
- D1AAA: All Remaining teams

* Each with an ACTUAL playoff system (like, 12 or 16 teams).
* D1A & D1AA teams not in their playoffs are to play each other in some bowls
* D1AA & D1AAA can play in bowls, too, but would be ridiculously scarce due to D1AAA fans & budget of those not in their own playoffs.

That's the point. 1-A is stronger by subtraction, 1-AA is stronger by addition, and the schools in 1-AAA finally get to legitimately compete for a national championship.

Your plan would kill every FBS program not placed in the upper level. Why not simply expand the playoffs to 8 and make 1 berth for the G5? And seed it 4th or 5th.

D1 basketball isn't harmed by having 351 schools.

BTW, no way that gets done unless the G5 schools are happy with it. Unless the NCAA falls apart. And if it does, they're not taking the AAC with them. Why share when you don't have to.

-----

Basically, some of you guys seem to be searching for a solution in search of a problem. Unless the problem is "Entitled former Big East football schools are looking for another way to gain separation from the G5 that they haven't earned". Tulane? Army? Memphis? Tulsa? Really?

None of the teams you mentioned are former Big East schools.

Since this is wild-a speculation.....All things find symmetry at 16:

-FBS evolves to P4 with 16 per conference & G4 with 16. 8 conferences with descending budget commitments.

-Required 9 conference games (7 divisional, 2 cross-divisional, 3 FBS OOC scheduled by the NCAA based on SOS balancing).
ie, Congratulations, you play OOC of Clemson, Memphis, & Rice.....top third, middle third, lower third of FBS. The higher the ranked conference, the more difficult the OOC assignment. ADs are out of the schedule negotiation business, replaced by algorithms.

-FBS Playoff of 16: 8 Conference Champions + 8 next highest ranked. National champion plays 16 games.

-16 FBS Bowl games the week before the playoffs (teams not in the playoffs but in the top 48, or third, of FBS).

-FBS/FCS games eliminated.

(11-01-2016 12:05 PM)TruBlu Wrote:  Since this is wild-a speculation.....All things find symmetry at 16:

-FBS evolves to P4 with 16 per conference & G4 with 16. 8 conferences with descending budget commitments.

-Required 9 conference games (7 divisional, 2 cross-divisional, 3 FBS OOC scheduled by the NCAA based on SOS balancing).
ie, Congratulations, you play OOC of Clemson, Memphis, & Rice.....top third, middle third, lower third of FBS. The higher the ranked conference, the more difficult the OOC assignment. ADs are out of the schedule negotiation business, replaced by algorithms.

-FBS Playoff of 16: 8 Conference Champions + 8 next highest ranked. National champion plays 16 games.

-16 FBS Bowl games the week before the playoffs (teams not in the playoffs but in the top 48, or third, of FBS).

-FBS/FCS games eliminated.

Never will happen, makes too much sense.

The main issue is financing, many schools rely on the money games.

False.

FCS teams do not need FBS games to survive. Fact.

How can I say this?? Very easily: there are no spending requirements to be in FCS!!!!! You can cut all scholarships, if you want. Pay your head coach 3 cents. No one cares.

So if FBS games go away ... then all it does is reduce spending. It's really not that hard.

(10-31-2016 10:47 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Agreed. The P5 TV contracts are honestly not very large compared to what's being paid out to the NBA and MLB that actually receive significantly lower ratings for regular season games (and even early round playoff games don't reach the ratings of what the top SEC and Big Ten games of the week regularly obtain).

Look at the movie industry, which has already experienced the decline in attendance (the equivalent of TV viewers) that cable TV is going through right now. What has happened is a high/low strategy in Hollywood movie studios (who also happen to own the cable networks, such as Disney/ESPN, Fox/FS1, Comcast/NBC, etc.). Disney will still pay huge budgets for the biggest brand name Star Wars and Marvel tent pole films, while they'll also greenlight inexpensive films based on lower tier properties (or in the cases of other movie studios, really cheap horror films like the Paranormal Activity franchise). What Hollywood does NOT pay for anymore, though, are the mid-budget films (e.g. the Miramax films of the 1990s), particularly those that aren't tied to a valuable franchise or brand (e.g. a best-selling book) - those are the movies where even the biggest directors out there have a tough time finding financing.

