(08-29-2025 12:28 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 12:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 12:13 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:15 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 03:51 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  G6 breakaway would be great.

Under the new CFP media agreement beginning in 2026, each of the 64 schools in the Group of Five (G5) conferences is expected to receive just under
$2 million annually.

To get an idea of how much a bump this is, consider that under the 4 team CFP setup, P5 Conferences only got $93m. That's only about $5.1m per school from the B1G, and less than $6m per school in the SEC!

If the g6 can figure out a way to get nearly $2m apiece annually, or to plug that hole in their budgets and stage their own playoffs/etc, I think that would be wonderful. However, history is not exactly full of examples of entities that were getting paid for the work or value of others willingly deciding to forego said revenue. In fact, they usually fight tooth and nail when/if the higher value entities try to slow or stop the spigot. Not to mention that the MWC champ was ranked higher than both the M2 champs last year...don't they have an argument that they should get a larger share in 2032 if they continue to outperform the others on the field? Or I guess the Pac could if Boise and the rest continue to win lots of football games starting in 2026?

Just like the P4, the g6 has clumps of stronger and weaker programs. You have Memphis and Boise trying to figure out how to move up, WSU and OSU desperately trying still to not get left behind, and USF with a $95m budget, and on the other side you have Louisiana-Monroe with a $20m (!!) budget. USF's budget is FAR more P4-like than Louisiana-Monroe-like. Those stronger programs want nothing to do with a plan than separates them willingly from the P4, so the weaklings would have to willingly forego the nearly $2m per school they get from the CFP plus also forego the bump they get from playing Boise, USF, Memphis, SDSU, WSU, OSU, etc etc etc.

Seems like they need to focus on not antagonizing the Big Boys, while also exploring additional revenue streams that they can tap on the side.

Well, $2 million is actually a worse ratio of revenues compared to what mid-majors were earning in comparison to the major conferences just twenty years ago. The financial gap continues to widen. The expenses to run high-level college sports continues to grow. In many cases, the geography and travel are becoming more and more burdensome to non-power teams (who cannot afford national set-ups like the P leagues can).

IMO, a threat to separate and stage their own division (and package their rights together) would be an exciting move. If the P do separate, and are pushed to only play each other, a great number of those brands in the long run will actually suffer, because parity always wins out. Not everyone can win in a given year, and then tiers will be established within the P world without a lower division to "build up" against. Ultimately, both sides do very much need each other.

The champions of that level would still get a significant national recognition, and with that it's own revenue, marketing and sales abilities. I just don't think the G6 can afford to dance to the tunes made by the P.

The base payment (not counting academic bonuses, the $4 million for playing in games) in the last year of the PAC was $465 million for the P5 and $116 million for the G5. Now, the P4 and Notre Dame get 90.8% and the Gs 9.2% (without adjusting for the Oregon St./Washington St. deal). So from 80/20 to 91/9. And while payouts doubled, the Gs are going from $116 million to about $128 million.

A smaller slice of a growing pie.

Although it is true that when the original deal was signed, it was expected to be:
65 P5
57 Gs

Now it is:
68 P4
2 transition
64 Gs

And 5 of those 57 are now in the P5 group, BYU, UCF, Cincinnati, Houston and SMU. 12 of the Gs are new to FBS (soon to be 14 and with Davis, 15).

(08-29-2025 12:13 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 04:15 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 03:51 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  G6 breakaway would be great.

Under the new CFP media agreement beginning in 2026, each of the 64 schools in the Group of Five (G5) conferences is expected to receive just under
$2 million annually.

To get an idea of how much a bump this is, consider that under the 4 team CFP setup, P5 Conferences only got $93m. That's only about $5.1m per school from the B1G, and less than $6m per school in the SEC!

