http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...gs-triumph
Obviously, the ratings for the championship game aren't in yet, but ESPN will end up paying significantly more per viewer than they did under the BCS. The business model is to pass along the costs through cable subscriber fees, but at some point, even ESPN has a limit of what they are willing to pay and what they could reasonably charge viewers. Playoffs won't expand unless ESPN puts up the money to pay for it, and I'm wondering if they'd even be interested at this point considering how much it's costing them.
(01-10-2015 06:45 PM)prp Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...gs-triumph
Obviously, the ratings for the championship game aren't in yet, but ESPN will end up paying significantly more per viewer than they did under the BCS. The business model is to pass along the costs through cable subscriber fees, but at some point, even ESPN has a limit of what they are willing to pay and what they could reasonably charge viewers. Playoffs won't expand unless ESPN puts up the money to pay for it, and I'm wondering if they'd even be interested at this point considering how much it's costing them.
Just pump priming .
As I have said, the playoffs wont expand until the final realignment shift is completed. After that happens there will be conference tournaments and ESPN can pay less for those and get top end ratings. After that then they might expand the playoffs to six teams. The cost for expanding to that point wont be as bad as expanding to 8 teams as is the popular talking point. That will contain the four major champions, the AAC champion and one more wild card. Anything more than that is overkill.
With the success of Top 4 without guaranteed bids, I would not be remotely surprised if expansion to 8 provided zero guaranteed bids. If there are guaranteed bids, the AAC will not get one.
If the conferences are coordinating with the networks on expansion, the networks may prefer playoff expansion to conference expansion--larger conferences mean less leverage for ESPN, so ESPN might be willing to offer a huge paycheck for playoff expansion with hopes of slowing conference expansion.
(01-10-2015 06:45 PM)prp Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...gs-triumph
Obviously, the ratings for the championship game aren't in yet, but ESPN will end up paying significantly more per viewer than they did under the BCS. The business model is to pass along the costs through cable subscriber fees, but at some point, even ESPN has a limit of what they are willing to pay and what they could reasonably charge viewers. Playoffs won't expand unless ESPN puts up the money to pay for it, and I'm wondering if they'd even be interested at this point considering how much it's costing them.
A per viewer cost isn't going to determine profitability, though, because ad rates are *not* linear. Instead, ad rates rise exponentially for programs that draw huge audiences with extra premiums since there are so few programs like that on TV anymore. So, ESPN can charge 3 or 4 times as much for ads for a 15 million viewer program compared to a 7.5 million viewer program (not just twice as much). Audiences like that are *very* scarce today, so there's huge ad demand for them from companies launching new products and/or new ad campaigns (plus all of the blockbuster movies coming this summer).
Dollars per viewer is a dumb metric. ESPN isn't thinking that way.
They're acquiring as much must-see live programming as they can, because they want ESPN (on all of its platforms) to continue to be indispensable to sports fans. It's that "indispensability" (if that's even a word) that gives them the leverage to charge cable/satellite companies so much for ESPN channels.
The last few sentences of that article admit this, and this really is the point here:
Quote:No matter how viewers are getting their video programming a decade from now, they will have to come to ESPN if they want live sports. And one way or another, they will have to pay because ESPN already has.
(01-10-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]... After that then they might expand the playoffs to six teams. The cost for expanding to that point wont be as bad as expanding to 8 teams as is the popular talking point. ...
Cost is relative to benefit ... the incremental cost of going from four to six is greater than the incremental cost of going from six to eight.
Quote: Anything more than that is overkill.
Its an entertainment industry. Saying that going to eight would be going over the edge of overkill is next best thing to an ironclad prediction that they will go to eight.
(01-11-2015 09:44 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2015 06:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]... After that then they might expand the playoffs to six teams. The cost for expanding to that point wont be as bad as expanding to 8 teams as is the popular talking point. ...
Cost is relative to benefit ... the incremental cost of going from four to six is greater than the incremental cost of going from six to eight.