What does this mean? Well, the P5 conferences are the equivalent of Hollywood tentpoles. There is NOT a bubble for those TV rights - they're going to keep going up and up regardless of how cable TV looks 10 years from now because they're the brands that networks need to leverage in ANY type of business model. You'll also see more relatively inexpensive "embrace the debate" shows to fill programming hours on TV. A league like the West Coast Conference for college basketball is great, too - it's inexpensive, has a couple of good brands (Gonzaga and BYU) and they can fill a lot of different time slots.

Meanwhile, who is going to get wiped out when cable revenues go down? It will be the middle class of TV sports properties: those that still have the same production costs as the top tier properties yet don't bring anywhere near the same type of revenue. That's basically screaming "G5 football" there. The LAST people that should be cheering for cable TV's demise are the fans of G5 conferences. The leagues like the Big Ten and SEC are going to continue to get their maximum revenue regardless of how the model looks 10 or 20 years from now. They were the richest conferences before cable TV and they'll be the richest conferences after cable TV. Instead, the G5 leagues will be the ones that will get revenue wiped out completely - it's the middle class of sports properties that are really the beneficiaries of a cable TV sports "bubble" (to the extent that a bubble exists), NOT the top tier properties. Those top tier properties won't get their budgets cut by the Hollywood-run TV networks any more than the next Star Wars or Avengers film.

(Similarly, look at the real estate bubble of the last decade and compare real estate prices today. The bursting of that bubble didn't end up killing the prices in the legitimate top tier markets, like New York City or San Francisco. Those markets have blown past their "pre-bubble" highs. Quality properties will end up retaining their value. Instead, a true bubble increases the prices of markets that fundamentally aren't at the top tier, such as how Las Vegas and Phoenix prices still aren't back to their pre-bubble prices. Once again, it's the G5 that will get slammed if the cable TV "bubble" ever bursts. Be forewarned. S**t rolls downhill.)

You are usually on the money, Frank, but I think you are off on this one.

The analogies you are using don't work in this case. The movie industry example is quite different. The current cable market relies on everyone subsidizing a product they don't use. It would be more like that if say, the movie theaters had a small tax they were allowed to charge everyone in their municipality regardless of whether they attended the movie or not, which then transformed to a per ticket price of people who attended the movie. That's the kind of shift we are talking in the cable TV, and specifically sports industry. In the movie industry, people just stopped going to movies, there wasn't a significant shift in the pricing structure. The demand changed there. The demand for sports isn't changing, only who pays for it. There are a LOT of people paying for sports who would not find it worth it to them had it not been bundled.

And I don't think G5 fans are rooting for it as much as they will enjoy the schadenfreude of the P5 being hit in their bottom line finally after they have cut down the G5 over time. The G5 have already taken their lumps. Nowhere to go down at this point. And while the P5 don't want to admit it, the NFL/NBA/MLB will always be the cash cows of the sports world. Their fanbases are much larger and their appeal is more widespread, especially worldwide. CFB is the prime market to be affected by the new world. They are the Phoenix of the sports world. The NFL is much more like the NYC housing market than a comparatively limited appeal CFB. Careful what you say. S*** rolls downhill indeed.

Realistically, there are only 2 options left. Either the P5 is going to be forced to take pay cuts, or the consumer (i.e. both me and you) is going to have to pay a LOT more to watch sports. Based on what happens in most industries in the US, I think the answer is more likely the latter even if the former is probably the best solution. Either way, the P5 are going to be affected. Honestly, the P5/ESPN would be stupid to cut out the G5 from the college football picture. If they do, there are simply less people motivated to pay a monthly fee to them to watch sports in the new unbundled world.

How are the ESPN 3 numbers for the different divisions?

P5 vs G5 vs FCS I imagine the P5 does the best.

I wonder if Montana vs EWU or UNI vs NDSU does as well as WKU vs MTSU you get the idea.
ESPN might show more ranked FCS vs average G5 games in the future.

#1 JSU vs #8 Citadel probably gets as much interest as Troy vs App St even if the second game is a really good game.

