Of course if you cannot see beyond the status quo it seems laughable. You cannot do it overnight. But what you can do is institute a 16 team playoff and autobid all 10 conference champs. Over time that will create more equity, which will eventually close but not eliminate the gap. I also believe it will be a windfall for FBS football as it will make many of the conference championship games play in games (or home field games for round 1).

It's a no brainier that requires the P5 programs and their fans to think long term so it has zero chance of ever ******* happening because all that matters is protecting the godawful status quo where the same 6-8 teams are the only ones who matter every year, because ******* it that is great TV!!!111!!!1

I mean, look at what happened to the basketball tournament when they started letting mid majors in. Total shambles. Hasn't made a dollar since!

(05-28-2017 12:10 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Well a conference minimum is 6 schools so:

FBS conference minimum is eight.

ESPN is making money. There is an interview in another thread with a FOX VP who stated that, while cable subscribers are declining, the cord-cutters typically were not watching sports anyway. He said actual sports viewership is increasing. Ad revenue is increasing along with it.

Broadcast and cable stations are aware of the shift in the distribution model and are making changes to accommodate. Nobody seems to want to add back the viewers that are streaming, etc.

Most of the ESPN cuts are talking heads and programs nobody watches. They can't sell these to advertisers so they get cut. That's a reality across the board, not just at ESPN. ESPN makes headlines because they had so many of them.

(05-28-2017 09:01 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  ESPN is making money. There is an interview in another thread with a FOX VP who stated that, while cable subscribers are declining, the cord-cutters typically were not watching sports anyway. He said actual sports viewership is increasing. Ad revenue is increasing along with it.

Broadcast and cable stations are aware of the shift in the distribution model and are making changes to accommodate. Nobody seems to want to add back the viewers that are streaming, etc.

Most of the ESPN cuts are talking heads and programs nobody watches. They can't sell these to advertisers so they get cut. That's a reality across the board, not just at ESPN. ESPN makes headlines because they had so many of them.

They got rid of the wrong people. Dr. Jerry Punch was one of our favorites on ESPN. The only sports I watch is college football on the ESPN channels, but it is mainly G5 and FCS schools that I watch. Sometimes when a D2 game comes on CBS Sports.

I would watch to see a G5 or FCS to take on a P5, and I always root against the P5 teams.

During the BCS era, I felt that simply reclassifying two bowls as "BCS" and making the payout the payment the BCS was giving the non-AQ solved a lot of concerns.

Adding two bowls to the mix and adding four more conference champs to the mix really isn't anything significant because the two lower paying bowls are going to have the lowest picks and 99.9999999% of the time have their only remaining options be the four G5 champs not taken to the access bowl.

If you are simply injecting a bit more money into the system and allocating it using the same ratio as now, it doesn't cost the P5 a dime and might give them a small increase.

If you are bowl wanting to bid to be part of the top group at the end of the current 12 year contract or when it is renegotiated if done early you have two paths, one making money as a bowl that has a high tie with P5's outside the CFP structure and putting together a better bid that is what several games would likely do. If you are low on the pecking order your hail mary is to take on one of the G5-G5 games do a great job and use the better tv profile to boost your income to a credible bidder.

If you are the Outback/Hall of Fame Bowl or Tax Slayer/Gator Bowl or maybe Holiday then just build what ya got. If you are Las Vegas or Liberty hoping to move up the order then you might be better off being part of the new NY8.

As to voting, there really hasn't been any significant issue where the P5 leagues and G5 have voted differently. When the P5 is split, the G5 usually has a similar split, when the P5 is near unanimous, so is the G5. So practically it makes little difference but it makes no sense to give up voting power because you don't know what tomorrow brings.

(05-28-2017 10:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  During the BCS era, I felt that simply reclassifying two bowls as "BCS" and making the payout the payment the BCS was giving the non-AQ solved a lot of concerns.