If the g6 can figure out a way to get nearly $2m apiece annually, or to plug that hole in their budgets and stage their own playoffs/etc, I think that would be wonderful. However, history is not exactly full of examples of entities that were getting paid for the work or value of others willingly deciding to forego said revenue. In fact, they usually fight tooth and nail when/if the higher value entities try to slow or stop the spigot. Not to mention that the MWC champ was ranked higher than both the M2 champs last year...don't they have an argument that they should get a larger share in 2032 if they continue to outperform the others on the field? Or I guess the Pac could if Boise and the rest continue to win lots of football games starting in 2026?

Just like the P4, the g6 has clumps of stronger and weaker programs. You have Memphis and Boise trying to figure out how to move up, WSU and OSU desperately trying still to not get left behind, and USF with a $95m budget, and on the other side you have Louisiana-Monroe with a $20m (!!) budget. USF's budget is FAR more P4-like than Louisiana-Monroe-like. Those stronger programs want nothing to do with a plan than separates them willingly from the P4, so the weaklings would have to willingly forego the nearly $2m per school they get from the CFP plus also forego the bump they get from playing Boise, USF, Memphis, SDSU, WSU, OSU, etc etc etc.

Seems like they need to focus on not antagonizing the Big Boys, while also exploring additional revenue streams that they can tap on the side.

Well, $2 million is actually a worse ratio of revenues compared to what mid-majors were earning in comparison to the major conferences just twenty years ago. The financial gap continues to widen. The expenses to run high-level college sports continues to grow. In many cases, the geography and travel are becoming more and more burdensome to non-power teams (who cannot afford national set-ups like the P leagues can).

IMO, a threat to separate and stage their own division (and package their rights together) would be an exciting move. If the P do separate, and are pushed to only play each other, a great number of those brands in the long run will actually suffer, because parity always wins out. Not everyone can win in a given year, and then tiers will be established within the P world without a lower division to "build up" against. Ultimately, both sides do very much need each other.

The champions of that level would still get a significant national recognition, and with that it's own revenue, marketing and sales abilities. I just don't think the G6 can afford to dance to the tunes made by the P.

No they wouldn't, we already saw how this plays out, it's called FCS. A large portion of the current G5 went with the 1AA side of that split back in the day, how did that work out? How much national recognition, revenue, marketing, and sales abilities did 1AA/FCS football ever generate? The answer was basically zero, there's a reason almost every good FCS school have moved up since then and almost no 1A schools dropped. What makes you seriously think there would be significantly more revenue and recognition this time?

Maybe G6 universities start collectively raising the price on how much they are willing to accept for buy games.

Begrudgingly starting to accept "when" versus "if" the P4 break away. Being a G6 team, like to know the interest in a G6 playoffs and what type of media dollars for the contract. Will it be in the range of 100M to 150M and the impact of bowl games that would be incorporated. Realize this is way to early for answers, but perhaps the media ball park interest could be talked about by those that have some inside information.

And is this Reddit line accurate "NCAA and ESPN ink 8-year, $920 million media rights deal (Includes all rounds of FCS Football Championship)".

(08-29-2025 02:55 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  Maybe G6 universities start collectively raising the price on how much they are willing to accept for buy games.

You just wrote a textbook case of an illegal price fixing agreement that would violate antitrust laws. (And yes, that can apply even when the G6 are in less of a power position than the P4.)

(08-29-2025 04:07 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Begrudgingly starting to accept "when" versus "if" the P4 break away. Being a G6 team, like to know the interest in a G6 playoffs and what type of media dollars for the contract. Will it be in the range of 100M to 150M and the impact of bowl games that would be incorporated. Realize this is way to early for answers, but perhaps the media ball park interest could be talked about by those that have some inside information.

And is this Reddit line accurate "NCAA and ESPN ink 8-year, $920 million media rights deal (Includes all rounds of FCS Football Championship)".

The Reddit line is technically accurate, but as with many (most?) things on the Internet, it is completely misleading to the point that the spirit of how it’s worded is effectively lying even if the wording is somehow technically true.

It is true that the NCAA and ESPN signed an 8-year $920 million media rights deal.

It is also true that the deal includes all rounds of the FCS playoffs.

