(08-25-2022 04:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Most of the arguments about the Wake Forests of the world agreeing to "break the GOR" are essentially based on "FSU/Clemson/Miami/UNC are angry and ESPN LOOOVES the SEC OMG and it can't be possible that the rest of the ACC will let them be angry for the next 14 years, right?" My retort to those arguments is, "You're freaking right that the rest of the ACC will let them be angry for the next 14 years in order to continue being in a power conference and collecting checks." 14 years is an eternity in this world. We keep referring to ESPN controlling everything, yet who knows what ESPN will even look like in 14 years (and I've long been one of the more bullish people about the long-term prospects of ESPN).
First of all, that's a gross oversimplification.
Secondly, you use the worst "most." Meaning there are arguments not based on this principle and you haven't taken so much time to respond to them. Much like you haven't answered a lot of the direct questions I had in some of the other threads pertaining to your knowledge of the current GOR or ESPN contract with the ACC. You ignored them and moved on with life.
All well and good, you don't owe me anything, but it's a bit disingenuous to pretend you've addressed this topic wholesale and that no one's really making a solid argument.
(08-26-2022 09:01 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: Further to my last post about antitrust law, remember that both Greg Sankey and Bob Bowlsby themselves stated that the main reason why they proposed a 6+6 CFP structure as opposed to a 5+1+6 playoff where the P5 received guaranteed auto-bids was they believed the latter would cause legal entanglements. Bowlsby was adamant about this even though the Big 12 arguably would have been the biggest beneficiary of P5 auto-bids of them all, so that's worthy to note as a statement against self-interest.
If they thought that P5 auto-bids were going to cause legal issues where we're not even hinting at a breakaway, it stands to reason that a total breakaway would cause magnitudes more issues based on the antitrust principles that I've outlined.
I've honed in on this because there's really no reason to be repetitive and address every point you and JR went back and forth on. Point being this...
Anti-trust laws can be exempted as any major pro league already possesses. Do we know for certain this isn't on the table should Congress desire to be involved? No, we don't. So this line of arguing is purely speculative. I'll also address the nature of the CFP going forward and why that relates to the old proposal.
I'm going to repeat my post from another thread on this matter because I don't want to retype it:
Quote:There's a variety of reasons why ESPN could be interested in moving on from the current ACC contract.
1. Profit and profit margin are not the same thing. These are more internal numbers that none of us will be privy to, but what will matter is the profitability of whatever entity/entities they create. The current profit margin on the ACC contract is irrelevant if they can make more gains by doing something different.
Spend $300 million and making $600 million is doubling your money, right? Spending $500 million and making $900 million is a lower profit margin, but guess what...it's more money in the bank.
Continuing to argue that ESPN won't dare break its current contract with the ACC because it's too good of a deal is a one-sided perspective. Unless you know what the profitability on the other side is then you don't know for certain it doesn't work. And none of us will actually know these numbers.
2. The SEC's interests are being ignored here. They are competing with the Big Ten for media value and overall hegemony. Now, it's significant that ESPN has gone all-in with the SEC. This means what is good for the SEC is good for ESPN and vice-versa. If the SEC is inherently weaker in the face of the Big Ten because ESPN isn't willing to break their contract then that's an important variable.
3. The interest of several ACC schools are relevant here. There are some ACC schools that can do better and they've now realized the rug got pulled out from under them. It will do them financial harm to wait out a bad contract. Just as important, it will embitter said schools again ESPN. When the contract finally comes up for negotiation, how interested do you think they'll be in re-signing with the very entity that put them in such a poor positions for well over a decade.
Heck, the SEC was dead set against signing with CBS over a less significant matter. The ACC schools that could be genuinely harmed by the maintaining of the current contract will have no reason to forgive. That's why Florida State's own President for heaven's sake is being vocal about it in the here and now.
4. NIL and pay for play will redefine the game. Schools will need more money to pay players which makes the ACC school's situation more dire and makes the SEC's need only grow that much more. Everyone will benefit from the new system where more schools are under the same roof because the same rules can be applied. You can create a compensation structure with 2 leagues a lot easier than you can with 4 or 5.
The networks will benefit from this because A) it will be easier for fans to understand and thus maintain interest and most importantly B) any schools stuck in an inferior economic situation will ultimately produce poorer quality teams and games. So the detriment to the brand will extend into the performance on the field. Consumers aren't dumb...they're already watching the ACC at a lower rate and this dynamic will hurt their watchability tremendously.
All of a sudden, that steal of a contract is less and less valuable over time because it's harder to sell ads regardless of what the schools are getting paid.
5. The playoff issue. I do agree with JR that a new CFP format will help pay for this. It would seem a good point to say...well, if this new playoff is so valuable then why do you need consolidation to pull it off?
For one, the most profitable playoff format is the simplest. Not that there's anything wrong with multiple conferences sending participants, but it's more important to have regions represented, less so individual conferences. The simpler the structure, the simpler it is to craft the participants in a way to represent regions/markets as opposed to leagues. League pride is not universal...especially when some leagues cross multiple regions.
Secondly, it will be 10 times easier to create a playoff format everyone can agree on when there aren't 11 different voices clamoring for individual interests. If there are 2 or 3 parties that need to agree then it just gets done easier. For example, the 6/6 CFP they came up with last year was darn near perfect for everyone involved and it got shot down due to incredible short sightedness on the part of those who thought the Big Ten had the best interest of the game at heart. How did that work out for you?
