(05-15-2016 06:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:17 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:34 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Here's an idea, instead of having of splitting revenue like this-
80% P5
20% G5

you split it like this-
50% P5
50% G5

problem solved.

So the P5 should subsidize the G5 to an even more extreme level?

I'm all for treating the G5 schools fairly but there simply is not getting around the fact that the G5 programs do not represent 50% of the income, 50% of the fans, etc.. If it were I'd agree completely with you, but unfortunately it does not.

I still say that the only way to bring any sense of parity is to simply assign schedules instead of allow programs to build their own.

The problem is that some G5 schools are more valuable to the P5 that should be shared or helped out more. Houston. Boise State, Temple, Memphis, Navy and Fresno State seems they all have been talked about breaking into the playoffs or have a shot at the BCS rankings championship in the past. Northern Illinois and UCF are the other 2 that came close. Hawaii was a long time ago when Brennan was QB until they lost their game to Georgia.

I'm sorry but that just isn't true.

Those schools are better than a lot of the rest but that doesn't mean they are worth more in dollars and cents necessarily than any of the others.

The P5 simply shouldn't be required to subsidize smaller programs in a 50-50 split type situation. They simply aren't worth that.

It is about the dollars and cents, pure and simple.

People forget that we DO have a subsidization system.
First we have the CFP which peels off revenue to the G5.
Second P5 schools desiring to play a game at home without a returned game pay for the privilege. I remember only too well when a $300,000 pay day was HUGE. In 2017 Nebraska pays AState $1.65 million and in 2018 Bama pays $1.7 million. After deducting expenses, that's roughly equal to what the per team pay to AAC members is for TV.

Why do costs need to be cut? (assuming of course, there aren't any obviously ridiculous costs being incurred like excessive hotel stays (for home games), or excessive private jet usage ... these aren't usually things G5 schools have to deal with)

Why not just have the university fund the difference?

Like I said, DI athletics is not really a money making endeavor. It costs money to have nice things. So, pay for them.

(05-16-2016 08:44 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 08:18 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 11:32 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  How about the P5 split off from the G5 then?

Then you can keep 100% of your revenue.

And then how about we start rejecting all med school applicants who show up toting an Aggie jizz jar?

These are universities, not businesses. You want to run it as a business, then pay your damned taxes.

Great non sequitur there.

The person I responded to thinks that the G5 contribute 50% of the value of the contract but are only receiving 20%

So either you agree with him and therefore should be thrilled to break away from the evil greedy P5 who are stealing money you've earned from you and keep 100% of the revenue

OR

You know that's a bunch of BS and that the G5 doesn't create that kind of value now and would make even less on its own and that what this person is asking for is nothing but a higher subsidy.

Which is it?

(05-16-2016 08:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 06:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:17 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:34 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Here's an idea, instead of having of splitting revenue like this-
80% P5
20% G5

you split it like this-
50% P5
50% G5

problem solved.

So the P5 should subsidize the G5 to an even more extreme level?

I'm all for treating the G5 schools fairly but there simply is not getting around the fact that the G5 programs do not represent 50% of the income, 50% of the fans, etc.. If it were I'd agree completely with you, but unfortunately it does not.

I still say that the only way to bring any sense of parity is to simply assign schedules instead of allow programs to build their own.

The problem is that some G5 schools are more valuable to the P5 that should be shared or helped out more. Houston. Boise State, Temple, Memphis, Navy and Fresno State seems they all have been talked about breaking into the playoffs or have a shot at the BCS rankings championship in the past. Northern Illinois and UCF are the other 2 that came close. Hawaii was a long time ago when Brennan was QB until they lost their game to Georgia.

I'm sorry but that just isn't true.

Those schools are better than a lot of the rest but that doesn't mean they are worth more in dollars and cents necessarily than any of the others.

The P5 simply shouldn't be required to subsidize smaller programs in a 50-50 split type situation. They simply aren't worth that.

It is about the dollars and cents, pure and simple.

People forget that we DO have a subsidization system.
First we have the CFP which peels off revenue to the G5.
Second P5 schools desiring to play a game at home without a returned game pay for the privilege. I remember only too well when a $300,000 pay day was HUGE. In 2017 Nebraska pays AState $1.65 million and in 2018 Bama pays $1.7 million. After deducting expenses, that's roughly equal to what the per team pay to AAC members is for TV.