However, the misleading part is that this deal includes the rights to the NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament and that is where the *vast* majority of the rights fees value is being allocated to. The deal also includes the College World Series, Frozen Four, and every other NCAA championship besides the NCAA Tournament.

The way that the Reddit line is worded implies that the FCS playoffs are a primary driver of the deal, but the reality is that it’s a throw-in compared to the events that I listed above.

Essentially, there’s no magic pot of gold for a G6-only playoff if that’s what you’re trying to get at here.

(08-29-2025 04:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 02:55 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  Maybe G6 universities start collectively raising the price on how much they are willing to accept for buy games.

You just wrote a textbook case of an illegal price fixing agreement that would violate antitrust laws. (And yes, that can apply even when the G6 are in less of a power position than the P4.)

The P4 are breaking the anti-trust with the help of the media networks already.

(08-29-2025 04:07 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Begrudgingly starting to accept "when" versus "if" the P4 break away. Being a G6 team, like to know the interest in a G6 playoffs and what type of media dollars for the contract. Will it be in the range of 100M to 150M and the impact of bowl games that would be incorporated. Realize this is way to early for answers, but perhaps the media ball park interest could be talked about by those that have some inside information.

And is this Reddit line accurate "NCAA and ESPN ink 8-year, $920 million media rights deal (Includes all rounds of FCS Football Championship)".

I'll believe a P4/G6 split when I see it.

There has been talk of it since the BCS was formed.

(08-29-2025 04:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 04:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 02:55 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  Maybe G6 universities start collectively raising the price on how much they are willing to accept for buy games.

You just wrote a textbook case of an illegal price fixing agreement that would violate antitrust laws. (And yes, that can apply even when the G6 are in less of a power position than the P4.)

The P4 are breaking the anti-trust with the help of the media networks already.

That is not true. The P4 have been entering into their own media deals and heavily compete with each other on that front.

And even if you were to believe that the P4 were somehow in violation of antitrust laws, that is irrelevant with respect to analyzing whether what was proposed would be an illegal price fixing by the G6. If you get a speeding ticket, telling the officer that a guy just passed by going 20 mph faster than you is not a defense. Similarly, if the G6 are violating antitrust laws (or any other laws), they can’t get out of it by simply saying that the P4 are violating other laws, too. It doesn’t matter.

(08-29-2025 04:34 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 04:07 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Begrudgingly starting to accept "when" versus "if" the P4 break away. Being a G6 team, like to know the interest in a G6 playoffs and what type of media dollars for the contract. Will it be in the range of 100M to 150M and the impact of bowl games that would be incorporated. Realize this is way to early for answers, but perhaps the media ball park interest could be talked about by those that have some inside information.

And is this Reddit line accurate "NCAA and ESPN ink 8-year, $920 million media rights deal (Includes all rounds of FCS Football Championship)".

The Reddit line is technically accurate, but as with many (most?) things on the Internet, it is completely misleading to the point that the spirit of how it’s worded is effectively lying even if the wording is somehow technically true.

It is true that the NCAA and ESPN signed an 8-year $920 million media rights deal.

It is also true that the deal includes all rounds of the FCS playoffs.

However, the misleading part is that this deal includes the rights to the NCAA Women’s Basketball Tournament and that is where the *vast* majority of the rights fees value is being allocated to. The deal also includes the College World Series, Frozen Four, and every other NCAA championship besides the NCAA Tournament.

The way that the Reddit line is worded implies that the FCS playoffs are a primary driver of the deal, but the reality is that it’s a throw-in compared to the events that I listed above.

Essentially, there’s no magic pot of gold for a G6-only playoff if that’s what you’re trying to get at here.

Not a pot of gold, but trying to see if the 1.75M per G6 team is attainable with a G6 playoff system. The 100M is below that, so would not say a pot of gold.

(08-29-2025 04:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 02:55 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  Maybe G6 universities start collectively raising the price on how much they are willing to accept for buy games.