Adding two bowls to the mix and adding four more conference champs to the mix really isn't anything significant because the two lower paying bowls are going to have the lowest picks and 99.9999999% of the time have their only remaining options be the four G5 champs not taken to the access bowl.

If you are simply injecting a bit more money into the system and allocating it using the same ratio as now, it doesn't cost the P5 a dime and might give them a small increase.

If you are bowl wanting to bid to be part of the top group at the end of the current 12 year contract or when it is renegotiated if done early you have two paths, one making money as a bowl that has a high tie with P5's outside the CFP structure and putting together a better bid that is what several games would likely do. If you are low on the pecking order your hail mary is to take on one of the G5-G5 games do a great job and use the better tv profile to boost your income to a credible bidder.

If you are the Outback/Hall of Fame Bowl or Tax Slayer/Gator Bowl or maybe Holiday then just build what ya got. If you are Las Vegas or Liberty hoping to move up the order then you might be better off being part of the new NY8.

As to voting, there really hasn't been any significant issue where the P5 leagues and G5 have voted differently. When the P5 is split, the G5 usually has a similar split, when the P5 is near unanimous, so is the G5. So practically it makes little difference but it makes no sense to give up voting power because you don't know what tomorrow brings.

The Cinderella darlings for New Year bowl game is Boise State. The P5 needs to find a way to get them into a P5 conference. That is where a lot of money being left on the table if they keep getting ignored.

(05-27-2017 09:36 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  An idea that I haven't seen expressed on the board but can't the P5/G5 problem be solved by co-opting the G5? Afterall the G5 have a vested interest in the system at this point and if co-opted would vote in the same direction as the P5.

1) Give the G5 the same votes in the autonomy structure as the P5.

2) Create contract slots for the G5 in an expanded CFP structure with super large payouts (60-80 million). Grow the CFP bowls from 6 to 12 to accommodate.

Conference TV deals and overall revenue would still be titled heavily toward the B1G, ACC, PAC, SEC, B12 with no viable threat of the AAC, MAC, MWC, SBC, CUSA cutting into TV. If the AAC ever became that good their teams would surely be picked up by the B12.

Thoughts?

Are you one of "David St's" many personalities?

(05-28-2017 04:47 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-28-2017 10:32 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  During the BCS era, I felt that simply reclassifying two bowls as "BCS" and making the payout the payment the BCS was giving the non-AQ solved a lot of concerns.

Adding two bowls to the mix and adding four more conference champs to the mix really isn't anything significant because the two lower paying bowls are going to have the lowest picks and 99.9999999% of the time have their only remaining options be the four G5 champs not taken to the access bowl.

If you are simply injecting a bit more money into the system and allocating it using the same ratio as now, it doesn't cost the P5 a dime and might give them a small increase.

If you are bowl wanting to bid to be part of the top group at the end of the current 12 year contract or when it is renegotiated if done early you have two paths, one making money as a bowl that has a high tie with P5's outside the CFP structure and putting together a better bid that is what several games would likely do. If you are low on the pecking order your hail mary is to take on one of the G5-G5 games do a great job and use the better tv profile to boost your income to a credible bidder.

If you are the Outback/Hall of Fame Bowl or Tax Slayer/Gator Bowl or maybe Holiday then just build what ya got. If you are Las Vegas or Liberty hoping to move up the order then you might be better off being part of the new NY8.

As to voting, there really hasn't been any significant issue where the P5 leagues and G5 have voted differently. When the P5 is split, the G5 usually has a similar split, when the P5 is near unanimous, so is the G5. So practically it makes little difference but it makes no sense to give up voting power because you don't know what tomorrow brings.

The Cinderella darlings for New Year bowl game is Boise State. The P5 needs to find a way to get them into a P5 conference. That is where a lot of money being left on the table if they keep getting ignored.

Once Boise State were invited to a P5 conference they would cease to be a Cinderella. Whatever mojo they had would be lost. In the last 11 years they have gone to an NY6 bowl game 3 times. If they were in a P5 in the future, they might not get there as often.

