(06-29-2020 09:24 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 03:27 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  A= 130, 21.1 and 47.4
B= 132, 17.1 and 46.6
C= 139, 21.1 and 45.9

Curious where you are getting those ARWU rankings, since on their main ranking board, they don't report an overall score below the top 100, they report the tiers that the universities are in:

Kansas: 201-300th (US 67-94th)
Nebraska: 201-300th (US 67-94th)
Oklahoma: 401-500th (US 117-137th)

Since ARWU provides a) the specific relative rankings for the top 100 schools, plus b) the methodology for generating relative rankings, and c) the “bundled” categories (e.g., US 67-94th, US 117-137th, etc.) of universities ranked between 101st and 1000th...therefore, I extrapolated the estimated specific ranking of the universities in each of the “bundled” categories.

Specifically to the 2019 ARWU rankings and P5 universities:
Stanford 75.1 (top ranked P5 university)
Cal 67.9 (2nd place amongst P5)
.
.
.
Ohio State 26.0 (final P5 school in the ARWU top 100...and anchor for further extrapolation)

Universities “bundled” in World 101-150th are extrapolated at 95% of OSU.
Universities “bundled” in World 151-200th are extrapolated at 95% of the previous bundle.
Universities “bundled” in World 201-300th are extrapolated at 90% of the previous bundle. Rinse and repeat through 1000th ranked university.

(06-29-2020 10:50 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:24 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 03:27 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  A= 130, 21.1 and 47.4
B= 132, 17.1 and 46.6
C= 139, 21.1 and 45.9

Curious where you are getting those ARWU rankings, since on their main ranking board, they don't report an overall score below the top 100, they report the tiers that the universities are in:

Kansas: 201-300th (US 67-94th)
Nebraska: 201-300th (US 67-94th)
Oklahoma: 401-500th (US 117-137th)

Since ARWU provides a) the specific relative rankings for the top 100 schools, plus b) the methodology for generating relative rankings, and c) the “bundled” categories (e.g., US 67-94th, US 117-137th, etc.) of universities ranked between 101st and 1000th...therefore, I extrapolated the estimated specific ranking of the universities in each of the “bundled” categories.

Specifically to the 2019 ARWU rankings and P5 universities:
Stanford 75.1 (top ranked P5 university)
Cal 67.9 (2nd place amongst P5)
.
.
.
Ohio State 26.0 (final P5 school in the ARWU top 100...and anchor for further extrapolation)

Universities “bundled” in World 101-150th are extrapolated at 95% of OSU.
Universities “bundled” in World 151-200th are extrapolated at 95% of the previous bundle.
Universities “bundled” in World 201-300th are extrapolated at 90% of the previous bundle. Rinse and repeat through 1000th ranked university.

As an aside, what is fascinating to me about ARWU rankings: The ranking difference between Stanford and Ohio State (nearly 5 thousand basis points) is basically twice as large as the difference between Ohio State and any university not ranked in the top 1000 (e.g., TCU...which is a fine undergrad institution, but does not emphasize research). In other words, elite research universities only really differentiate themselves at the very top. The corollary, ranking universities outside the very elite is more art than science (hence the use of “bundles” by ARWU).

(06-29-2020 09:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:20 PM)XLance Wrote:  I think we have already seen the beginning of "new" realignment when ESPN took over the SEC lock, stock and barrel.
ESPN now controls the media rights for 28 schools outright, from Boston down to Florida and west into Texas and represents most of the college football loving public.
Adding four more would give ESPN 1/2 of all of the P schools plus 5/8 of Notre Dame's football until 2037.
Does it matter that those schools are ACC or SEC? Probably not to ESPN. Who is to say that the mouse might put not put all of them together in a big box and shake them out in into 2, 3, or even four distinct regional "divisions" for television broadcast purposes.

The next phase of "new" realignment is deciding which four are to join ESPN and which 6 are going to fortify the other team.

They need those schools to be Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and West Virginia.

Missouri needs to join Nebraska and Kansas in the Big 10. But that won't happen.

Most likely all former Big 8 schools wind up in the Big 10 or PAC and all 4 Texas schools wind up in the SEC/ACC minus Missouri and plus West Virginia.

So from the Big 12 Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State wind up in the PAC/Big 10 configuration and Baylor, Texas, T.C.U. Texas Tech and WVU wind up in the SEC/ACC configuration. And Missouri joins them.

I don't believe we wind up with 2 large leagues but if we did that would be the most likely way to break them up.