You just wrote a textbook case of an illegal price fixing agreement that would violate antitrust laws. (And yes, that can apply even when the G6 are in less of a power position than the P4.)

It's already happened, conspiracy or (likely) no. Prices for buy games have skyrocketed recently.

(08-29-2025 09:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  "Unifying the FBS Media Rights" would be a disaster. Negotiating a media deal is really the most important thing the Conference Commissioner does and they want to outsource it to some Board. It doesn't secure more money for the G6. It only shifts the blame to someone else. These G6 commissioners want zero accountability for their actions.

To be fair, if I’m running a G6 school, of course I want unified FBS media rights! That’s a great deal for my G6 school.

It's a great deal if you're CUSA. It's a terrible deal if you're the AAC.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-29-2025 05:20 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 04:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 02:55 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  Maybe G6 universities start collectively raising the price on how much they are willing to accept for buy games.

You just wrote a textbook case of an illegal price fixing agreement that would violate antitrust laws. (And yes, that can apply even when the G6 are in less of a power position than the P4.)

It's already happened, conspiracy or (likely) no. Prices for buy games have skyrocketed recently.

Supply and demand, the cost of a win has increased no more than its value has.

(08-29-2025 04:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 04:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 04:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 02:55 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  Maybe G6 universities start collectively raising the price on how much they are willing to accept for buy games.

You just wrote a textbook case of an illegal price fixing agreement that would violate antitrust laws. (And yes, that can apply even when the G6 are in less of a power position than the P4.)

The P4 are breaking the anti-trust with the help of the media networks already.

That is not true. The P4 have been entering into their own media deals and heavily compete with each other on that front.

And even if you were to believe that the P4 were somehow in violation of antitrust laws, that is irrelevant with respect to analyzing whether what was proposed would be an illegal price fixing by the G6. If you get a speeding ticket, telling the officer that a guy just passed by going 20 mph faster than you is not a defense. Similarly, if the G6 are violating antitrust laws (or any other laws), they can’t get out of it by simply saying that the P4 are violating other laws, too. It doesn’t matter.

It's always been a stupid argument. I'm not sure why people entertain the nonsense.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-29-2025 05:52 PM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 04:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 04:41 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 04:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 02:55 PM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  Maybe G6 universities start collectively raising the price on how much they are willing to accept for buy games.

You just wrote a textbook case of an illegal price fixing agreement that would violate antitrust laws. (And yes, that can apply even when the G6 are in less of a power position than the P4.)

The P4 are breaking the anti-trust with the help of the media networks already.

That is not true. The P4 have been entering into their own media deals and heavily compete with each other on that front.

And even if you were to believe that the P4 were somehow in violation of antitrust laws, that is irrelevant with respect to analyzing whether what was proposed would be an illegal price fixing by the G6. If you get a speeding ticket, telling the officer that a guy just passed by going 20 mph faster than you is not a defense. Similarly, if the G6 are violating antitrust laws (or any other laws), they can’t get out of it by simply saying that the P4 are violating other laws, too. It doesn’t matter.

It's always been a stupid argument. I'm not sure why people entertain the nonsense.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using CSNbbs mobile app

People want to have a boogieman to blame for everything.

And the P4, except for UCF, have been in the top division since at least the 1950s. All but a few have been in power conferences or considered major independents the whole time. 21 of the 66 Gs either were FCS or didn't even play football when their seniors were born. 25 weren't in the top division when the BCS started and 29 weren't 30 years ago. Only 32 of the 66 were in the top division at the time of the OU/UGA Supreme Court ruling, only 4 from the CUSA or Sun Belt.

So a lot of the Gs are tagalongs to something others built. They didn't create the value and don't provide the value of the CFP.

(08-30-2025 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  And the P4, except for UCF, have been in the top division since at least the 1950s. All but a few have been in power conferences or considered major independents the whole time. 21 of the 66 Gs either were FCS or didn't even play football when their seniors were born. 25 weren't in the top division when the BCS started and 29 weren't 30 years ago. Only 32 of the 66 were in the top division at the time of the OU/UGA Supreme Court ruling, only 4 from the CUSA or Sun Belt.