The Big Ten bought time for their favored media partner to not only fund the raiding of another "alliance" conference, but to stall out the redevelopment of a new CFP contract. Well, now it's every man for himself because the SEC isn't coming to your rescue next time.
Sure, if you're the Big Ten, you're 100% thrilled that ESPN isn't going to own the entire CFP next round. If you're the SEC then perhaps you prefer the opposite, but one thing is for certain...you are absolutely fooling yourselves if you're a PAC 12, Big 12, or ACC school and you think this scenario is better for you. Newsflash...you are a pawn in a game. Your interests are now served by nothing other than getting into the Big Ten or SEC. A CFP divided between multiple media partners isn't one flipping ounce better for you...it's better for the Big Ten and FOX certainly and I don't blame them for wanting it. I blame leaders in the PAC 12 and ACC for being foolish enough not to see the big picture. Your grand prize for all that mistrust and bitterness towards the SEC is effective irrelevance if you don't get hooked up with one of the Power 2. Good luck!
Let's expound on that last issue regarding the CFP.
For one, the next CFP contract does not have to be unanimous. Heck, it doesn't have to exist. The current CFP deal expires after the 2025 season. What's next? We're not sure because the most recent plan, the only one that had a shot of unanimous approval by 11 different entities was shot down.
We can debate why and what the immediate fallout is, but we'll leave that for another time. The important thing is that the dynamics for the next deal will be very different. No working group and no vote needed. Every man for himself. This is why the SEC threatened(and I think it was serious) to conduct their own playoff. I mean, why not? They don't have to share any money with any other league if they don't want to.
It was a bargaining chip, no doubt. The SEC's first plan is definitely not to conduct its own postseason absent any other leagues/regions. They'll make less money that way, but that's why it's a negotiation. You have to have a legitimate starting point upon which you can fall back. For the SEC, this is "we can just do our own." It would be the most profitable and attractive to outside candidates for expansion at that, but I digress.
What the SEC wants is more schools, mostly Southern I think, and they will now negotiate to get them and improve their own lot. Keep in mind that the negotiation for Texas and Oklahoma's inclusion has not occurred. Those schools are still members of the Big 12, but secondly, if ESPN has any eyes on moving ACC schools over then I'm sure they want to conduct these negotiations simultaneously rather than years apart.
One of my key points pertaining to the CFP is that fewer voices are more likely to agree. So let's look at the parties involved.
1. The G5 are effectively one voice. Any playoff expansion is better for them so they have no reason to get into the weeds on this. Any realignment between them is a secondary matter as it doesn't really affect the dynamics for the SEC, Big Ten, or any other Power league.
We all know discussions have taken place for removing FBS from the oversight of the NCAA. That is not lost on me so I don't think they'll be locked out of the postseason or any regular season scheduling...not anytime soon anyway. They are a solid voting bloc because they have purely common interests as it pertains to the CFP and long term survival.
2. The Big Ten and SEC are independent voices, but one thing is for certain. Any playoff system that doesn't get both of them on board is seriously flawed. It wouldn't be as profitable and it wouldn't be taken as seriously by the public.
Whatever happens next must please both of these leagues.
3. Notre Dame will go along with anything that gives them a reasonable opportunity to participate. They're not hard to please.
4. What's left? Basically any Power school that isn't in the Big Ten or SEC. They better get on the same page and quick or they will be left behind by whatever postseason the big boys decide to come up with. It's not just that they have motivation to acquiesce...they need the punch in order to prevent themselves from being excluded. A coalescing into a 3rd Power league will help that case tremendously.
After all, this 3rd league isn't going to get nearly as many of its powers into the CFP as the Big Ten and SEC will. They won't have the Cinderella factor that the G5 will. They'll have no real advantage other than to present their case as a multi-regional conference that deserves the inclusion from the market aspect and from the ability to provide decent fillers. In fact, this 3rd league along with G5 conferences will likely take a smaller cut before we even really get started.
***
In short, here is the premise. Any new and significant money is going to have to come from postseason. Yes, TV contracts will continue to grow for the time being, but the big and untapped potential is in the postseason. But what is most important here is that we need agreement on what that postseason is going to be.
Anti-trust laws have no relevance here. College sports existed without an organized postseason for the vast majority of its existence. It could just as well resort to that system, but they don't want to because there's not nearly as much money in it.
Keep in mind that the old organizing principle was amateurism. Not in play any longer. The new organizing principle is not just money, but how you make it...not just the concept of providing valuable content but the mechanisms by which it is generated. That's postseason play and it will eventually extend into the basketball tournament, but that's a little further down the road. The postseason play structure will drive conferences to make decisions on membership to facilitate. That's where we come full circle.
It can't be auto-bids for a variety of reasons and it has to please important constituencies. So there you go...why expansion for the Big Ten and SEC and why dissolution of the ACC is both economically and politically viable if not necessary.
The new CFP contract does not have to be unanimous much less even exist. The old dynamics are out the window...
/
8-16 Team Playoffs / An Upper Tier of 2 Super Conferences & 1 Compilation Conference