SEABOARD-GULF COAST

Arkansas, Baylor, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Christian, Texas Tech

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Miami, Mississippi State

Clemson, Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, N.C. State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wake Forest

Boston College, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

* Notre Dame


UNION-PACIFIC

Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Utah

California, California Los Angeles, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern Cal, Stanford, Washington, Washington State

* Brigham Young


If you were gong to break them up into two leagues I think it would look something like that.

That pretty much sums it up JR. There may have to be some minor divisional tweaking, but the concept is spot on.

(06-29-2020 09:00 PM)cubucks Wrote:  ESPN/FOX/CBS etc... pay conferences, not individual schools, except for Notre Dame and Texas, obviously.

TV does pay conferences, for now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Before 1980, they paid the NCAA. Maybe someday in the future, TV will just pay individual schools for their home games and pay a conference only for a conference tournament or a championship game in football.

Example: If we look at the TV ratings for Ohio State football games compared to Big Ten football games that don't include Ohio State, there's no legitimate way to argue that Ohio State is worth only 1/14th of the money that ESPN and Fox pay to the Big Ten. For now, Ohio State's athletic department rakes in so much money from other sources that they live with getting only 1/14th of that money. But what happens when they have a large and unexpected shortfall of revenue (as they do in 2020) and they still have this super-high budget athletic department, 30 varsity sports, lots of highly paid head coaches, several football assistants making more than $500,000/year, etc., etc., with all of those expenses to cover? When do they say, "Ohio State wants a share of the TV money that better reflects the actual value delivered by Ohio State"?

(06-30-2020 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:00 PM)cubucks Wrote:  ESPN/FOX/CBS etc... pay conferences, not individual schools, except for Notre Dame and Texas, obviously.

TV does pay conferences, for now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Before 1980, they paid the NCAA. Maybe someday in the future, TV will just pay individual schools for their home games and pay a conference only for a conference tournament or a championship game in football.

Example: If we look at the TV ratings for Ohio State football games compared to Big Ten football games that don't include Ohio State, there's no legitimate way to argue that Ohio State is worth only 1/14th of the money that ESPN and Fox pay to the Big Ten. For now, Ohio State's athletic department rakes in so much money from other sources that they live with getting only 1/14th of that money. But what happens when they have a large and unexpected shortfall of revenue (as they do in 2020) and they still have this super-high budget athletic department, 30 varsity sports, lots of highly paid head coaches, several football assistants making more than $500,000/year, etc., etc., with all of those expenses to cover? When do they say, "Ohio State wants a share of the TV money that better reflects the actual value delivered by Ohio State"?

I always thought that equal sharing wasn't fair to the schools that carried a stick. Big 12 was crucified for unequal revenue a decade ago.

(06-30-2020 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:00 PM)cubucks Wrote:  ESPN/FOX/CBS etc... pay conferences, not individual schools, except for Notre Dame and Texas, obviously.

TV does pay conferences, for now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Before 1980, they paid the NCAA. Maybe someday in the future, TV will just pay individual schools for their home games and pay a conference only for a conference tournament or a championship game in football.

Example: If we look at the TV ratings for Ohio State football games compared to Big Ten football games that don't include Ohio State, there's no legitimate way to argue that Ohio State is worth only 1/14th of the money that ESPN and Fox pay to the Big Ten. For now, Ohio State's athletic department rakes in so much money from other sources that they live with getting only 1/14th of that money. But what happens when they have a large and unexpected shortfall of revenue (as they do in 2020) and they still have this super-high budget athletic department, 30 varsity sports, lots of highly paid head coaches, several football assistants making more than $500,000/year, etc., etc., with all of those expenses to cover? When do they say, "Ohio State wants a share of the TV money that better reflects the actual value delivered by Ohio State"?

Agreed!

That's my point of the last two posts of mine. I was rambling a bit, being stuck in a house for months will do that, lol!

Not even looking at Ohio State. Look at schools like Clemson, Florida State, USC, Oregon, Washington etc...
You think higher ups aren't getting fidgety right now? I can't even imagine the athletic shortages, add the academic losses with it and people are probably placing a lot of options on the table. Am I way off base thinking like this? I'm comparing a personal "State situation" that I know quite a bit about and trying to do an apples to apples comparison with these schools.

I never thought Anheuser-Busch would be owned by a Belgium company. When I think about it, I never thought Texas A&M would be in a different conference than Texas. Yet, there they are, in new worlds and still thriving.

Ohio State, that is something I've often thought about. Equal sharing works, it's healthy, it builds really solid relationships. It's also why I've come to hate Minnesota. To have a fanbase ***** the way they do about the hockey setup is hilarious to me. Please, Gophers, you are making a lot of money at the expense of others. Take your big paycheck and go sit down in the corner where you belong. If bored, go row a boat or something.