While the pay-day games are a form of subsidy I don't generally put those in the same category as fee splitting. Those are instances where it is hard to argue the value given isn't deserved.

(05-16-2016 09:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 08:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 06:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 03:17 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  So the P5 should subsidize the G5 to an even more extreme level?

I'm all for treating the G5 schools fairly but there simply is not getting around the fact that the G5 programs do not represent 50% of the income, 50% of the fans, etc.. If it were I'd agree completely with you, but unfortunately it does not.

I still say that the only way to bring any sense of parity is to simply assign schedules instead of allow programs to build their own.

The problem is that some G5 schools are more valuable to the P5 that should be shared or helped out more. Houston. Boise State, Temple, Memphis, Navy and Fresno State seems they all have been talked about breaking into the playoffs or have a shot at the BCS rankings championship in the past. Northern Illinois and UCF are the other 2 that came close. Hawaii was a long time ago when Brennan was QB until they lost their game to Georgia.

I'm sorry but that just isn't true.

Those schools are better than a lot of the rest but that doesn't mean they are worth more in dollars and cents necessarily than any of the others.

The P5 simply shouldn't be required to subsidize smaller programs in a 50-50 split type situation. They simply aren't worth that.

It is about the dollars and cents, pure and simple.

People forget that we DO have a subsidization system.
First we have the CFP which peels off revenue to the G5.
Second P5 schools desiring to play a game at home without a returned game pay for the privilege. I remember only too well when a $300,000 pay day was HUGE. In 2017 Nebraska pays AState $1.65 million and in 2018 Bama pays $1.7 million. After deducting expenses, that's roughly equal to what the per team pay to AAC members is for TV.

While the pay-day games are a form of subsidy I don't generally put those in the same category as fee splitting. Those are instances where it is hard to argue the value given isn't deserved.

I don't see those body bag games as a form of subsidy. All they are is a more or less free market exercise. Schools who can command a large payday for a home game against an otherwise unattractive opponent are, and should be, willing to pay the market rate for opponents who are willing to sell a W for cash. Alabama isn't paying App State more than they have to (at least not on purpose) to outbid other schools looking to buy a W.

I'd bet that when App State was still FCS, they probably couldn't command that high a price. But a sure W over an FBS opponent is worth more in the marketplace than a W against an FCS team. When you get to the point where the added revenue you get for another home game doesn't exceed the cost to buy that game, it won't happen. That's just market economics.

There seems to be an assumption being made by fans who think the CFP revenue split between P5's and G5's is unfair. That assumption is that the P5 share is too large. Frankly, I think you could make a better case that it's the G5 share that is too large.

If the NY6 bowls and playoff participants only included P5 teams every year, I suspect they would show no decrease in value to the sponsors who are paying out the money that is currently being shared with G5 schools. That's not to say the P5's are being completely altruistic by throwing a bone to the G5. While the G5's may not add any revenue to the pot, excluding them could have adverse political consequences for the P5's. The 20% share is the price the P5's are paying to mitigate that risk.

So the question isn't whether an 80-20 split is "fair". It's whether it's a correct appraisal of what it would take to avoid litigation or legislation. So far, at least, those bad things haven't happened, so it may be reasonable to assume that that the P5's have made a correct appraisal.

(05-16-2016 10:29 AM)ken d Wrote:  There seems to be an assumption being made by fans who think the CFP revenue split between P5's and G5's is unfair. That assumption is that the P5 share is too large. Frankly, I think you could make a better case that it's the G5 share that is too large.

If the NY6 bowls and playoff participants only included P5 teams every year, I suspect they would show no decrease in value to the sponsors who are paying out the money that is currently being shared with G5 schools.

And in years that your house does not burn down, your fire insurance is wasted money, unless you valued the protection against the risk of a fire.