I disagree. The cost is the same for each increase but the difference is the return and that is what could be graphed as a downward trend. As you go down the rankings, generally speaking, the less enticing the program is for advertising. That is the projection anyway.
I think you just made up that little statement Bruce.
(01-10-2015 06:45 PM)prp Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...gs-triumph
Obviously, the ratings for the championship game aren't in yet, but ESPN will end up paying significantly more per viewer than they did under the BCS. The business model is to pass along the costs through cable subscriber fees, but at some point, even ESPN has a limit of what they are willing to pay and what they could reasonably charge viewers. Playoffs won't expand unless ESPN puts up the money to pay for it, and I'm wondering if they'd even be interested at this point considering how much it's costing them.
This isn't even close to their limit. Even the article you linked mentions that they are only paying about 2/3 for each "New Year's Six" viewer as they are for their Monday Night NFL contract.
(01-11-2015 11:03 AM)krup Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2015 06:45 PM)prp Wrote: [ -> ]http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...gs-triumph
Obviously, the ratings for the championship game aren't in yet, but ESPN will end up paying significantly more per viewer than they did under the BCS. The business model is to pass along the costs through cable subscriber fees, but at some point, even ESPN has a limit of what they are willing to pay and what they could reasonably charge viewers. Playoffs won't expand unless ESPN puts up the money to pay for it, and I'm wondering if they'd even be interested at this point considering how much it's costing them.
This isn't even close to their limit. Even the article you linked mentions that they are only paying about 2/3 for each "New Year's Six" viewer as they are for their Monday Night NFL contract.
In reality getting a piece of the NFL Playoffs is much more important to ESPN then what they are paying for the New Year Six and the cost shows as much.
If the viewership for the playoffs is far out-stripping those of the old BCS games, as is my understanding, there is no question that ESPN is going to expand the playoffs to 8 teams at a minimum and soon. Why wouldn't they? They'll just pass that cost right on to their advertisers/consumers.
This is not a complicated concept, guys. The difficult part was getting the playoff instituted in the first place. Now that it is in place, and is obviously very popular (based on the early results), expansion of it is only a matter of time and money.
There are some logistical challenges to be worked out to be sure, but where there is a will there is away.
Also, I don't think the four superconference model will ever happen. It just assumes that everything is going to break down into nice, neat, tidy groupings and there is nothing in the history of college football that tells me that is realistic. In fact, all of the historical data conclusively tells me that it is wildly unrealistic.
I think next year another league or two is going to get screwed out of the Football Four. It is practically inevitable. Once that happens enough times, you can bet that the leagues will get together and craft a system that guarantees that will not happen again going forward.
Also, you may see a situation where the conference championship games escalate dramatically in value as they serve as the de facto first round of the playoffs. And the beauty is that would be a keep what you kill concept. That is leagues like the Big Ten and SEC don't have to share any of that first round money with some of their junior partners.
I think the eight team model with guaranteed bids to each of the P5 leagues and three at large schools is definitely going to happen. It is only a matter of when and how they choose to address some of the logistical hurdles.
One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is there is no way in hell all of those greedy bastards are going to leave that much money on the table and stick with the current four team concept. That is extremely unlikely, IMO.
We agree more than we disagree it seems Doc. I realize the scenario I hold on to for future realignment is quite complex, I would say it is feasible for the same reason and your reason why there is no way that we don't see the college playoff expand. It comes down to money and I do believe my prognosis follows the same principle successfully.
I do think it is inevitable for the playoff to expand and I think it will happen sooner rather than later. You are pretty close to being 100% right on in terms of the Major Conferences attempting to make their own conference championships become a stronger part of the Playoff drama. The value suddenly being attached to the Playoff in Marketing terms basically defines for us that the conferences will do this. That is because the only true religion of this country is money. It is the only thing you can depend upon thus it is the only thing that you can honestly predict.
Conference Championships will become Tournaments so they also get two weeks for their conferences to have that extra attention paid to their conference post seasons.