(06-30-2020 12:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:00 PM)cubucks Wrote:  ESPN/FOX/CBS etc... pay conferences, not individual schools, except for Notre Dame and Texas, obviously.

TV does pay conferences, for now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Before 1980, they paid the NCAA. Maybe someday in the future, TV will just pay individual schools for their home games and pay a conference only for a conference tournament or a championship game in football.

Example: If we look at the TV ratings for Ohio State football games compared to Big Ten football games that don't include Ohio State, there's no legitimate way to argue that Ohio State is worth only 1/14th of the money that ESPN and Fox pay to the Big Ten. For now, Ohio State's athletic department rakes in so much money from other sources that they live with getting only 1/14th of that money. But what happens when they have a large and unexpected shortfall of revenue (as they do in 2020) and they still have this super-high budget athletic department, 30 varsity sports, lots of highly paid head coaches, several football assistants making more than $500,000/year, etc., etc., with all of those expenses to cover? When do they say, "Ohio State wants a share of the TV money that better reflects the actual value delivered by Ohio State"?

Agreed!

That's my point of the last two posts of mine. I was rambling a bit, being stuck in a house for months will do that, lol!

Not even looking at Ohio State. Look at schools like Clemson, Florida State, USC, Oregon, Washington etc...
You think higher ups aren't getting fidgety right now? I can't even imagine the athletic shortages, add the academic losses with it and people are probably placing a lot of options on the table. Am I way off base thinking like this? I'm comparing a personal "State situation" that I know quite a bit about and trying to do an apples to apples comparison with these schools.

I never thought Anheuser-Busch would be owned by a Belgium company. When I think about it, I never thought Texas A&M would be in a different conference than Texas. Yet, there they are, in new worlds and still thriving.

Ohio State, that is something I've often thought about. Equal sharing works, it's healthy, it builds really solid relationships. It's also why I've come to hate Minnesota. To have a fanbase ***** the way they do about the hockey setup is hilarious to me. Please, Gophers, you are making a lot of money at the expense of others. Take your big paycheck and go sit down in the corner where you belong. If bored, go row a boat or something.

Each one of those schools knew what they were getting into when they joined conferences that had equal revenue sharing.
The question you are really asking is that since the media money has gotten so large are there schools that have gotten so greedy, that they are willing forsake their friends and rivals for money?

(06-30-2020 12:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:00 PM)cubucks Wrote:  ESPN/FOX/CBS etc... pay conferences, not individual schools, except for Notre Dame and Texas, obviously.

TV does pay conferences, for now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Before 1980, they paid the NCAA. Maybe someday in the future, TV will just pay individual schools for their home games and pay a conference only for a conference tournament or a championship game in football.

Example: If we look at the TV ratings for Ohio State football games compared to Big Ten football games that don't include Ohio State, there's no legitimate way to argue that Ohio State is worth only 1/14th of the money that ESPN and Fox pay to the Big Ten. For now, Ohio State's athletic department rakes in so much money from other sources that they live with getting only 1/14th of that money. But what happens when they have a large and unexpected shortfall of revenue (as they do in 2020) and they still have this super-high budget athletic department, 30 varsity sports, lots of highly paid head coaches, several football assistants making more than $500,000/year, etc., etc., with all of those expenses to cover? When do they say, "Ohio State wants a share of the TV money that better reflects the actual value delivered by Ohio State"?

Agreed!

That's my point of the last two posts of mine. I was rambling a bit, being stuck in a house for months will do that, lol!

Not even looking at Ohio State. Look at schools like Clemson, Florida State, USC, Oregon, Washington etc...
You think higher ups aren't getting fidgety right now? I can't even imagine the athletic shortages, add the academic losses with it and people are probably placing a lot of options on the table. Am I way off base thinking like this? I'm comparing a personal "State situation" that I know quite a bit about and trying to do an apples to apples comparison with these schools.

I never thought Anheuser-Busch would be owned by a Belgium company. When I think about it, I never thought Texas A&M would be in a different conference than Texas. Yet, there they are, in new worlds and still thriving.

Ohio State, that is something I've often thought about. Equal sharing works, it's healthy, it builds really solid relationships. It's also why I've come to hate Minnesota. To have a fanbase ***** the way they do about the hockey setup is hilarious to me. Please, Gophers, you are making a lot of money at the expense of others. Take your big paycheck and go sit down in the corner where you belong. If bored, go row a boat or something.

