MAC pays production costs to ESPN as well.

Now per school CFP payouts. Having fewer schools helps.

AAC $34.8M = $2.90M/school (12) * if you separate UCF's $6M NY6 payout, the per school was $2.4M
SBC $27.2M = $2.72M/school (10)
MWC $30.4M = $2.53M/school (12)
MAC $24M = $2.0M/school (12)
C-USA $25.6M = $1.87M/school (14)

That kind of surprised me. Not much per school difference between AAC, MWC and SBC with the NY6 school being a boost.

C-USA really hurt by having so many schools.

All the ESPN3/ESPN+ content is pay as you produce for the conferences.

That's how they can sign FCS leagues to deals where they broadcast 100 events on ESPN+.

(01-12-2019 11:55 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 08:30 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 03:16 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 03:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-11-2019 04:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  AAC's total haul counting the money that is divided equally was $34.8 million
MWC $30.4 million
Sun Belt $27.2 million
CUSA $25.6 million
MAC $24 million.

This CFP money has become the answer to end all G5 realignment wars.

SBC per school payout of 2.72 mil per school tops CUSA's distribution by almost 1 million (1.82 mil). They won't be able to flip SBC teams anymore. MAC is in at 2 million per school but that is a dead last finish.

Factor in the TV money and CUSA is at a distance behind both.

SBC 3.32 mil (+500k)
MAC 2.8 mil (+800k)
CUSA 2.22 mil (+400k)

According to some knowledgeable SB posters, the SB gives an equal share to UTA and UALR. So that is divided by 12 and not 10.

Also, CUSA doesn't have to pay for production costs for their TV. SB has to pay production costs so the amount is most likely halved.

Not exactly true.
CUSA pays to produe ESPN+/ESPN3/CUSA TV telecasts.

Sun Belt pays zero to produce ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU (or ABC should that happen).
CUSA pays zero to produce CBSSN and I presume Stadium.

To toss out one is paying production and the other isn't, simply isn't true.

https://pilotonline.com/sports/college/o...fcc22.html

CUSA doesn’t pay ESPN because those are produced by the schools.

https://pilotonline.com/sports/college/o...fcc22.html

While the SB schools will do some production themselves, ESPN is going to get some payment upfront. So yes the SB pays some production costs back to ESPN.

Before the deal, half the Sun Belt was doing in-house production. AState was producing extra ESPN3 men's and women's basketball telecasts along with baseball and volleyball as were five other schools (that I can't think of at this time).

That's some serious hair splitting. There is just isn't a vast difference in paying to do your own production and contracting it out.

(01-13-2019 01:28 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  All the ESPN3/ESPN+ content is pay as you produce for the conferences.

That's how they can sign FCS leagues to deals where they broadcast 100 events on ESPN+.

Yeah you can pay ESPN or do it yourself.

(01-13-2019 01:01 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  MAC pays production costs to ESPN as well.

Now per school CFP payouts. Having fewer schools helps.

AAC $34.8M = $2.90M/school (12) * if you separate UCF's $6M NY6 payout, the per school was $2.4M
SBC $27.2M = $2.72M/school (10)
MWC $30.4M = $2.53M/school (12)
MAC $24M = $2.0M/school (12)
C-USA $25.6M = $1.87M/school (14)

That kind of surprised me. Not much per school difference between AAC, MWC and SBC with the NY6 school being a boost.

C-USA really hurt by having so many schools.

The whole structure of the CFP is categorically socialistic. The "merit" component among the G5, as it is among the A5, is small compared to the guaranteed common dollars.

That's how university presidents like it, as it facilitates planning.

Fans like a close relationship between results on the field and money. Administrators hate it.

(01-13-2019 08:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 01:01 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  MAC pays production costs to ESPN as well.

Now per school CFP payouts. Having fewer schools helps.

AAC $34.8M = $2.90M/school (12) * if you separate UCF's $6M NY6 payout, the per school was $2.4M
SBC $27.2M = $2.72M/school (10)
MWC $30.4M = $2.53M/school (12)
MAC $24M = $2.0M/school (12)
C-USA $25.6M = $1.87M/school (14)

That kind of surprised me. Not much per school difference between AAC, MWC and SBC with the NY6 school being a boost.

C-USA really hurt by having so many schools.