(01-12-2015 11:07 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]If the viewership for the playoffs is far out-stripping those of the old BCS games, as is my understanding, there is no question that ESPN is going to expand the playoffs to 8 teams at a minimum and soon. Why wouldn't they? They'll just pass that cost right on to their advertisers/consumers.
This is not a complicated concept, guys. The difficult part was getting the playoff instituted in the first place. Now that it is in place, and is obviously very popular (based on the early results), expansion of it is only a matter of time and money.
There are some logistical challenges to be worked out to be sure, but where there is a will there is away.
Also, I don't think the four superconference model will ever happen. It just assumes that everything is going to break down into nice, neat, tidy groupings and there is nothing in the history of college football that tells me that is realistic. In fact, all of the historical data conclusively tells me that it is wildly unrealistic.
I think next year another league or two is going to get screwed out of the Football Four. It is practically inevitable. Once that happens enough times, you can bet that the leagues will get together and craft a system that guarantees that will not happen again going forward.
Also, you may see a situation where the conference championship games escalate dramatically in value as they serve as the de facto first round of the playoffs. And the beauty is that would be a keep what you kill concept. That is leagues like the Big Ten and SEC don't have to share any of that first round money with some of their junior partners.
I think the eight team model with guaranteed bids to each of the P5 leagues and three at large schools is definitely going to happen. It is only a matter of when and how they choose to address some of the logistical hurdles.
One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is there is no way in hell all of those greedy bastards are going to leave that much money on the table and stick with the current four team concept. That is extremely unlikely, IMO.
Totally agree and those are exactly my thoughts on both the future value of conference championship games and why the P5 want/need auto-bids to an 8-team playoff. That's the long-term end game with the highest revenue maximization for the powers that be. (Anything beyond 8 would cause diminishing returns for the P5 since that is where you'd see severe undercutting of the financial values of the regular season and conference championship games.) I don't think realignment is directly tied with the playoff (although realignment could certainly still occur, namely with Big 12 expansion).
(01-12-2015 05:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2015 11:07 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]If the viewership for the playoffs is far out-stripping those of the old BCS games, as is my understanding, there is no question that ESPN is going to expand the playoffs to 8 teams at a minimum and soon. Why wouldn't they? They'll just pass that cost right on to their advertisers/consumers.
This is not a complicated concept, guys. The difficult part was getting the playoff instituted in the first place. Now that it is in place, and is obviously very popular (based on the early results), expansion of it is only a matter of time and money.
There are some logistical challenges to be worked out to be sure, but where there is a will there is away.
Also, I don't think the four superconference model will ever happen. It just assumes that everything is going to break down into nice, neat, tidy groupings and there is nothing in the history of college football that tells me that is realistic. In fact, all of the historical data conclusively tells me that it is wildly unrealistic.
I think next year another league or two is going to get screwed out of the Football Four. It is practically inevitable. Once that happens enough times, you can bet that the leagues will get together and craft a system that guarantees that will not happen again going forward.
Also, you may see a situation where the conference championship games escalate dramatically in value as they serve as the de facto first round of the playoffs. And the beauty is that would be a keep what you kill concept. That is leagues like the Big Ten and SEC don't have to share any of that first round money with some of their junior partners.
I think the eight team model with guaranteed bids to each of the P5 leagues and three at large schools is definitely going to happen. It is only a matter of when and how they choose to address some of the logistical hurdles.
One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is there is no way in hell all of those greedy bastards are going to leave that much money on the table and stick with the current four team concept. That is extremely unlikely, IMO.
Totally agree and those are exactly my thoughts on both the future value of conference championship games and why the P5 want/need auto-bids to an 8-team playoff. That's the long-term end game with the highest revenue maximization for the powers that be. (Anything beyond 8 would cause diminishing returns for the P5 since that is where you'd see severe undercutting of the financial values of the regular season and conference championship games.) I don't think realignment is directly tied with the playoff (although realignment could certainly still occur, namely with Big 12 expansion).