Less guaranteed regular ESPN games with the network placing all the games on ESPN3. Then they pick and choose the big match ups out of the G5/FCS.

(11-01-2016 01:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  False.

FCS teams do not need FBS games to survive. Fact.

How can I say this?? Very easily: there are no spending requirements to be in FCS!!!!! You can cut all scholarships, if you want. Pay your head coach 3 cents. No one cares.

So if FBS games go away ... then all it does is reduce spending. It's really not that hard.

P5 schools do make a lot of money when they host North Dakota State. Those games are much better to watch than a game against a loser like Kansas.

Some FCS schools do get people's heads turned when they upset a P5 schools. Those teams deserve to be in FBS.

It's not about deserving it's about wanting to be and pay for it. That and having the facilities and geography. By that measure NDSU is screwed, they're not reasonably close to anyone except the western periphery of the MAC.

(11-01-2016 12:05 PM)TruBlu Wrote:  Since this is wild-a speculation.....All things find symmetry at 16:

... which establishes that it will not happen. The system has never "found symmetry" before, so it clearly is not a system that is seeking symmetry.

Instead, it is a bunch of schools seeking their own self-interest, and their own self-interest will always result in realignment results that hinge on different balance of power of interests in different conferences.

(11-01-2016 02:21 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(10-31-2016 10:47 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Agreed. The P5 TV contracts are honestly not very large compared to what's being paid out to the NBA and MLB that actually receive significantly lower ratings for regular season games (and even early round playoff games don't reach the ratings of what the top SEC and Big Ten games of the week regularly obtain).

Look at the movie industry, which has already experienced the decline in attendance (the equivalent of TV viewers) that cable TV is going through right now. What has happened is a high/low strategy in Hollywood movie studios (who also happen to own the cable networks, such as Disney/ESPN, Fox/FS1, Comcast/NBC, etc.). Disney will still pay huge budgets for the biggest brand name Star Wars and Marvel tent pole films, while they'll also greenlight inexpensive films based on lower tier properties (or in the cases of other movie studios, really cheap horror films like the Paranormal Activity franchise). What Hollywood does NOT pay for anymore, though, are the mid-budget films (e.g. the Miramax films of the 1990s), particularly those that aren't tied to a valuable franchise or brand (e.g. a best-selling book) - those are the movies where even the biggest directors out there have a tough time finding financing.

What does this mean? Well, the P5 conferences are the equivalent of Hollywood tentpoles. There is NOT a bubble for those TV rights - they're going to keep going up and up regardless of how cable TV looks 10 years from now because they're the brands that networks need to leverage in ANY type of business model. You'll also see more relatively inexpensive "embrace the debate" shows to fill programming hours on TV. A league like the West Coast Conference for college basketball is great, too - it's inexpensive, has a couple of good brands (Gonzaga and BYU) and they can fill a lot of different time slots.

Meanwhile, who is going to get wiped out when cable revenues go down? It will be the middle class of TV sports properties: those that still have the same production costs as the top tier properties yet don't bring anywhere near the same type of revenue. That's basically screaming "G5 football" there. The LAST people that should be cheering for cable TV's demise are the fans of G5 conferences. The leagues like the Big Ten and SEC are going to continue to get their maximum revenue regardless of how the model looks 10 or 20 years from now. They were the richest conferences before cable TV and they'll be the richest conferences after cable TV. Instead, the G5 leagues will be the ones that will get revenue wiped out completely - it's the middle class of sports properties that are really the beneficiaries of a cable TV sports "bubble" (to the extent that a bubble exists), NOT the top tier properties. Those top tier properties won't get their budgets cut by the Hollywood-run TV networks any more than the next Star Wars or Avengers film.

(Similarly, look at the real estate bubble of the last decade and compare real estate prices today. The bursting of that bubble didn't end up killing the prices in the legitimate top tier markets, like New York City or San Francisco. Those markets have blown past their "pre-bubble" highs. Quality properties will end up retaining their value. Instead, a true bubble increases the prices of markets that fundamentally aren't at the top tier, such as how Las Vegas and Phoenix prices still aren't back to their pre-bubble prices. Once again, it's the G5 that will get slammed if the cable TV "bubble" ever bursts. Be forewarned. S**t rolls downhill.)