(05-28-2017 04:57 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 09:36 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  An idea that I haven't seen expressed on the board but can't the P5/G5 problem be solved by co-opting the G5? Afterall the G5 have a vested interest in the system at this point and if co-opted would vote in the same direction as the P5.

1) Give the G5 the same votes in the autonomy structure as the P5.

2) Create contract slots for the G5 in an expanded CFP structure with super large payouts (60-80 million). Grow the CFP bowls from 6 to 12 to accommodate.

Conference TV deals and overall revenue would still be titled heavily toward the B1G, ACC, PAC, SEC, B12 with no viable threat of the AAC, MAC, MWC, SBC, CUSA cutting into TV. If the AAC ever became that good their teams would surely be picked up by the B12.

Thoughts?

Are you one of "David St's" many personalities?

Though similar, I think they are two different guys....

so 10 conferences with 8 schools each

so P5+ND+
BYU,Cincy,Houston, UConn
USF,UCF, Memphis, SMU
BoiseSt, SDSU, FresnoSt
NM, CSU, Hawaii, UNLV

(05-28-2017 07:49 PM)goofus Wrote:  so 10 conferences with 8 schools each

so P5+ND+
BYU,Cincy,Houston, UConn
USF,UCF, Memphis, SMU
BoiseSt, SDSU, FresnoSt
NM, CSU, Hawaii, UNLV

Throw ECU in for Uconn and we got us a plan!

(05-28-2017 07:49 PM)goofus Wrote:  so 10 conferences with 8 schools each

so P5+ND+
BYU,Cincy,Houston, UConn
USF,UCF, Memphis, SMU
BoiseSt, SDSU, FresnoSt
NM, CSU, Hawaii, UNLV

Don't know about Hawaii, they are talking about dropping football. Wyoming a better fit


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-28-2017 07:49 PM)goofus Wrote:  so 10 conferences with 8 schools each

so P5+ND+
BYU,Cincy,Houston, UConn
USF,UCF, Memphis, SMU
BoiseSt, SDSU, FresnoSt
NM, CSU, Hawaii, UNLV

IMO, the more likely scenario is four conferences with two nine team divisions. Divisional winners are the eight team playoff people have been clammoring for.

(05-28-2017 12:20 AM)Artifice Wrote:  Of course if you cannot see beyond the status quo it seems laughable. You cannot do it overnight. But what you can do is institute a 16 team playoff and autobid all 10 conference champs. Over time that will create more equity, which will eventually close but not eliminate the gap.

Non-power conferences have had an automatic NCAA tournament bid since, well, forever, and yet the gap - in money, status, performance, etc. - between the B1G and MAC, between the Sun Belt and the ACC in basketball is as big as it is in football. So why do you think your football plan would "close the gap"?

(05-27-2017 08:21 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 12:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 09:36 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  An idea that I haven't seen expressed on the board but can't the P5/G5 problem be solved by co-opting the G5? Afterall the G5 have a vested interest in the system at this point and if co-opted would vote in the same direction as the P5.

1) Give the G5 the same votes in the autonomy structure as the P5.

2) Create contract slots for the G5 in an expanded CFP structure with super large payouts (60-80 million). Grow the CFP bowls from 6 to 12 to accommodate.

Do you not recall that during the 2012 CFP negotiations, the AAC's Mike Aresco proposed a "7th BCS Bowl" for the G5, and TV rejected it because it wasn't worth the money to them?

TV isn't willing to pay anything but peanuts for the G5, so if the CFP was expanded to 12 games, it would just be the same amount of money they currently get for 6 games but spread out over 12, pointless.

I do. That was 2012.

This is 2024 or whenever in my scenario.

... and what do you suspect will have changed between 2012 and 2024 to make your idea feasible?

They could go to regional, but still be free to play who you want to play.