Its also conceivable that the Rose, Sugar and Orange money is kept by the P5 "contract" conference with those as quarterfinals. So the Big 10 and Pac 12 would get all the Rose, the Big 12 and SEC all the Sugar and the ACC their half of the Orange $.
(01-12-2015 11:07 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]If the viewership for the playoffs is far out-stripping those of the old BCS games, as is my understanding, there is no question that ESPN is going to expand the playoffs to 8 teams at a minimum and soon. Why wouldn't they? They'll just pass that cost right on to their advertisers/consumers.
This is not a complicated concept, guys. The difficult part was getting the playoff instituted in the first place. Now that it is in place, and is obviously very popular (based on the early results), expansion of it is only a matter of time and money.
There are some logistical challenges to be worked out to be sure, but where there is a will there is away.
Also, I don't think the four superconference model will ever happen. It just assumes that everything is going to break down into nice, neat, tidy groupings and there is nothing in the history of college football that tells me that is realistic. In fact, all of the historical data conclusively tells me that it is wildly unrealistic.
I think next year another league or two is going to get screwed out of the Football Four. It is practically inevitable. Once that happens enough times, you can bet that the leagues will get together and craft a system that guarantees that will not happen again going forward.
Also, you may see a situation where the conference championship games escalate dramatically in value as they serve as the de facto first round of the playoffs. And the beauty is that would be a keep what you kill concept. That is leagues like the Big Ten and SEC don't have to share any of that first round money with some of their junior partners.
I think the eight team model with guaranteed bids to each of the P5 leagues and three at large schools is definitely going to happen. It is only a matter of when and how they choose to address some of the logistical hurdles.
One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is there is no way in hell all of those greedy bastards are going to leave that much money on the table and stick with the current four team concept. That is extremely unlikely, IMO.
I think 8 will happen, but the logistical challenges are not minor.
1. You either have to have a) quarterfinals before Christmas or b) on New Year's Day.
a) has 8 teams playing near finals and it probably has to be at a home field. That likely means the 4 losers don't get a bowl, losing that benefit and also depleting the caliber of the potential bowl teams. (personally I think the bowls are leeches on the universities and this doesn't give me any heartburn, but some people care-as for finals, Division I-AA, II and III all play at that time)
b) means you have to find a time to play the semi-finals without conflicting with the NFL playoffs. It also goes into the 2nd semester (which I think is a VERY minor concern-more of an excuse, but it is mentioned frequently by the presidents). Also important, you have 3 weeks of traveling as home sites in January probably don't work as the northern stadiums have been winterized and the weather may be very inclement anyway.
(01-12-2015 05:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2015 11:07 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: [ -> ]If the viewership for the playoffs is far out-stripping those of the old BCS games, as is my understanding, there is no question that ESPN is going to expand the playoffs to 8 teams at a minimum and soon. Why wouldn't they? They'll just pass that cost right on to their advertisers/consumers.
This is not a complicated concept, guys. The difficult part was getting the playoff instituted in the first place. Now that it is in place, and is obviously very popular (based on the early results), expansion of it is only a matter of time and money.
There are some logistical challenges to be worked out to be sure, but where there is a will there is away.
Also, I don't think the four superconference model will ever happen. It just assumes that everything is going to break down into nice, neat, tidy groupings and there is nothing in the history of college football that tells me that is realistic. In fact, all of the historical data conclusively tells me that it is wildly unrealistic.
I think next year another league or two is going to get screwed out of the Football Four. It is practically inevitable. Once that happens enough times, you can bet that the leagues will get together and craft a system that guarantees that will not happen again going forward.
Also, you may see a situation where the conference championship games escalate dramatically in value as they serve as the de facto first round of the playoffs. And the beauty is that would be a keep what you kill concept. That is leagues like the Big Ten and SEC don't have to share any of that first round money with some of their junior partners.
I think the eight team model with guaranteed bids to each of the P5 leagues and three at large schools is definitely going to happen. It is only a matter of when and how they choose to address some of the logistical hurdles.