So a lot of the Gs are tagalongs to something others built. They didn't create the value and don't provide the value of the CFP.

Do you really hate when a school puts in 50 million in facilities and commits to move up to FBS? Does that really bring down the sport?

Why is this such a bad thing when NAIA level schools are moving up to D1 to get their hands on NCAA tournament money? For hardly any investment at all.

(08-29-2025 11:59 AM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  

(08-28-2025 03:48 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

I think the potential of unifying FBS media rights among the G6 conferences is gaining momentum. It was a key talking point at some of the recent football media days, including by MAC Commissioner Jon Steinbrecher and AC Commissioner Tim Pernetti.

I'm still pretty skeptical on this as it seems one conference always signs a TV deal they don't want the others to be a part of. Perhaps a few of the conferences will get together to try and pool rights.

G6 play-in talk was going on for a couple of years and that appeared to die down. In part I'm sure because of an inability to settle on number of teams in the CFP playoff.

(08-29-2025 09:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-29-2025 09:26 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  "Unifying the FBS Media Rights" would be a disaster. Negotiating a media deal is really the most important thing the Conference Commissioner does and they want to outsource it to some Board. It doesn't secure more money for the G6. It only shifts the blame to someone else. These G6 commissioners want zero accountability for their actions.

To be fair, if I’m running a G6 school, of course I want unified FBS media rights! That’s a great deal for my G6 school.

Similarly, all of the misnamed “Super League” proposals where the top 72 schools all aggregate their rights in a private equity funded model are what’s being pushed by the ACC and Big 12 schools because that’s also in their self-interests. Of course they want to aggregate everyone if it means they can simultaneously make more money off of the Big Ten/SEC brands and exclude nearly all of the G6 schools. That’s a great deal for my ACC/Big 12 school.

Everyone is acting in their own self-interests. What matters is who can actually take their self-interests and has the power to actually *implement* them. That universe consists of the Big Ten and SEC (with Notre Dame getting a side piece).

That’s a nice fan take.

The power isn’t with the conferences though. It is with 10-20 schools, maybe less, and to a lesser degree, with those that control the revenue mechanisms (tv production/distribution).

And if everyone acts in their self-interests, as you say, it’s quite easy and likely that all current conferences have an end date. As there is a lot of room left for more movement

Whether that actually occurs is dependent on the notion everyone does actually seek their self interest, and if money exogenous to TV production seeks profits from ending the inefficient market that is using traditional conference HQs to exploit non-commercially minded schools/ADs

It’s no surprise there’s increased interest in getting to 24 schools and liquidation of at least 1 M conference. Aggregation to 48 in the P2 is in essence a Superleague, built by HQs and networks, rather than private capital. Keep pushing the availability of marketshare down the road. Not a bad outcome, although likely temporary and leaving a lot on the table imo.

(08-30-2025 10:41 AM)Garden_KC Wrote:  

(08-30-2025 09:19 AM)bullet Wrote:  And the P4, except for UCF, have been in the top division since at least the 1950s. All but a few have been in power conferences or considered major independents the whole time. 21 of the 66 Gs either were FCS or didn't even play football when their seniors were born. 25 weren't in the top division when the BCS started and 29 weren't 30 years ago. Only 32 of the 66 were in the top division at the time of the OU/UGA Supreme Court ruling, only 4 from the CUSA or Sun Belt.

So a lot of the Gs are tagalongs to something others built. They didn't create the value and don't provide the value of the CFP.

Do you really hate when a school puts in 50 million in facilities and commits to move up to FBS? Does that really bring down the sport?

Why is this such a bad thing when NAIA level schools are moving up to D1 to get their hands on NCAA tournament money? For hardly any investment at all.

I hate when they do it for ego on the back of students and taxpayers. I also don't like how all these new schools are diluting the talent pool for the G schools who were there before. The gap seems to be bigger than ever.