Yes, the argument for sharing media revenue is that it helps to build stronger conference mates, which makes your own schedules stronger, etc. And of course the opposite argument is again, look at which team's games pull in more TV viewers.

Another alternative to fully equal TV shares: In addition to brand names, the other thing that pulls in TV viewers is teams being highly ranked with really good W-L records. So, maybe borrow an idea from the Premier League and, after each year, distribute half of the conference TV money based on the conference football standings, with the conference champ getting the largest portion of that half, and proportionately smaller percentages for each position going down in the standings until the team in last place gets only a very small part of that half of the conference TV revenue.

(06-30-2020 01:15 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:00 PM)cubucks Wrote:  ESPN/FOX/CBS etc... pay conferences, not individual schools, except for Notre Dame and Texas, obviously.

TV does pay conferences, for now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Before 1980, they paid the NCAA. Maybe someday in the future, TV will just pay individual schools for their home games and pay a conference only for a conference tournament or a championship game in football.

Example: If we look at the TV ratings for Ohio State football games compared to Big Ten football games that don't include Ohio State, there's no legitimate way to argue that Ohio State is worth only 1/14th of the money that ESPN and Fox pay to the Big Ten. For now, Ohio State's athletic department rakes in so much money from other sources that they live with getting only 1/14th of that money. But what happens when they have a large and unexpected shortfall of revenue (as they do in 2020) and they still have this super-high budget athletic department, 30 varsity sports, lots of highly paid head coaches, several football assistants making more than $500,000/year, etc., etc., with all of those expenses to cover? When do they say, "Ohio State wants a share of the TV money that better reflects the actual value delivered by Ohio State"?

Agreed!

That's my point of the last two posts of mine. I was rambling a bit, being stuck in a house for months will do that, lol!

Not even looking at Ohio State. Look at schools like Clemson, Florida State, USC, Oregon, Washington etc...
You think higher ups aren't getting fidgety right now? I can't even imagine the athletic shortages, add the academic losses with it and people are probably placing a lot of options on the table. Am I way off base thinking like this? I'm comparing a personal "State situation" that I know quite a bit about and trying to do an apples to apples comparison with these schools.

I never thought Anheuser-Busch would be owned by a Belgium company. When I think about it, I never thought Texas A&M would be in a different conference than Texas. Yet, there they are, in new worlds and still thriving.

Ohio State, that is something I've often thought about. Equal sharing works, it's healthy, it builds really solid relationships. It's also why I've come to hate Minnesota. To have a fanbase ***** the way they do about the hockey setup is hilarious to me. Please, Gophers, you are making a lot of money at the expense of others. Take your big paycheck and go sit down in the corner where you belong. If bored, go row a boat or something.

Each one of those schools knew what they were getting into when they joined conferences that had equal revenue sharing.
The question you are really asking is that since the media money has gotten so large are there schools that have gotten so greedy, that they are willing forsake their friends and rivals for money?

I don't disagree with anything you're saying, XLance. I don't want anymore change and I surely don't want to lose any long standing rivals. I'm just not so sure that everything that was believed, signed, committed, agreed upon or whatever, matters anymore in 2020. If you know me, I'm not about to beat my chest for an entire conference. I sure as heck am not going to look down on others during these trying times. It's not a this team/conference is better than this team/conference kind of discussion. It's more of a who is going to survive this chaos discussion.

(06-30-2020 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:00 PM)cubucks Wrote:  ESPN/FOX/CBS etc... pay conferences, not individual schools, except for Notre Dame and Texas, obviously.

TV does pay conferences, for now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Before 1980, they paid the NCAA. Maybe someday in the future, TV will just pay individual schools for their home games and pay a conference only for a conference tournament or a championship game in football.

Example: If we look at the TV ratings for Ohio State football games compared to Big Ten football games that don't include Ohio State, there's no legitimate way to argue that Ohio State is worth only 1/14th of the money that ESPN and Fox pay to the Big Ten. For now, Ohio State's athletic department rakes in so much money from other sources that they live with getting only 1/14th of that money. But what happens when they have a large and unexpected shortfall of revenue (as they do in 2020) and they still have this super-high budget athletic department, 30 varsity sports, lots of highly paid head coaches, several football assistants making more than $500,000/year, etc., etc., with all of those expenses to cover? When do they say, "Ohio State wants a share of the TV money that better reflects the actual value delivered by Ohio State"?

Agreed!

That's my point of the last two posts of mine. I was rambling a bit, being stuck in a house for months will do that, lol!