Tier 1 Northwest would look like this.
Washington
Washington State
Oregon
Oregon State
Boise State
UNR
Utah
BYU
Eastern Washington

Tier 2
Utah State
Idaho
Portland State
Weber State
Colorado Mesa

Tier 3
Western Oregon
Simon Fraser
Idaho State
Central Washington

Southwest:
California
Stanford
UCLA
USC
San Diego State
Hawaii
Arizona
Arizona State

Tier 2:
Fresno State
Azusa Pacific
UNLV
San Jose State
Northern Arizona

Tier 3:
Humboldt State
Cal.-Davis
Cal. Poly
Sacramento State
Southern Utah
Dixie State

Rocky Mountain:
Tier 1:
Colorado
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico
Wyoming
Montana

Tier 2:
Colorado State-Pueblo
West Texas A&M
UTEP
Montana State

Tier 3:
New Mexico State
Colorado Mines

South Plains:
Tier 1:
Texas
Texas Tech
TCU
Texas A&M
Houston
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Iowa
Missouri
Arkansas
LSU

Tier 2:
Kansas (needs to improve their football team to move back to Tier 1)
Iowa State (same as Kansas)
Tulsa
Rice
SMU
Baylor (Needs to clean up their image)
UTSA
Lamar
Sam Houston State
La. Tech
La.-Lafayette
McNeese State
Midwestern State
Texas A&M-Commerce
Arkansas State
UCA
Northern Iowa

Tier 3:
Texas A&M-Kingsville
Tarleton State
UTPB
SFA
Texas Southern
Prairie View
Central Oklahoma
East Central Oklahoma
SW Oklahoma State
Angelo State
La.-Monroe
Nicholls
SE Louisiana
NW. State, LA.
Grambling
Southern
UAPB
Henderson State
Southern Arkansas
Arkansas Tech
Missouri State
SE Missouri State
Upper Iowa
Missouri Southern
Lindenwood
NW Missouri State

North Plains:
Tier 1:
Nebraska
North Dakota State
South Dakota State
Minnesota
I could move the Kansas and Iowa schools up here.
Iowa
Kansas State
Iowa State
Iowa
Minn. State-Mankato

Tier 2:
North Dakota
South Dakota
Minn.-Duluth
Northern Iowa
Washburn
Emporia State
St. Cloud State

Tier:3
Chadron State
Fort Hays State
Black Hills State
Wayne State
Nebraska-Kearney
Bemidji State
SW. Minnesota State
Drake
Upper Iowa

Etc. Etc.

This could be a if you have a very good record, you get promoted. If you stink so bad, you get demoted. If you have an image problem? You get demoted.

David, one thing is it will never happen, and 2 your tiers are all screwed up. So many of the schools are placed in the wrong tier it would take all day to fix it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(05-29-2017 08:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 08:21 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 12:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 09:36 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  An idea that I haven't seen expressed on the board but can't the P5/G5 problem be solved by co-opting the G5? Afterall the G5 have a vested interest in the system at this point and if co-opted would vote in the same direction as the P5.

1) Give the G5 the same votes in the autonomy structure as the P5.

2) Create contract slots for the G5 in an expanded CFP structure with super large payouts (60-80 million). Grow the CFP bowls from 6 to 12 to accommodate.

Do you not recall that during the 2012 CFP negotiations, the AAC's Mike Aresco proposed a "7th BCS Bowl" for the G5, and TV rejected it because it wasn't worth the money to them?

TV isn't willing to pay anything but peanuts for the G5, so if the CFP was expanded to 12 games, it would just be the same amount of money they currently get for 6 games but spread out over 12, pointless.

I do. That was 2012.

This is 2024 or whenever in my scenario.

... and what do you suspect will have changed between 2012 and 2024 to make your idea feasible?

A shift in TV money between the traditional conference deal and post-season.

You can already see this with CUSA and the SBC. Both are earning a base of $10 million from ESPN, 300k per school for meeting APR, money for sending a team to a CFP bowl, plus revenue sharing on a 5-4-3-2-1 basis depending on how they finish on the season. This is become the primary source of TV money for CUSA/SBC not their conference deal.

