Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,880
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1
Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.

So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.


Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.

If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.

That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.

And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.

I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.

Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2017 10:42 PM by JRsec.)
07-27-2017 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,010
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-27-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.

So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.


Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.

If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.

That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.

And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.

I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.

Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).

A couple of observations:

(BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).
The only way that Baylor replaces Wake Forest would be if Baylor went to the SEC and South Carolina slid into their spot in the ACC (that is of course if it were Wake Forest's decision to "drop out").

I question the assumption that "the networks" would want to pay $200 million per year to have 4 limited value schools to play in the PAC just to have some semblance of symmetry. Nobody on the east coast watches PAC events now, and are not likely to in the future, especially with those four additions.
07-28-2017 08:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,446
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 152
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #3
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
I could see the networks trying to whittle CFB down to a P4, but I just don't see how they could get equal teams within the remaining conferences. Texas is the only school that adds real value to the PAC. But the Longhorns don't want to go west, moving to the PAC doesn't maximize their value for ESPN.
07-28-2017 09:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 507
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-28-2017 08:08 AM)XLance Wrote:  
(07-27-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.

So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.


Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.

If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.

That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.

And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.

I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.

Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).

A couple of observations:

(BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).
The only way that Baylor replaces Wake Forest would be if Baylor went to the SEC and South Carolina slid into their spot in the ACC (that is of course if it were Wake Forest's decision to "drop out").

I question the assumption that "the networks" would want to pay $200 million per year to have 4 limited value schools to play in the PAC just to have some semblance of symmetry. Nobody on the east coast watches PAC events now, and are not likely to in the future, especially with those four additions.

If it is left to 64 then Baylor is definitely the one on the outside looking in. Wake Forest, while not a power school outside of being grandfathered in. There a few of those lucky ones.
07-28-2017 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,779
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
Between increasing the number of Power vs Power match-ups during the regular season and expanding the playoff, there's not much left in the way of innovation for the networks to make additional money. So I think it's reasonable that realignment will be based around these 2 goals.

I still think ESPN holds an edge though because of the quality of their platform. FOX, in a way, is just piggybacking off the industry that ESPN built and in so doing is getting their slice of the pie.

I'm not sure the CCGs will be going away, but let's also consider that if they do then we get an extra week of the season to spread out the games. That may affect the way the scheduling model is generated.

A few things to keep in mind, Slive thinks we're going to really, really large conferences in the next move. He's probably got a good feel for what's going to happen assuming even he's not still in the loop which he may very well be despite not having actual authority. If we do move to even larger leagues then I think getting rid of the CCGs will be very hard because there's no real way to determine a champion and to my knowledge there's no NCAA sport where conferences don't determine champions through some sort of postseason event.

Let me offer another reason why it might actually work better for the networks to keep CCGs for Power leagues even if we get an expanded playoff.

Regardless of who goes where, let's say the idea of adding the preseason game against G5s or FCS schools comes to fruition. Let's say that occurs the last week of August so as not to interfere with the current numbers of weeks allotted for the schedule.

Week Zero: Preseason game against G5 or FCS: Games do not count towards overall record, but provide an extra home game.

Weeks 1-4: 64-72 teams playing equals 32-36 games spread across all the platforms each week

Let's theorize that each network can show 3 games per day without having to worry about overlapping game times...assuming 3 and half hours per game with a little time in between for talking heads. ABC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, FOX, FS1, BTN, PACN. Allowances are made for CBS to show their customary 1-2 games. If all of these networks are showing games all day then that's 31 time slots and sometimes 32 if CBS gets a double header. So we can go ahead and assume at least one of these networks will show a 4th game, a late West Coast game I'm guessing, on a regular basis. 32 is about all we have room for while keeping the start times reasonable unless another platform is utilized. If everyone has 18 teams then we've got 36 games a week so maybe that's far-fetched if for no more reason than there's really nowhere to put them unless the networks fork over enough to add a platform.