You are usually on the money, Frank, but I think you are off on this one.

The analogies you are using don't work in this case. The movie industry example is quite different. The current cable market relies on everyone subsidizing a product they don't use. It would be more like that if say, the movie theaters had a small tax they were allowed to charge everyone in their municipality regardless of whether they attended the movie or not, which then transformed to a per ticket price of people who attended the movie. That's the kind of shift we are talking in the cable TV, and specifically sports industry. In the movie industry, people just stopped going to movies, there wasn't a significant shift in the pricing structure. The demand changed there. The demand for sports isn't changing, only who pays for it. There are a LOT of people paying for sports who would not find it worth it to them had it not been bundled.

And I don't think G5 fans are rooting for it as much as they will enjoy the schadenfreude of the P5 being hit in their bottom line finally after they have cut down the G5 over time. The G5 have already taken their lumps. Nowhere to go down at this point. And while the P5 don't want to admit it, of the sports world. Their fanbases are much larger and their appeal is more widespread, especially worldwide. CFB is the prime market to be affected by the new world. They are the Phoenix of the sports world. The NFL is much more like the NYC housing market than a comparatively limited appeal CFB. Careful what you say. S*** rolls downhill indeed.

Realistically, there are only 2 options left. Either the P5 is going to be forced to take pay cuts, or the consumer (i.e. both me and you) is going to have to pay a LOT more to watch sports. Based on what happens in most industries in the US, I think the answer is more likely the latter even if the former is probably the best solution. Either way, the P5 are going to be affected. Honestly, the P5/ESPN would be stupid to cut out the G5 from the college football picture. If they do, there are simply less people motivated to pay a monthly fee to them to watch sports in the new unbundled world.

A couple of thoughts. First, you say "the NFL/NBA/MLB will always be the cash cows." You really underestimate college football for someone hanging out on a college sports fan site. College football is absolutely the second most popular sport on television after the NFL. The NBA is very strong, and has great demographics. However, college sports benefits from offering basketball as well. Ignoring this year's Cubs story line, MLB's TV audience is shrinking and literally dying. It's day of reckoning is likely coming sooner than that of college sports.

For the NFL, ESPN will almost certainly have to reduce its payout for MNF next time around from the current $1.9 billion/year. That payment is $800 million more than NBC pays for SNF, which is a better package. It is completely premised on ESPN's ability to pass this cost along to cable subscribers, so if that well dries up, it has to be cut. It is also more than ESPN pays for all of its college rights combined.

Secondly, the SEC and ACC have their base contracts with ESPN guaranteed for another twenty years. I am not worried about ESPN being good for it. Their gross margin last quarter was over 100% (revenues were more than double operating costs). ESPN's problem is not lack of profitability, it is flat growth in a situation where investors have come to expect constant growth.

The bigger issue for the SEC and ACC is that their conference networks will exist in an environment of shrinking cable subscribership. I have serious doubts that the traditional cable bundle will ever disappear. A significant number of viewers (probably more than half of traditional cable viewers from the peak) will continue to value the convenience of the bundle and have the income to pay for it without a problem. However, even if traditional cable completely disappeared, sports (including college sports) will continue to have significant value as programming. This value can and will be monetized by ESPN and its conference partners. For instance, I would be willing to pay $25 or more per month for a standalone digital network to ensure that I could watch all Syracuse football and basketball games, particularly if it were combined with other ACC schools. Many college sports fans would do the same to get the content for their schools.

Finally, for the most financially successful college athletics programs, TV revenue represents an important piece of the financial puzzle, but not the only one or even the most important one. Last year, for instance, Syracuse generated around $90 million in athletic revenue with little subsidy from the school. $25 million of that was TV money, including CFP and NCAA tournament money. Even if this TV money were cut in half (keeping in mind that its TV money was actually less than half of this just 4 years ago), Syracuse would be able to fund an athletic department that would be competitive. It might have to cut a couple of sports, or reduce coaching salaries, but it would still generate more athletic department revenue than almost every school in G5. Schools like Alabama, Michigan and Texas can't even figure out how to spend all of their current TV money. If their TV revenue were reduced, again, they would have to cut back, but they would still have far and away more money than anyone else.