Not even looking at Ohio State. Look at schools like Clemson, Florida State, USC, Oregon, Washington etc...
You think higher ups aren't getting fidgety right now? I can't even imagine the athletic shortages, add the academic losses with it and people are probably placing a lot of options on the table. Am I way off base thinking like this? I'm comparing a personal "State situation" that I know quite a bit about and trying to do an apples to apples comparison with these schools.

I never thought Anheuser-Busch would be owned by a Belgium company. When I think about it, I never thought Texas A&M would be in a different conference than Texas. Yet, there they are, in new worlds and still thriving.

Ohio State, that is something I've often thought about. Equal sharing works, it's healthy, it builds really solid relationships. It's also why I've come to hate Minnesota. To have a fanbase ***** the way they do about the hockey setup is hilarious to me. Please, Gophers, you are making a lot of money at the expense of others. Take your big paycheck and go sit down in the corner where you belong. If bored, go row a boat or something.

Yes, the argument for sharing media revenue is that it helps to build stronger conference mates, which makes your own schedules stronger, etc. And of course the opposite argument is again, look at which team's games pull in more TV viewers.

Another alternative to fully equal TV shares: In addition to brand names, the other thing that pulls in TV viewers is teams being highly ranked with really good W-L records. So, maybe borrow an idea from the Premier League and, after each year, distribute half of the conference TV money based on the conference football standings, with the conference champ getting the largest portion of that half, and proportionately smaller percentages for each position going down in the standings until the team in last place gets only a very small part of that half of the conference TV revenue.

That Premier League deal is pretty cool. Learning something new today!

(06-30-2020 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:00 PM)cubucks Wrote:  ESPN/FOX/CBS etc... pay conferences, not individual schools, except for Notre Dame and Texas, obviously.

TV does pay conferences, for now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Before 1980, they paid the NCAA. Maybe someday in the future, TV will just pay individual schools for their home games and pay a conference only for a conference tournament or a championship game in football.

Example: If we look at the TV ratings for Ohio State football games compared to Big Ten football games that don't include Ohio State, there's no legitimate way to argue that Ohio State is worth only 1/14th of the money that ESPN and Fox pay to the Big Ten. For now, Ohio State's athletic department rakes in so much money from other sources that they live with getting only 1/14th of that money. But what happens when they have a large and unexpected shortfall of revenue (as they do in 2020) and they still have this super-high budget athletic department, 30 varsity sports, lots of highly paid head coaches, several football assistants making more than $500,000/year, etc., etc., with all of those expenses to cover? When do they say, "Ohio State wants a share of the TV money that better reflects the actual value delivered by Ohio State"?

Agreed!

That's my point of the last two posts of mine. I was rambling a bit, being stuck in a house for months will do that, lol!

Not even looking at Ohio State. Look at schools like Clemson, Florida State, USC, Oregon, Washington etc...
You think higher ups aren't getting fidgety right now? I can't even imagine the athletic shortages, add the academic losses with it and people are probably placing a lot of options on the table. Am I way off base thinking like this? I'm comparing a personal "State situation" that I know quite a bit about and trying to do an apples to apples comparison with these schools.

I never thought Anheuser-Busch would be owned by a Belgium company. When I think about it, I never thought Texas A&M would be in a different conference than Texas. Yet, there they are, in new worlds and still thriving.

Ohio State, that is something I've often thought about. Equal sharing works, it's healthy, it builds really solid relationships. It's also why I've come to hate Minnesota. To have a fanbase ***** the way they do about the hockey setup is hilarious to me. Please, Gophers, you are making a lot of money at the expense of others. Take your big paycheck and go sit down in the corner where you belong. If bored, go row a boat or something.

Yes, the argument for sharing media revenue is that it helps to build stronger conference mates, which makes your own schedules stronger, etc. And of course the opposite argument is again, look at which team's games pull in more TV viewers.

Another alternative to fully equal TV shares: In addition to brand names, the other thing that pulls in TV viewers is teams being highly ranked with really good W-L records. So, maybe borrow an idea from the Premier League and, after each year, distribute half of the conference TV money based on the conference football standings, with the conference champ getting the largest portion of that half, and proportionately smaller percentages for each position going down in the standings until the team in last place gets only a very small part of that half of the conference TV revenue.