The payment to the G5 is in part insurance against antitrust action against the CFP system. The G5 schools are bought off not to kick against the system, because of the substantial increase in media revenue, and the G5 being pro forma part of the CFP and de facto part of the NY6 bowl in turn provides part of the legal fiction as to the system being open to anybody that puts in the work and resources to climb into the FBS ranks. And it is not only legal risk: it also mitigates political risk substantially when all of the 60+ schools being bought off are taken into account.

All for a quite affordable 16% insurance premium.

(05-16-2016 08:44 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 08:18 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 11:32 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  How about the P5 split off from the G5 then?

Then you can keep 100% of your revenue.

And then how about we start rejecting all med school applicants who show up toting an Aggie jizz jar?

These are universities, not businesses. You want to run it as a business, then pay your damned taxes.

You should probably reject all med school applicants who show up with any kind of jizz jar.

(05-16-2016 10:46 AM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 08:44 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(05-16-2016 08:18 AM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 11:32 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  How about the P5 split off from the G5 then?

Then you can keep 100% of your revenue.

And then how about we start rejecting all med school applicants who show up toting an Aggie jizz jar?

These are universities, not businesses. You want to run it as a business, then pay your damned taxes.

You should probably reject all med school applicants who show up with any kind of jizz jar.

That's my policy...

(05-15-2016 02:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:34 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Here's an idea, instead of having of splitting revenue like this-
80% P5
20% G5

you split it like this-
50% P5
50% G5

problem solved.

So the P5 should subsidize the G5 to an even more extreme level?

I'm all for treating the G5 schools fairly but there simply is not getting around the fact that the G5 programs do not represent 50% of the income, 50% of the fans, etc.. If it were I'd agree completely with you, but unfortunately it does not.

I still say that the only way to bring any sense of parity is to simply assign schedules instead of allow programs to build their own.

20 or so P5s subsidize the rest of the P5 to a much greater extent than 50%

(05-16-2016 11:12 AM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:34 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Here's an idea, instead of having of splitting revenue like this-
80% P5
20% G5

you split it like this-
50% P5
50% G5

problem solved.

So the P5 should subsidize the G5 to an even more extreme level?

I'm all for treating the G5 schools fairly but there simply is not getting around the fact that the G5 programs do not represent 50% of the income, 50% of the fans, etc.. If it were I'd agree completely with you, but unfortunately it does not.

I still say that the only way to bring any sense of parity is to simply assign schedules instead of allow programs to build their own.

20 or so P5s subsidize the rest of the P5 to a much greater extent than 50%

With all due respect, so what?

It's irrelevant.

(05-16-2016 10:41 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  And in years that your house does not burn down, your fire insurance is wasted money, unless you valued the protection against the risk of a fire.

The payment to the G5 is in part insurance against antitrust action against the CFP system. The G5 schools are bought off not to kick against the system, because of the substantial increase in media revenue, and the G5 being pro forma part of the CFP and de facto part of the NY6 bowl in turn provides part of the legal fiction as to the system being open to anybody that puts in the work and resources to climb into the FBS ranks. And it is not only legal risk: it also mitigates political risk substantially when all of the 60+ schools being bought off are taken into account.

All for a quite affordable 16% insurance premium.

In bold is the only reason why they do it. The last thing they want is to go to Congressional hearings on Anti-Trust that if would have go to Trial, would have been a no doubt it loser in Court for the P5. If they could find a way not to give the G5 anything, they would of did that a long time ago.....

(05-16-2016 10:29 AM)ken d Wrote:  There seems to be an assumption being made by fans who think the CFP revenue split between P5's and G5's is unfair. That assumption is that the P5 share is too large. Frankly, I think you could make a better case that it's the G5 share that is too large.

If the NY6 bowls and playoff participants only included P5 teams every year, I suspect they would show no decrease in value to the sponsors who are paying out the money that is currently being shared with G5 schools. That's not to say the P5's are being completely altruistic by throwing a bone to the G5. While the G5's may not add any revenue to the pot, excluding them could have adverse political consequences for the P5's. The 20% share is the price the P5's are paying to mitigate that risk.

So the question isn't whether an 80-20 split is "fair". It's whether it's a correct appraisal of what it would take to avoid litigation or legislation. So far, at least, those bad things haven't happened, so it may be reasonable to assume that that the P5's have made a correct appraisal.