Most of the signs are from ESPN that profits to be made on conference deals have likely peaked. The new revenue sources are conference networks or expanded/enhanced post season. Push the CFP to 8, 10, 12 bowls as a potential way to increase revenue.

Evolution of the post season:

BCS/non-BCS (4 championship bowls)-Top 6 non-BCS champ guaranteed.
AQ/non-AQ (5 championship bowls)-Top 12/16 non-AQ champ guarantee.
P5/G5 (6 championship bowls)-Top non-AQ champ guaranteed.

In the 20 year evolution of the post season the number of bowls and access for the non-power group has gradually improved.

Let's say another 6-8 years go by and the MWC/AAC split all of the access bowl slots. What is stopping CFP from elevating the Las Vegas and Houston bowls to CFP status and giving both conferences contract slots? Then the MAC/CUSA/SBC would have the access slot to themselves.

Overall CFP value x2
MWC/AAC $60 million w/ contracts in Las Vegas/Houston
Overall G5 value x2
MAC/CUSA/SBC splitting $150 million (50 million a piece)

Think this is too high? The G5 this year earned between $14 to $22 million per conference. If the overall contract valuation doubled that is $28 to $40 million per year. Take the AAC out of revenue sharing and that doubled value for the MWC, SBC, MAC, CUSA is $35 to $50 million.

OR

Don't give the MWC/AAC contract bowls to keep the money down BUT change the rules so the two highest conference champs receive access bowls. That would make the G5 conference races more exciting with 2 access bowls on the line. This may be better really than a P10 where the championship bowls become watered down.

(05-29-2017 10:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 08:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 08:21 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 12:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 09:36 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  An idea that I haven't seen expressed on the board but can't the P5/G5 problem be solved by co-opting the G5? Afterall the G5 have a vested interest in the system at this point and if co-opted would vote in the same direction as the P5.

1) Give the G5 the same votes in the autonomy structure as the P5.

2) Create contract slots for the G5 in an expanded CFP structure with super large payouts (60-80 million). Grow the CFP bowls from 6 to 12 to accommodate.

Do you not recall that during the 2012 CFP negotiations, the AAC's Mike Aresco proposed a "7th BCS Bowl" for the G5, and TV rejected it because it wasn't worth the money to them?

TV isn't willing to pay anything but peanuts for the G5, so if the CFP was expanded to 12 games, it would just be the same amount of money they currently get for 6 games but spread out over 12, pointless.

I do. That was 2012.

This is 2024 or whenever in my scenario.

... and what do you suspect will have changed between 2012 and 2024 to make your idea feasible?

A shift in TV money between the traditional conference deal and post-season.

You can already see this with CUSA and the SBC. Both are earning a base of $10 million from ESPN, 300k per school for meeting APR, money for sending a team to a CFP bowl, plus revenue sharing on a 5-4-3-2-1 basis depending on how they finish on the season. This is become the primary source of TV money for CUSA/SBC not their conference deal.

Most of the signs are from ESPN that profits to be made on conference deals have likely peaked. The new revenue sources are conference networks or expanded/enhanced post season. Push the CFP to 8, 10, 12 bowls as a potential way to increase revenue.

Evolution of the post season:

BCS/non-BCS (4 championship bowls)-Top 6 non-BCS champ guaranteed.
AQ/non-AQ (5 championship bowls)-Top 12/16 non-AQ champ guarantee.
P5/G5 (6 championship bowls)-Top non-AQ champ guaranteed.

In the 20 year evolution of the post season the number of bowls and access for the non-power group has gradually improved.

Let's say another 6-8 years go by and the MWC/AAC split all of the access bowl slots. What is stopping CFP from elevating the Las Vegas and Houston bowls to CFP status and giving both conferences contract slots? Then the MAC/CUSA/SBC would have the access slot to themselves.