I understand the concept but doesn't that relegate the "weakest" team(s) to almost forever remaining the "weakest" team(s)? I note that the NBA, MLB & NFL use a draft which stands that model on end...the weakest teams getting first picks in the draft in order to build a more equal league rather than just letting the strong teams get even stronger. The MLB salary cap also is designed to "equalize" teams by not allowing the richest teams to "buy" all the best players. And, I know the NFL does, and IIRC the NBA & MLB as well, share all television money equally among the league teams regardless of record or market size. Remember, if there is normal distribution (won/loss records) half of any conference will always be "below average" anyway. If certain teams ALWAYS win or others ALWAYS lose. there isn't much excitement to the games. Overall, I think the argument that the "major leagues" have bought into is that there are more fans when more teams are similar to the others as it makes for "good, interesting games" as it includes more fans than just those of the teams who were "always" going to win". Most "losers" (other than the Cubs!) seem to lose fans if there is little possibility for winning, and most of those fans don't go to other teams. They just stop following that sport and that is not a good outcome for any team playing that sport.

(06-30-2020 05:01 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Another alternative to fully equal TV shares: In addition to brand names, the other thing that pulls in TV viewers is teams being highly ranked with really good W-L records. So, maybe borrow an idea from the Premier League and, after each year, distribute half of the conference TV money based on the conference football standings, with the conference champ getting the largest portion of that half, and proportionately smaller percentages for each position going down in the standings until the team in last place gets only a very small part of that half of the conference TV revenue.

I understand the concept but doesn't that relegate the "weakest" team(s) to almost forever remaining the "weakest" team(s)?

The Premier League idea is that half the TV money is distributed equally, and the other half (IIRC in the PL it's actually a bit less than half) is performance-based.

The Big Ten annual distribution per school is what, about $50 million, to use a round number? Let's say $40 million of that is attributed to football. So even a school that finished 14th out of 14 in football would get just over half of that $40 million, ie just over $20 million/year, plus the $10 million/year not allocated to football. I'm not going to feel sorry for that 14th place athletic department that collects "only" a little more than $30 million/year, and no one else should, either.

The English soccer system would be terrible for college football. Their top teams stay rich and get even richer while the rest stay poor and have to spend recklessly to try to maintain their status in the top league.

If there was unequal revenue sharing in CFB many schools would have even slimmer chances than they do now.

(06-30-2020 05:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The English soccer system would be terrible for college football. Their top teams stay rich and get even richer while the rest stay poor and have to spend recklessly to try to maintain their status in the top league.

If there was unequal revenue sharing in CFB many schools would have even slimmer chances than they do now.

College sports revenue is already extremely unequal. Is Alabama sharing its football revenue equally with UAB? Of course not. So there's no reason Alabama should have to share that revenue equally with Vanderbilt, either. Incentives for good performance should not be feared.

(06-30-2020 05:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 05:01 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Another alternative to fully equal TV shares: In addition to brand names, the other thing that pulls in TV viewers is teams being highly ranked with really good W-L records. So, maybe borrow an idea from the Premier League and, after each year, distribute half of the conference TV money based on the conference football standings, with the conference champ getting the largest portion of that half, and proportionately smaller percentages for each position going down in the standings until the team in last place gets only a very small part of that half of the conference TV revenue.

I understand the concept but doesn't that relegate the "weakest" team(s) to almost forever remaining the "weakest" team(s)?

The Premier League idea is that half the TV money is distributed equally, and the other half (IIRC in the PL it's actually a bit less than half) is performance-based.

The Big Ten annual distribution per school is what, about $50 million, to use a round number? Let's say $40 million of that is attributed to football. So even a school that finished 14th out of 14 in football would get just over half of that $40 million, ie just over $20 million/year, plus the $10 million/year not allocated to football. I'm not going to feel sorry for that 14th place athletic department that collects "only" a little more than $30 million/year, and no one else should, either.

I understand your concept...but still...even if it was only say $10M per year, in 5 years you have "deprived" the weaker teams $50M which presumably the "stronger" team would have used to solidify its dominance. It would just provide the weaker teams a longer period of time to suffer into oblivion.

From Iowa and probably coming to a school near you!

Quote:Gary Barta, director of athletics for the program, said that the budget would be cut by around $15 million, setting it for around $112.5 million. The difference is made up of around $13 million in reduced operating expenses, with the rest being adjustments to pay.

Projections for the coming fiscal year are based on the assumption that both football and basketball will complete seasons with fans in attendance. If those seasons, which generate significant revenue for the program, are disrupted, then further cuts would be needed, Barta said.

“The pandemic has dealt us a financial situation that requires difficult decisions,” Barta said, in a statement. “It is our responsibility to maintain a fiscally responsible operation while providing the highest level of service to our student-athletes.”

https://www.kcrg.com/2020/06/30/universi...hes-staff/

(06-29-2020 02:23 PM)johnintx Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 08:47 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  I think that OU will be in-play.