One thing I can tell you with absolute certainty is there is no way in hell all of those greedy bastards are going to leave that much money on the table and stick with the current four team concept. That is extremely unlikely, IMO.
Totally agree and those are exactly my thoughts on both the future value of conference championship games and why the P5 want/need auto-bids to an 8-team playoff. That's the long-term end game with the highest revenue maximization for the powers that be. (Anything beyond 8 would cause diminishing returns for the P5 since that is where you'd see severe undercutting of the financial values of the regular season and conference championship games.) I don't think realignment is directly tied with the playoff (although realignment could certainly still occur, namely with Big 12 expansion).
Sorry Frank but you are wrong again. The Big 12 isn't going to expand again. What happened this year was mathematically predictable before it ever happened. Why? Because everything went right. That means everyone that could win themselves in actually did. That is the worst case scenario for the Big 12 and we all knew that ahead of time.
There is actually Nothing new in regards to variables to affect the Big 12 expansion equation. The money isn't there for it, the interest isn't there for it. The divisional problem still exists which is why they will support the ACC divisional rule. Even if they cant get it for 10 teams, they would accept the no divisional rule for 12 teams as well. That right there would be the first NEW variable. That could be enough to cause the big 12 to expand. Until those rules are passed though, there will be Zero expansion by the Big 12.
That is why the other conferences wont allow it. Yes, they can get the votes to block it, easily. That is why all the talk now is that this might pop up 3-6 months from now. They all know there is no chance in hell that it passes anytime soon after this playoff and the circumstances that led to these four teams and their conferences being represented.
I agree we eventually go to 8, but it won't happen any time soon. Contracts are in place. Same with B10 expanding, TV deal locked in, they are not adding any schools. $$$ talks and the $$$ is locked in where they are.
8 teams in the CFP is about right for the next 25 years or more IMHO
(01-12-2015 06:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry Frank but you are wrong again. The Big 12 isn't going to expand again. What happened this year was mathematically predictable before it ever happened. Why? Because everything went right. That means everyone that could win themselves in actually did. That is the worst case scenario for the Big 12 and we all knew that ahead of time.
There is actually Nothing new in regards to variables to affect the Big 12 expansion equation. The money isn't there for it, the interest isn't there for it. The divisional problem still exists which is why they will support the ACC divisional rule. Even if they cant get it for 10 teams, they would accept the no divisional rule for 12 teams as well. That right there would be the first NEW variable. That could be enough to cause the big 12 to expand. Until those rules are passed though, there will be Zero expansion by the Big 12.
That is why the other conferences wont allow it. Yes, they can get the votes to block it, easily. That is why all the talk now is that this might pop up 3-6 months from now. They all know there is no chance in hell that it passes anytime soon after this playoff and the circumstances that led to these four teams and their conferences being represented.
I don't think that we're disagreeing much here. I've long said that the playoff is a red herring when it comes to Big 12 expansion. Whether expansion and the addition of a conference championship game will make enough money for the Big 12 is the real issue (and isn't tied to the playoff). All I'm saying is that when we're looking at power conference realignment, the Big 12 is a much better bet to move next to expand to 12 than any of the other power leagues heading to 16 any time soon (which isn't exactly a radical observation).
The only disagreement that I have is the viability of the elimination of the divisional requirement - I think that has a good chance of passing. You appear to be a purveyor of the notion that we'll have 16-team superconferences. If that's the case, then the Big Ten and SEC will *want* the flexibility to not have a divisional requirement going forward (as that will allow for large expansion while protecting a lot of rivalries and provide outlets for lots of different scheduling permutations). I don't think the Big Ten and SEC really care that much about the divisional requirement (and in fact, the Big Ten is more suited to eliminating divisions and just having everyone have 3 or 4 protected rivals each and then rotate the other opponents). However, I *do* think that they care about the 12-team minimum. On that issue, they're definitely not going to let the Big 12 get away with having a championship game with only 10 schools. The Big Ten and Pac-12 both took short-term revenue hits in order to expand and get conference championship games, so the Big 12 isn't going to get that benefit.