The value of the G5 sign off on the CFP is the value of avoiding anti-trust litigation.

The story goes that the five commissioners agreed in advance of the meeting to hash out that value what would be their fight number. Meet that number or they hold out and create a ruckus.

Sat down, the P5 threw a number significantly higher and there was much self-restraint involved in not dashing to sign the agreement.

So I'd say the G5 payment is a number the P5 considered to be fair.

(05-16-2016 11:12 AM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:34 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Here's an idea, instead of having of splitting revenue like this-
80% P5
20% G5

you split it like this-
50% P5
50% G5

problem solved.

So the P5 should subsidize the G5 to an even more extreme level?

I'm all for treating the G5 schools fairly but there simply is not getting around the fact that the G5 programs do not represent 50% of the income, 50% of the fans, etc.. If it were I'd agree completely with you, but unfortunately it does not.

I still say that the only way to bring any sense of parity is to simply assign schedules instead of allow programs to build their own.

20 or so P5s subsidize the rest of the P5 to a much greater extent than 50%

Alabama doesn't have to subsidize Vandy. Texas doesn't have to subsidize Iowa State, Florida State doesn't have to subsidize Wake Forest.

They choose to because yesterday and today, it makes economic and political sense to do so.

If it stops making sense the existing conferences can go the way of the Border States and Southwest Conference and cease to exist or the way of the Southern and WAC and become marginalized.

(05-16-2016 11:12 AM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:58 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:34 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Here's an idea, instead of having of splitting revenue like this-
80% P5
20% G5

you split it like this-
50% P5
50% G5

problem solved.

So the P5 should subsidize the G5 to an even more extreme level?

I'm all for treating the G5 schools fairly but there simply is not getting around the fact that the G5 programs do not represent 50% of the income, 50% of the fans, etc.. If it were I'd agree completely with you, but unfortunately it does not.

I still say that the only way to bring any sense of parity is to simply assign schedules instead of allow programs to build their own.

20 or so P5s subsidize the rest of the P5 to a much greater extent than 50%

Yep, Purdue is being subsidized by Ohio State, Iowa State by Texas, etc. Unless everyone goes independent this exists in some form.

Imagine if the NFL treated the AFL this way and all NFC teams received 80% of the revenue and the AFC teams received 20%. same with the NBA and ABA teams.

There is no justification for the inequity.

(05-18-2016 06:15 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Imagine if the NFL treated the AFL this way and all NFC teams received 80% of the revenue and the AFC teams received 20%. same with the NBA and ABA teams.

There is no justification for the inequity.

The NFL =/= NCAA. The NCAA doesn't control the television rights to any athletic contest except the NCAA tournaments.


But let's play around with your delusion a little bit and let's say that the NFL and NCAA operate exactly the same. Go ahead and point out the NFL franchise that has sat on it's ass the last 121 years like Ohio and done absolutely nothing to better it's situation.

(05-18-2016 06:15 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Imagine if the NFL treated the AFL this way and all NFC teams received 80% of the revenue and the AFC teams received 20%. same with the NBA and ABA teams.

There is no justification for the inequity.

If that were the case and the AFL truly believed they were contributing 50% of the profits but were having 30% of it stolen then the right thing would be for the AFL to leave and take their value with them so they can have the whole 50% that is rightfully theirs!

(05-15-2016 04:05 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  

(05-15-2016 02:34 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Here's an idea, instead of having of splitting revenue like this-
80% P5
20% G5

you split it like this-
50% P5
50% G5

problem solved.

This.

Or leave behind the deadweight and split G5 playoff money G4 ways.

(05-18-2016 07:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-18-2016 06:15 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  Imagine if the NFL treated the AFL this way and all NFC teams received 80% of the revenue and the AFC teams received 20%. same with the NBA and ABA teams.

There is no justification for the inequity.

The NFL =/= NCAA. The NCAA doesn't control the television rights to any athletic contest except the NCAA tournaments.


But let's play around with your delusion a little bit and let's say that the NFL and NCAA operate exactly the same. Go ahead and point out the NFL franchise that has sat on it's ass the last 121 years like Ohio and done absolutely nothing to better it's situation.

Your comment is so absurd it shows you have no real rebuttal.