Weeks 5-9: BYEs are scheduled during this block. Everybody gets one so that reduces the number of games available each week

Weeks 10-13: 32-36 games each week

Week 14: CCGs and first round of G5 playoff

Starting the G5 Playoff the same week as the CCGs will do 2 things, it will allow for the networks to schedule the G5 playoff ahead of the CFP so as to have time to get all the games in and not have the events overlap. Instead of a 2-3 week break for major college football like we've got now, the networks will have some interesting inventory for thirsty fans. It's also an opportunity to keep the fans plugged in and use every chance to plug not only the CFP but more bowl games. I don't think we should underestimate the value of cross marketing there.

Why does keeping the CCGs allow for a more robust lineup? Because if you stay with Week 14 being just the final week of the season and likely a week for rivalry games then you'll have a full slate and take away from the opportunity to plug the G5 playoff. Use the CCGs for headliners that weekend while the break in the schedule for everyone else will offer plenty of time to make hay over the big G5 games. The G5 playoff is potentially a big money maker during an otherwise low point in the season.

Week 15: Power schools take break while G5s go 2nd round

Week 16: G5s perhaps have their championship game because I'm assuming there'll be at least 8 teams involved and probably more for the sake of inventory.

Week 17: We're right around Christmas now. Bowl season begins and is anchored by the 1st round of an 8 team CFP.

Week 18: New Year's week contains more bowl games and CFP's 2nd semi-finals.

Week 19: National Championship game and possibly a few mop-up bowls. So we're ending the season in the same week we're ending it now.
07-28-2017 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,010
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
Is the California law going to create problems for OOC games with schools in Kansas, Texas, and North Carolina?
07-28-2017 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
murrdcu Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,294
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation: 67
I Root For: Arkansas
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-27-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.

So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.


Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.

If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.

That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.

And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.

I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.

Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).

So in this scenario the networks are pushing for consolidation and a standardized scheduling agreement within the power conferences. So they basically want higher ratings and better matchups that fans will watch. I'm just going to post this about the number of fans being brought into the conference since that is the main decider on which game someone watches.

Using the 2011 NYT's number of fans statistics, https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...ent-chaos/ , the only two B12 teams that beat the SEC medium in number s of actual fans are Texas 2.25M and OU 1.2M; sec medium 1.09M. The remaining B12 candidates would fall into the bottom quarter of the conference as such:
Ark 0.99M
WVU 0.96
UK = Tech 0.91M
Ole 0.6M
OSU 0.72
MSU 0.55
ISU 0.54
V .38M

Assuming Loften wrote that the Gentlemen's agreement is real, Texas is off the board so the SEC would have to target OU or remain at 14. As the remaining schools don't add a significant football fan base, or matchup/content multipliers to push the desire to expand this conference.
07-28-2017 05:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,880
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-28-2017 05:46 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  
(07-27-2017 05:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What might we really be looking at if we consider for a moment the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, and Big 10. And then seriously consider the moves that would augment the SEC, ACC, Big 10, and PAC. If we are indeed trying to move toward more standardization in conference scheduling and either the expansion of the CFP or in moving to a champs only model for the P conferences.

So let's assume that the following network preferences are in place:
1. They want to maximize cross conference rivals (Texas in the SEC/Oklahoma in the Big 10 or vice versa).
2. They want to add states to existing conference footprints (perhaps Iowa to the SEC)
3. They are looking to place 9 of the Big 12 schools so that there is a symmetrical 4 x 16
4. They want to keep semblance of balance in the process
5. The schedules of each conference will be 9 conference games and 1 game OOC against each of the other P4 conferences.
6. They are going to try to avoid having two OOC rivals in the same conference. (In other words the division of Big 12 schools should not leave a school having to play 2 from the Big 10 to keep traditional rivals. So for Oklahoma their rivals Texas and Oklahoma state cannot be in the same conference.)
7. There will be no independents when these final moves are over.