The BIG will make overtures. A solid Midwestern division would be anchored by OU. Some nostalgia by rekindling the UNL rivalry. KU would be used as a bridge...geographically, academically and culturally. At the end the day, the BIG will be very attractive: reliable money, an attractive path to football exposure and championships, and the academics feel like their athletics are aligned with academia.

I don't know if the B1G will sacrifice its academic standards for OU. OU is not a peer to the large state flagships of the Midwest. But, money talks, and if Fox and ESPN make the right whispers in their ears, the B1G could move in that direction.

OU's administrators and some of its donors would crawl on their hands and knees to the B1G. Fans? Not so much.

(06-29-2020 08:47 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  UT-Austin will desperately work to keep OU close. Either trying to save the B12 or working with other power conferences. ESPN will also partner with UT-Austin by offering financial and exposure sweeteners.

The preferred move at OU is most likely the path of least resistance: no move at all. OU is comfortable in a conference with regional rivals, especially one that it helped form. OU has a reasonable path to the CFP from the B12 (being successful in the CFP is an entirely different story). But, if there is a $20M per year difference between payments in the B1G/SEC and the B12, OU has to pursue other options. A network can overpay for OU's Tier 3 rights (just as UT is overpaid) to keep OU in the B12 and to keep the conference together. The downside of that is that it increases the difference in revenue between UT, OU and the other 8 teams. But, that could be the price to keep the other 8 in a P5 conference. Also, a lot of fans and season ticket holders are unhappy with B12 home schedules. Which leads us to...

(06-29-2020 08:47 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  The SEC will be a backup option in case state politics becomes an issue.

The SEC is the people's choice. Sure, it's a tougher conference which would result in an average of one more loss per year. But, the buzz around home games with SEC opponents would increase donations and excitement among the fan base. Plus, with the right deal, the SEC can invite OSU to come along. The inclusion of OSU is not a deal-breaker, but it helps. It is also something the B1G is not willing to do.

(06-29-2020 08:47 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  After the frustrations from the last round of realignment, OU has nicely positioned itself to be at the center of all discussions.

Yes, OU is the key to any future realignment in the P5. After the departure of the previous president/senator/governor, any change in leadership is an improvement.

It's no secret that I haven't been a fan of large conferences or an expanded playoff. That being said, I'm guessing I'm in the minority on both issues. So here's an option that accepts both of those things and also addresses G5 wishes to have better access to the CFP.

As both the Big XII media deal and the original CFP contract expire in a few years, I could see the SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma, and then doing the unthinkable - sort of.

What if, after going to 16 members, the SEC West schools form a new 8 member "conference" with the blessing of the SEC East schools? They could adopt as their new name the SEC West Conference, or SWC for short, while the remaining 8 schools that now include Alabama and Auburn (Vandy goes to the SWC) take the name SEC East Conference, or SEC.

These two "conferences" then form an alliance in which they share a single Commissioner and staff, which is responsible for recruiting, training, scheduling and supervising officials for all sports. This staff also negotiates media contracts for both conferences, and oversees scheduling for both to optimize value for potential media partners.

Together, they promote a new CFP deal in which there are now 6 AQ conferences which have a guaranteed spot for their champion in an 8 team playoff. The other two spots are filled by the highest ranked non-AQ conference champions or independents. In that model, both the AAC champion and the MWC champion could qualify (if they were ranked higher than Notre Dame and the other three G5 champs).

The playoff would be organized with two 4-team brackets: A southeastern bracket, including the SEC, ACC, and Big XII champions, plus the easternmost non-AQ at large team; and a northwestern bracket, with the SWC, B1G, and PAC champs plus the westernmost at large team. In each bracket, the #1 and #2 seeds host first round games played in prime time immediately after Christmas Day. A week later the southeast bracket winners meet in the Peach Bowl in Atlanta, and the northwest winners meet in the Cotton Bowl. The two semifinal winners play for the CFP Championship a week after that - approximately when the CFP final is currently played.

The B1G and PAC both keep their Rose Bowl tie-in, the SEC plays the SWC in the Sugar Bowl, the ACC hosts the Orange Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl gets first choice of the three at large NY6 teams selected from the highest ranked teams without regard to conference not already selected. The site for the CFP Championship is put out for bids.

For their part, both the SWC and SEC stage a "conference" championship game in Week 15, in which the #1 and #2 finishers in each conference round robin meet on the home field of the school which was the visiting team during the round robin.

The B1G might not be thrilled that they don't get a second team in the 8 team playoff. They always have the option of adding two teams so they can do the same as the SEC. Problem there is that there aren't really any viable candidates left that wouldn't represent a serious reduction in their per school payout.