(01-13-2015 11:52 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (01-12-2015 06:56 PM)He1nousOne Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry Frank but you are wrong again. The Big 12 isn't going to expand again. What happened this year was mathematically predictable before it ever happened. Why? Because everything went right. That means everyone that could win themselves in actually did. That is the worst case scenario for the Big 12 and we all knew that ahead of time.
There is actually Nothing new in regards to variables to affect the Big 12 expansion equation. The money isn't there for it, the interest isn't there for it. The divisional problem still exists which is why they will support the ACC divisional rule. Even if they cant get it for 10 teams, they would accept the no divisional rule for 12 teams as well. That right there would be the first NEW variable. That could be enough to cause the big 12 to expand. Until those rules are passed though, there will be Zero expansion by the Big 12.
That is why the other conferences wont allow it. Yes, they can get the votes to block it, easily. That is why all the talk now is that this might pop up 3-6 months from now. They all know there is no chance in hell that it passes anytime soon after this playoff and the circumstances that led to these four teams and their conferences being represented.
I don't think that we're disagreeing much here. I've long said that the playoff is a red herring when it comes to Big 12 expansion. Whether expansion and the addition of a conference championship game will make enough money for the Big 12 is the real issue (and isn't tied to the playoff). All I'm saying is that when we're looking at power conference realignment, the Big 12 is a much better bet to move next to expand to 12 than any of the other power leagues heading to 16 any time soon (which isn't exactly a radical observation).
The only disagreement that I have is the viability of the elimination of the divisional requirement - I think that has a good chance of passing. You appear to be a purveyor of the notion that we'll have 16-team superconferences. If that's the case, then the Big Ten and SEC will *want* the flexibility to not have a divisional requirement going forward (as that will allow for large expansion while protecting a lot of rivalries and provide outlets for lots of different scheduling permutations). I don't think the Big Ten and SEC really care that much about the divisional requirement (and in fact, the Big Ten is more suited to eliminating divisions and just having everyone have 3 or 4 protected rivals each and then rotate the other opponents). However, I *do* think that they care about the 12-team minimum. On that issue, they're definitely not going to let the Big 12 get away with having a championship game with only 10 schools. The Big Ten and Pac-12 both took short-term revenue hits in order to expand and get conference championship games, so the Big 12 isn't going to get that benefit.
I do think 4x16 happens. I don't think it happens because it looks so "neat". I think it happens in a more organic manner rather than a mechanical manner. The final negotiation and major move will have to be mechanical due to the amount of negotiating involved but even that can still be considered natural and organic.
I have outlined my beliefs as to why, in the end, Texas will do as Texas does. The Big 12 was a more National conference during it's conception than it is now. Texas left the SWC due to it's inherent regionalistic personality. The Big 12 has become that. Texas has done plenty of talking around. For all the bluster about loving the Big 12, they are the ONLY Elite Power to be so open in their looking around. What other King of a conference has looked around so much or have a history of moving from a situation that bore some similarities to their current situation?
Either it happens now and everyone gets a landing spot or it happens within a decade and it is a free for all at that point.
Omni's opinion on the divisional part being done away with while the 12 member definition remains is the same as yours. I hadn't even thought of that previously because it is Very Machiavellian in design. I do think inevitably it would be better for the Big 12 than what it is now. The Big 12 has a major division issue if they expand to 12. Twelve teams and no divisions is better than twelve teams and two divisions due to the scheduling issues and parity issues that are inevitable there.
So, IF I am right about this possible scenario then even the divisional requirement changing would be enough to save The Big 12. If that happens then yes, they go and get the likes of Cincinnati and one other. Personally for me, I would go with UCF and ECU but I don't think it happens because divisional rules can always be written but if they are changed now it could save the Big 12. If they aren't changed now, the Big 12 is on life support.