Let's say that the Big 10 is truly interested in Kansas and Oklahoma. Would it not make sense then for ESPN to land the prize they want to keep and Texas would come our way. If we are looking at new markets then the largest two left would be Oklahoma with a lesser brand O.S.U. (3.9 million) or Iowa State (Iowa's population is 3.3 million). With O.S.U. you do get a slice of DFW, but with Texas it's not necessary to make that move. Iowa State is AAU and brings some larger Northern cities into play for the SEC.

If the Big 10 opts for Texas and Kansas, would the SEC entertain Oklahoma and Iowa State? I don't see that happening however for this reason. If the networks are trying to move us into a world where we might have 9 conference games and play 1 OOC game against each of the other P4 conferences that having Nebraska with Oklahoma makes sense and having Texas with A&M makes sense.

That way Oklahoma is positioned to play Texas OOC for their game against the SEC.

And if the PAC were payed enough to take Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and T.CU. then Oklahoma plays Oklahoma State as their PAC game. Kansas plays Missouri as their SEC game and plays KState as their PAC game. Iowa plays Iowa State as their SEC game. Texas plays OU as their Big 10 game and can play either Tech or T.C.U. as their PAC game. A&M could play the other as their PAC game. And nobody has to duplicate without gaining a huge national brand.

I am of course assuming that West Virginia heads to the ACC and Notre Dame because of the coming structure, scheduling, and playoff implications would have to go all in.

Anyway it is a different way of looking at it. The question I would have is given this constraint how would you see a viable division of the Big 12. (BTW Baylor is out unless for some reason they replace Wake Forest).

So in this scenario the networks are pushing for consolidation and a standardized scheduling agreement within the power conferences. So they basically want higher ratings and better matchups that fans will watch. I'm just going to post this about the number of fans being brought into the conference since that is the main decider on which game someone watches.

Using the 2011 NYT's number of fans statistics, https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...ent-chaos/ , the only two B12 teams that beat the SEC medium in number s of actual fans are Texas 2.25M and OU 1.2M; sec medium 1.09M. The remaining B12 candidates would fall into the bottom quarter of the conference as such:
Ark 0.99M
WVU 0.96
UK = Tech 0.91M
Ole 0.6M
OSU 0.72
MSU 0.55
ISU 0.54
V .38M

Assuming Loften wrote that the Gentlemen's agreement is real, Texas is off the board so the SEC would have to target OU or remain at 14. As the remaining schools don't add a significant football fan base, or matchup/content multipliers to push the desire to expand this conference.

Loften was playing to the home crowd using the slight bias of the cable footprint model as his justification. The gentlemen's agreement is hooey. Had ESPN not stepped in 3 days after they announced Clemson and Florida State to the SEC on their crawler because N.D. refused to join the ACC as a partial if the football first schools were not still there, the whole damned myth would have been publicly put down at that time.

What I suggest here is quite different. I am suggesting that the schools would be placed to optimize the quality of their OOC rival games. It is why I suggested Texas and Kansas to the Big 10 and Oklahoma and Iowa State to the SEC. But Oklahoma and West Virginia would work as well based on your metrics. Cincinnati and Notre Dame would still work for the ACC.

Can anyone truly hurt the PAC's revenue and viewing numbers? Texas Tech and T.C.U. would give them markets. And two more would give them an Eastern half division. Either way those would tie into the members placed in the Southeast and Midwest for those cross conference rivalry games and it would put them in the CTZ for more exposure during the midday Saturday time slot.
07-28-2017 06:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,779
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 71
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
Question...

If consolidation of conferences means the networks end up paying out more money then are they really interested in doing as much consolidation as possible? Is it purely about constructing a system that maximizes the usefulness of a playoff and therefore the entertainment value of the "league" as a whole?

Is the investment in the system worth the return in other words?