Obviously, there is incentive to schedule in a way that will get you a #1 or #2 seed and home field advantage. While that may not seem "fair" in a playoff, it helps to relieve travel fatigue and expense for the best teams who now have to play 4 post season games to become National Champion instead of 3.

One last point - ESPN doesn't have a monopoly on the NY6 unless they outbid all their competitors. And the conferences may opt to have more than one media partner in the new contract.

Where do you have UCONN and UMASS?

(06-30-2020 08:05 PM)cubucks Wrote:  From Iowa and probably coming to a school near you!

Quote:Gary Barta, director of athletics for the program, said that the budget would be cut by around $15 million, setting it for around $112.5 million. The difference is made up of around $13 million in reduced operating expenses, with the rest being adjustments to pay.

Projections for the coming fiscal year are based on the assumption that both football and basketball will complete seasons with fans in attendance. If those seasons, which generate significant revenue for the program, are disrupted, then further cuts would be needed, Barta said.

“The pandemic has dealt us a financial situation that requires difficult decisions,” Barta said, in a statement. “It is our responsibility to maintain a fiscally responsible operation while providing the highest level of service to our student-athletes.”

https://www.kcrg.com/2020/06/30/universi...hes-staff/

Iowa cut its athletic budget by $15 million based on the assumption that both football and basketball will complete seasons with fans in attendance.

In other words, they are going to end up cutting their athletic budget by much more than that.

(06-30-2020 01:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:47 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-30-2020 12:24 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-29-2020 09:00 PM)cubucks Wrote:  ESPN/FOX/CBS etc... pay conferences, not individual schools, except for Notre Dame and Texas, obviously.

TV does pay conferences, for now, but it doesn't have to be that way. Before 1980, they paid the NCAA. Maybe someday in the future, TV will just pay individual schools for their home games and pay a conference only for a conference tournament or a championship game in football.

Example: If we look at the TV ratings for Ohio State football games compared to Big Ten football games that don't include Ohio State, there's no legitimate way to argue that Ohio State is worth only 1/14th of the money that ESPN and Fox pay to the Big Ten. For now, Ohio State's athletic department rakes in so much money from other sources that they live with getting only 1/14th of that money. But what happens when they have a large and unexpected shortfall of revenue (as they do in 2020) and they still have this super-high budget athletic department, 30 varsity sports, lots of highly paid head coaches, several football assistants making more than $500,000/year, etc., etc., with all of those expenses to cover? When do they say, "Ohio State wants a share of the TV money that better reflects the actual value delivered by Ohio State"?

Agreed!

That's my point of the last two posts of mine. I was rambling a bit, being stuck in a house for months will do that, lol!

Not even looking at Ohio State. Look at schools like Clemson, Florida State, USC, Oregon, Washington etc...
You think higher ups aren't getting fidgety right now? I can't even imagine the athletic shortages, add the academic losses with it and people are probably placing a lot of options on the table. Am I way off base thinking like this? I'm comparing a personal "State situation" that I know quite a bit about and trying to do an apples to apples comparison with these schools.

I never thought Anheuser-Busch would be owned by a Belgium company. When I think about it, I never thought Texas A&M would be in a different conference than Texas. Yet, there they are, in new worlds and still thriving.

Ohio State, that is something I've often thought about. Equal sharing works, it's healthy, it builds really solid relationships. It's also why I've come to hate Minnesota. To have a fanbase ***** the way they do about the hockey setup is hilarious to me. Please, Gophers, you are making a lot of money at the expense of others. Take your big paycheck and go sit down in the corner where you belong. If bored, go row a boat or something.

Yes, the argument for sharing media revenue is that it helps to build stronger conference mates, which makes your own schedules stronger, etc. And of course the opposite argument is again, look at which team's games pull in more TV viewers.

Another alternative to fully equal TV shares: In addition to brand names, the other thing that pulls in TV viewers is teams being highly ranked with really good W-L records. So, maybe borrow an idea from the Premier League and, after each year, distribute half of the conference TV money based on the conference football standings, with the conference champ getting the largest portion of that half, and proportionately smaller percentages for each position going down in the standings until the team in last place gets only a very small part of that half of the conference TV revenue.

The Big 12 had revenue sharing half equal and half on TV appearances in order to stimulate good performance.

Despite how much they got bashed, their revenue sharing was significantly more equal than that of the Pac 10 or Big East. USC or Miami could make several times what the bottom member of the conference made, whereas in the Big 12, it was only about 50% from bottom to top (i.e. 7 or 8 million vs. 11 or 12 million) I remember one year where USC got 7.5 million and Washington St. got 2.5 million from the conference.