The whole structure of the CFP is categorically socialistic. The "merit" component among the G5, as it is among the A5, is small compared to the guaranteed common dollars.

That's how university presidents like it, as it facilitates planning.

Fans like a close relationship between results on the field and money. Administrators hate it.

The playoffs only pay $6 million, while each P5 conference gets roughly $50 million fixed. They want certainty on their cash flow.

(01-12-2019 04:19 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Peanuts for all. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit to blow this system up.

For what reason?

If you’re talking about the TV dollars, that’s negotiable based on supply/demand.

If you’re talking about the CFP dollars, that is something that was negotiated and unanimously agreed among all 10 FBS conferences.

(01-12-2019 04:19 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Peanuts for all. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit to blow this system up.

Worth noting that the amount paid to the G5 conferences under the CFP contract is about the same as the amount paid rights to the BCS and affiliated bowls as recently as 2014 (which was $155 million). https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/...da386f36fe

(01-14-2019 12:50 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 04:19 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Peanuts for all. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit to blow this system up.

Worth noting that the amount paid to the G5 conferences under the CFP contract is about the same as the amount paid rights to the BCS and affiliated bowls as recently as 2014 (which was $155 million). https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/...da386f36fe

Money to the non-contact-bowl conferences has been about $91M the last two years.
I believe arkstfan in Post #2 is incorrect: the only thing to be added to the numbers from McMustache's source is the $4M for the Fiesta Bowl.

We'll see at the end of April / beginning of May

(01-12-2019 04:19 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Peanuts for all. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit to blow this system up.

You do realize that the AAC and MWC are getting more money from the CFP this year than the SEC and B1G received from the BCS in 2012, right?

In 2011-2012, the SEC and B1G each received about $28m from the BCS:

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/...ncials.pdf

(01-14-2019 12:59 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 12:50 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 04:19 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Peanuts for all. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit to blow this system up.

Worth noting that the amount paid to the G5 conferences under the CFP contract is about the same as the amount paid rights to the BCS and affiliated bowls as recently as 2014 (which was $155 million). https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/...da386f36fe

Money to the non-contact-bowl conferences has been about $91M the last two years.
I believe arkstfan in Post #2 is incorrect: the only thing to be added to the numbers from McMustache's source is the $4M for the Fiesta Bowl.

We'll see at the end of April / beginning of May

Good point. ArkSt's addition of $10 million per conference for the fixed payment may double count this number (i.e., it may already be baked into Brett McMurphy's numbers).

Now that all of the hot takes are over, here's the amended numbers...

USFFan

Edited to add - reminder, UCF doesn't pocket that $6MM - it goes into the conference distribution, and after travel costs are covered, is split based on conference finish

Eh, all I remember from him was how the MAC was the top G5 conference in 2016 based on total $. The NY6 bowl pushed the MAC ahead of the higher ranked AAC...similar to what happened this year. I guess it wasn’t important enough to separate out back then. Whatever narratives fit I guess lol! The NY6 bowl is the prize, gets the most pub and has the longest shelf life as it is discussed weekly all season/preseason. AAC needs to do a better job in the post season as this is the second time in five years that bowl performance cost the conference $. As far as which has a greater impact on perception and brand awareness, CFP all day every day. Rightly or wrongly, it’s what gets the most attention from mainstream media in regards to G5 teams/conferences...well, reg. season P5 upsets get attention as well due to CFP implications.

(01-15-2019 06:05 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Eh, all I remember from him was how the MAC was the top G5 conference in 2016 based on total $. The NY6 bowl pushed the MAC ahead of the higher ranked AAC...similar to what happened this year. I guess it wasn’t important enough to separate out back then. Whatever narratives fit I guess lol! The NY6 bowl is the prize, gets the most pub and has the longest shelf life as it is discussed weekly all season/preseason. AAC needs to do a better job in the post season as this is the second time in five years that bowl performance cost the conference $. As far as which has a greater impact on perception and brand awareness, CFP all day every day. Rightly or wrongly, it’s what gets the most attention from mainstream media in regards to G5 teams/conferences...well, reg. season P5 upsets get attention as well due to CFP implications.

It wasn't just bowl season, the AAC was nothing during the regular season too. What was the AAC's best OOC win during the regular season? I can't think one worth mentioning.