Overall CFP value x2
MWC/AAC $60 million w/ contracts in Las Vegas/Houston
Overall G5 value x2
MAC/CUSA/SBC splitting $150 million (50 million a piece)

Think this is too high? The G5 this year earned between $14 to $22 million per conference. If the overall contract valuation doubled that is $28 to $40 million per year. Take the AAC out of revenue sharing and that doubled value for the MWC, SBC, MAC, CUSA is $35 to $50 million.

OR

Don't give the MWC/AAC contract bowls to keep the money down BUT change the rules so the two highest conference champs receive access bowls. That would make the G5 conference races more exciting with 2 access bowls on the line. This may be better really than a P10 where the championship bowls become watered down.

All of these machinations seem to be predicated on the notion that the goal is to give the G5 a bigger share of the pie at the expense of the P5. I get why you would want that. I get why the G5 would want that. What I don't get is why anybody else would want that.

Nobody is going to volunteer to take money out of their own pocket and give it to someone else. Or is the premise that ESPN can be duped into paying more for less?

(05-29-2017 10:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 10:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-29-2017 08:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 08:21 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 12:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Do you not recall that during the 2012 CFP negotiations, the AAC's Mike Aresco proposed a "7th BCS Bowl" for the G5, and TV rejected it because it wasn't worth the money to them?

TV isn't willing to pay anything but peanuts for the G5, so if the CFP was expanded to 12 games, it would just be the same amount of money they currently get for 6 games but spread out over 12, pointless.

I do. That was 2012.

This is 2024 or whenever in my scenario.

... and what do you suspect will have changed between 2012 and 2024 to make your idea feasible?

A shift in TV money between the traditional conference deal and post-season.

You can already see this with CUSA and the SBC. Both are earning a base of $10 million from ESPN, 300k per school for meeting APR, money for sending a team to a CFP bowl, plus revenue sharing on a 5-4-3-2-1 basis depending on how they finish on the season. This is become the primary source of TV money for CUSA/SBC not their conference deal.

Most of the signs are from ESPN that profits to be made on conference deals have likely peaked. The new revenue sources are conference networks or expanded/enhanced post season. Push the CFP to 8, 10, 12 bowls as a potential way to increase revenue.

Evolution of the post season:

BCS/non-BCS (4 championship bowls)-Top 6 non-BCS champ guaranteed.
AQ/non-AQ (5 championship bowls)-Top 12/16 non-AQ champ guarantee.
P5/G5 (6 championship bowls)-Top non-AQ champ guaranteed.

In the 20 year evolution of the post season the number of bowls and access for the non-power group has gradually improved.

Let's say another 6-8 years go by and the MWC/AAC split all of the access bowl slots. What is stopping CFP from elevating the Las Vegas and Houston bowls to CFP status and giving both conferences contract slots? Then the MAC/CUSA/SBC would have the access slot to themselves.

Overall CFP value x2
MWC/AAC $60 million w/ contracts in Las Vegas/Houston
Overall G5 value x2
MAC/CUSA/SBC splitting $150 million (50 million a piece)

Think this is too high? The G5 this year earned between $14 to $22 million per conference. If the overall contract valuation doubled that is $28 to $40 million per year. Take the AAC out of revenue sharing and that doubled value for the MWC, SBC, MAC, CUSA is $35 to $50 million.

OR

Don't give the MWC/AAC contract bowls to keep the money down BUT change the rules so the two highest conference champs receive access bowls. That would make the G5 conference races more exciting with 2 access bowls on the line. This may be better really than a P10 where the championship bowls become watered down.

All of these machinations seem to be predicated on the notion that the goal is to give the G5 a bigger share of the pie at the expense of the P5. I get why you would want that. I get why the G5 would want that. What I don't get is why anybody else would want that.

Nobody is going to volunteer to take money out of their own pocket and give it to someone else. Or is the premise that ESPN can be duped into paying more for less?

That's not a bigger slice of the pie.

It's the same slice of a larger pie.