While the networks surely don't want to pay a larger number of schools than what is necessary(and perhaps that's where the savings are), is it possible they'd prefer more than 4 leagues? Especially given the lack of quality product in the current Big 12 that would make expansion for the other Power leagues profitable?

Let me present this...

SEC adds Texas and West Virginia

B1G adds Oklahoma and Kansas

ACC adds Notre Dame and Cincinnati

PAC stays at 12

A 5th league forms from Big 12, Mountain West, and American pieces. This gives the networks decent content at a bargain price while also dividing up content in such a way that the leagues themselves don't consolidate too much power.

The playoff expands to 8 with 5 auto-bids and 3 at-large selections.

The result is the Power vs Power schedule does have some degree of relief to it with the weaker Power league taking the brunt while simultaneously being given a seat at the table for their champion.

The entire Big 12 gets in the club with a few extras.
07-30-2017 09:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 13,880
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 700
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Let's Assume that the Final Phase in Realignment Is About the CFP
(07-30-2017 09:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Question...

If consolidation of conferences means the networks end up paying out more money then are they really interested in doing as much consolidation as possible? Is it purely about constructing a system that maximizes the usefulness of a playoff and therefore the entertainment value of the "league" as a whole?

Is the investment in the system worth the return in other words?

While the networks surely don't want to pay a larger number of schools than what is necessary(and perhaps that's where the savings are), is it possible they'd prefer more than 4 leagues? Especially given the lack of quality product in the current Big 12 that would make expansion for the other Power leagues profitable?

Let me present this...

SEC adds Texas and West Virginia

B1G adds Oklahoma and Kansas

ACC adds Notre Dame and Cincinnati

PAC stays at 12

A 5th league forms from Big 12, Mountain West, and American pieces. This gives the networks decent content at a bargain price while also dividing up content in such a way that the leagues themselves don't consolidate too much power.

The playoff expands to 8 with 5 auto-bids and 3 at-large selections.

The result is the Power vs Power schedule does have some degree of relief to it with the weaker Power league taking the brunt while simultaneously being given a seat at the table for their champion.

The entire Big 12 gets in the club with a few extras.

First, the AAC gets roughly 2 million per school for its TV rights. The Old Big East earned much more. Could it be that the what the G conferences have lost in revenue the P conferences have made? And it could it be that the extra amount in our raises has been generated by content? I think both answers are, "yes".

Secondly, did I not suggest that the remnants of the Big 12 would be rolled over into the AAC (fully ESPN owned) and that the exit fees would provide them with a nice nest egg? And did I not suggest that the AAC would be elevated to a P status, but one that did not earn as much as the other 4, but earned more than the 2 million a year that they get now?

Thirdly, I have no doubt but what the networks have a final number of schools in mind. It could be 60, 64, or 72. But, whatever the number they will want a structure that would be guaranteed to engage all 4 regions of the country through the semifinals of the CFP. This would be optimum for generating advertising revenue.

Therefore I don't see much difference in a 4 x 15, 4 x 16, or a 4 x 18 as far as the structure goes. It does not even have to be symmetrical. we could have 3 conferences of 16 and a conference of 12 or 14 and be just fine.

Just 20 years ago we had 6 power conferences where every conference was making n the 20's roughly. Now we could have 4 conferences where the payout is 50 million in 2 of them and 35 million in the other two. But the rich are richer and the poor are making less. By design? Probably. I think in the end this divide will lead to a G5 playoff structure and then the P4 will by necessity become exclusive.

As far as pairings go I would suggest that West Virginia will indeed head to the ACC and the Big 10 and SEC would account for 4 more Big 12 schools for a total of 5.

If the PAC want's a Texas presence maybe they place 7. If not the remaining 5 would head to the AAC, or possibly as you suggest take the best of the AAC and form a new Big 12 conference.
(This post was last modified: 07-30-2017 10:30 PM by JRsec.)
07-30-2017 10:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.