Bottom line is that the AAC, which is trying to push a "P6" narrative, wasn't even the best G5 conference this past year, which makes that narrative difficult to justify.

(01-13-2019 07:26 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 04:19 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Peanuts for all. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit to blow this system up.

For what reason?

If you’re talking about the TV dollars, that’s negotiable based on supply/demand.

If you’re talking about the CFP dollars, that is something that was negotiated and unanimously agreed among all 10 FBS conferences.

I'm not agreeing that somebody needs to file a lawsuit, but whether it was originally 'negotiated and unanimously agreed' can be overcome in an anti-trust lawsuit. It would be fairly straightforward for a school, or group of schools, to allege that the CFP contract is or has become collusive and an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Whether they would win is a different matter, but they could make a reasonable allegation that would justify a very public lawsuit and investigation.

(01-15-2019 06:20 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 07:26 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 04:19 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Peanuts for all. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit to blow this system up.

For what reason?

If you’re talking about the TV dollars, that’s negotiable based on supply/demand.

If you’re talking about the CFP dollars, that is something that was negotiated and unanimously agreed among all 10 FBS conferences.

I'm not agreeing that somebody needs to file a lawsuit, but whether it was originally 'negotiated and unanimously agreed' can be overcome in an anti-trust lawsuit. It would be fairly straightforward for a school, or group of schools, to allege that the CFP contract is or has become collusive and an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Whether they would win is a different matter, but they could make a reasonable allegation that would justify a very public lawsuit and investigation.

I'm curious - what "trade" do you think is "restrained" by the CFP?

Do you think that if, e.g., the G5 negotiated their own post-season bowl and playoffs deal with the networks separate from the P5 that they would get more money?

Seriously?

(01-11-2019 04:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Here are the numbers. Had time to go back and pull them out.
This is the performance pool

MWC $20.4 million
AAC $18.8 million
Sun Belt $17.2 million
CUSA $15.6 million
MAC $14 million

Not reported but worth mentioning, AAC picked up an additional $6 million for UCF's appearance.

AAC's total haul counting the money that is divided equally was $34.8 million
MWC $30.4 million
Sun Belt $27.2 million
CUSA $25.6 million
MAC $24 million.

So you're including the $10 million ($1 per team limit 10) here... I seem to recall another $300,000 per team if certain APR criteria are met as well, but I don't remember the details.

(01-15-2019 06:19 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 06:05 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Eh, all I remember from him was how the MAC was the top G5 conference in 2016 based on total $. The NY6 bowl pushed the MAC ahead of the higher ranked AAC...similar to what happened this year. I guess it wasn’t important enough to separate out back then. Whatever narratives fit I guess lol! The NY6 bowl is the prize, gets the most pub and has the longest shelf life as it is discussed weekly all season/preseason. AAC needs to do a better job in the post season as this is the second time in five years that bowl performance cost the conference $. As far as which has a greater impact on perception and brand awareness, CFP all day every day. Rightly or wrongly, it’s what gets the most attention from mainstream media in regards to G5 teams/conferences...well, reg. season P5 upsets get attention as well due to CFP implications.

It wasn't just bowl season, the AAC was nothing during the regular season too. What was the AAC's best OOC win during the regular season? I can't think one worth mentioning.

Bottom line is that the AAC, which is trying to push a "P6" narrative, wasn't even the best G5 conference this past year, which makes that narrative difficult to justify.

Can you think of any good G5 OOC wins?

Fresno State beat 3-9 UCLA, and lost to 7-6 Minnesota (3-6 in B1G).
Boise State beat 7-6 BYU and lost to 7-6 Oklahoma St. (3-6 B12).
Utah State also beat 7-6 BYU and lost to 7-6 Michigan St. (5-4 in B1G)

NIU beat 7-6 BYU? (same team that Boise and USU beat)
Troy beat 4-8 Nebraska (3-6 in B1G)?
North Texas beat 2-10 Arkansas...?
Buffalo beat 1-11 Rutgers?

On the other hand, the AAC had some decent OOC wins:

- UCF destroyed Pitt, who won either the AAC Atlantic or Coastal Division (not sure which).

- South Florida beat 7-6 Georgia Tech that at least had a winning 5-3 record in ACC play.

- Temple beat Maryland (who beat Texas and took Ohio St. to overtime).

- Houston beat Arizona (who at least had a shot at bowl-eligibility down the stretch).

(01-15-2019 06:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 06:20 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 07:26 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 04:19 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Peanuts for all. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit to blow this system up.

For what reason?

If you’re talking about the TV dollars, that’s negotiable based on supply/demand.

If you’re talking about the CFP dollars, that is something that was negotiated and unanimously agreed among all 10 FBS conferences.

I'm not agreeing that somebody needs to file a lawsuit, but whether it was originally 'negotiated and unanimously agreed' can be overcome in an anti-trust lawsuit. It would be fairly straightforward for a school, or group of schools, to allege that the CFP contract is or has become collusive and an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Whether they would win is a different matter, but they could make a reasonable allegation that would justify a very public lawsuit and investigation.

I'm curious - what "trade" do you think is "restrained" by the CFP?

Do you think that if, e.g., the G5 negotiated their own post-season bowl and playoffs deal with the networks separate from the P5 that they would get more money?

Seriously?

https://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2009/08...-legality/

"In his opening statement to the Subcommittee, Senator Hatch detailed his concerns that the BCS violated both Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act: “Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies to limit competition. I’ve said before that I don’t believe a plainer description of the BCS exists.” Id. Senator Hatch characterized the system as an agreement between preferred conferences and the major bowl games as to how they will compete against each other and the non-preferred conferences. Id."

"Clearly, the BCS bowl games exist in a category all their own and the architects of the BCS system appear to have intentionally excluded teams from non-privileged conferences, not on the basis of competition, but due to pre-arranged agreements.[3]"

Again, I'm not saying that the lawsuit would come out a winner, but these exact same arguments that were made to a senate subcommittee against the BCS could be made against the CFP and NY6.

(01-15-2019 06:44 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 06:22 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 06:20 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 07:26 PM)leofrog Wrote:  

(01-12-2019 04:19 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Peanuts for all. Somebody needs to file a lawsuit to blow this system up.

For what reason?

If you’re talking about the TV dollars, that’s negotiable based on supply/demand.

If you’re talking about the CFP dollars, that is something that was negotiated and unanimously agreed among all 10 FBS conferences.

I'm not agreeing that somebody needs to file a lawsuit, but whether it was originally 'negotiated and unanimously agreed' can be overcome in an anti-trust lawsuit. It would be fairly straightforward for a school, or group of schools, to allege that the CFP contract is or has become collusive and an unreasonable restraint of trade.

Whether they would win is a different matter, but they could make a reasonable allegation that would justify a very public lawsuit and investigation.

I'm curious - what "trade" do you think is "restrained" by the CFP?

Do you think that if, e.g., the G5 negotiated their own post-season bowl and playoffs deal with the networks separate from the P5 that they would get more money?

Seriously?

https://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2009/08...-legality/

"In his opening statement to the Subcommittee, Senator Hatch detailed his concerns that the BCS violated both Section 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act: “Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies to limit competition. I’ve said before that I don’t believe a plainer description of the BCS exists.” Id. Senator Hatch characterized the system as an agreement between preferred conferences and the major bowl games as to how they will compete against each other and the non-preferred conferences. Id."

"Clearly, the BCS bowl games exist in a category all their own and the architects of the BCS system appear to have intentionally excluded teams from non-privileged conferences, not on the basis of competition, but due to pre-arranged agreements.[3]"

Again, I'm not saying that the lawsuit would come out a winner, but these exact same arguments that were made to a senate subcommittee against the BCS could be made against the CFP and NY6.

There is more than enough for a case. You might win--you might lose---but there is certainly an argument to be made. There is no suit because that this point, the P5 are throwing just enough crumbs that the G5 could be huge losers if the ruling were to go the wrong way. If the P5 split from the G5---thats when you'll see an anti-trust suit. The G5 would have nothing to lose at that point. If they win--there would be back damages and the award could be massive. So---a split is not the riskless pot of gold some might believe it would be. It could end up being just the opposite.

Thats why I think you'll see basically an extension of the status quo with minor modifications. The playoff will probably expand to 8 with P5 champ auto-bids. The G5 will get one slot--to mitigate anti-trust action. And the money split percentages will largely stay as is. Everyone will be getting more than enough money and benefits to keep all parties reasonably happy.