Just a food for thought post but what are things going to be like if we move to a P4?

Texas and Oklahoma join the PAC to move to 14. The PAC, SEC, B1G, ACC all have 14 teams (56 total) and are the new power subdivision.

The B12 meanwhile goes back to 12 and along with the MWC, MAC and CUSA all have 12. The AAC pairing losses stays at 10 and SBC (with a couple new faces) stays at 10. The G6 are then at (68 total) teams.

What kind of changes could a landscape like this force?

1. Redistribution of wealth?
2. Redistribution of post season access?

But if it goes the other way, a P5 of 16 teams each (80 total) the remaining G4 conferences are going to be more than happy to hold onto its 1 NY6 game.

That's why the solution by 2025 may be to move to a NY8 (adding Holiday, Citrus Bowls) and giving each of the G6 champions an at-large slot in one of these games. It can work financially with the G6 taking a smaller cut of the CFP money (35%) and new San Diego/Orlando TV markets adding value to the bowl games.

Semifinals:
Rose (playoff vs. playoff)
Orange (playoff vs. playoff)

Access Bowls:
Citrus (G6 vs. P4)
Peach (G6 vs. P4)
Sugar (G6 vs. P4)
Cotton (G6 vs. P4)
Fiesta (G6 vs. P4)
Holiday (G6 vs. P4)

I think that would make the G6 division races more exciting because the winners of the divisions play for a conference championship and a chance for a NY8 bowl.

P4 would still get 10 slots in a NY8 system and a chance to beat a conference champion in a bowl game.

(01-01-2017 12:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 07:03 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-31-2016 03:43 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  As I said ain't going to happen that any network chooses to treat the G5 like the P5 but if all the G5 tossed their rights into an LLC and then resold the rights in a combined action, they are going to come out ahead and frankly the networks aren't going to give a crap as long as the price produces a good rate of return and decent viewership.

What would almost certainly happen is before the season begins the LLC in cooperation with the networks and conferences lines up a slate of weeknight games and the high bidder gets to pick as the season wears on. So if say CBS Sports and ESPN are in the mix you might have a MAC game on ESPNU and a Sun Belt on CBS Sports on Thursday night.

ESPN for example got burned this year taking AState at Georgia State on a Thursday night that ended up going head-to-head with the Falcons when the NFL released their schedule, they could have tossed that game to CBS or ASN and taken someone who didn't have the local NFL fan favorite playing.

Ok.

Before you were talking about the G5 being the AFL to the P5's NFL. So that's more what my previous comment was geared towards.

Your idea sounds reasonable.


Except that I think it would be tough to get the MWC and AAC, even the CUSA, to view themselves as "equals" to the MAC and Sun Belt.

Is the AAC, for example, going to be willing to put a middling AAC game aside and give up a better timeslot so that a game with the top two Sun Belt teams can have that prime real estate?? Might be tough ...

Man you skim too much Original post I debunked the idea that a G5 AFL plan could work.

The NCAA (and later CFA) had a pretty simple TV plan. Everyone got a small payment from the organizer (NCAA, then CFA) out of a base sum paid by the participating network(s).

There was basically a "price sheet" set by the NCAA depending on whether ABC, CBS, or TBS was carrying the game and whether it was a national or regional telecast.

If a network wanted a game they offered the price sheet amount, half to each team (or to the team's conference if the league required) to get them to adjust the kickoff time.

The LLC solicit bids from various networks and uses that to determine the price sheet, which in this case is probably points. Add up all the points divide the total revenue set aside for the "eat what you kill" pool to determine the value of a point.

Arkansas State travels to Utah State and the game is selected by CBSSN to show on Friday night, the LLC looks at the price sheet and sends a check for half the amount to MWC and half to the Sun Belt.

Colorado State plays at Boise State for a late Saturday night on ESPN2, MWC gets 100% of the revenue.

Oklahoma travels to Houston for a Saturday early ABC game. Check the number of points and credit 100% to the AAC since OU isn't a member of the LLC.

Schools that schedule good games and prove to be reliable TV draws will be rewarded. In other words, the AAC and MWC would likely do even better than they already do if the total financial pool goes up and it quite likely would.

Yes and one of the things you've said in the past is that the revenue model in college football has constantly evolved.

The model of today is different than yesterday and will be different than tomorrow.

The big X factor I see by 2025 is going to be realignment. Then end result could leave the B12 and AAC both as "floater" NY6 conferences.

That would make the access bowl a G4 bowl and with the same percentage of CFP money it was getting as a G5 (21%) on a new NY8 contract worth 50% more money for a real gain of 75% per G4 conference. Plus 40-44 G4 teams wouldn't have as much competition for the access bowl as before.

This is why I think for 2020 the G5 should try to clean up its bowl agreements as a start with the idea of pushing for changes by the 2026 bowl cycle, depending on what the conference structure at the top level looks like.

(12-29-2016 09:04 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 08:42 AM)wleakr Wrote:  "There is absolutely no ability for us (teams in the Group of 5) to be in that national title conversation," Frazier said.

He's right but that has pretty much always been the case. Undefeated Houston would not have gotten in this year either.

It would have been real close. UL beating UK and OU doing better against Ohio St. and they might have. Certainly if one of Ohio St., Clemson or UW had 2 losses, they would have been very much in the hunt for that 4th slot.

(01-01-2017 01:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 12:22 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(12-29-2016 08:03 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I think Aresco has it right on this idea.

espn G5 playoff

Just make it a non-P5 invitation tournament. AAC/MWC teams need not accept invitations if they don't want to. It's silly to pretend the lower G5 conferences are part of the same division as the P5.

No sillier than pretending the Cleveland Browns belong in the NFL. Their winning percentage vs the rest of the NFL in 2015 and 2016 is well below the winning percentage of G5's playing P5.

Absolutely. The Browns should have a separate playoff also.

(01-01-2017 12:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Colorado State plays at Boise State for a late Saturday night on ESPN2, MWC gets 100% of the revenue.

Oklahoma travels to Houston for a Saturday early ABC game. Check the number of points and credit 100% to the AAC since OU isn't a member of the LLC.

I don't follow how you're getting the MWC and AAC commish's to say something other than "... why isn't that how it works now??"

I don't get the part where the MWC and AAC make more money.


Maybe the SB, MAC, and CUSA should try it out first, and prove the concept.

(01-02-2017 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 12:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Colorado State plays at Boise State for a late Saturday night on ESPN2, MWC gets 100% of the revenue.

Oklahoma travels to Houston for a Saturday early ABC game. Check the number of points and credit 100% to the AAC since OU isn't a member of the LLC.

I don't follow how you're getting the MWC and AAC commish's to say something other than "... why isn't that how it works now??"

I don't get the part where the MWC and AAC make more money.


Maybe the SB, MAC, and CUSA should try it out first, and prove the concept.

That's a stupid suggestion.

How can SBC, MAC, and CUSA prove the concept that bottling up the entire inventory will raise the price?????

ESPN's deal with MAC and AAC are what I call "whole banana" deals. ESPN owns everything and they sublicense some of the content with a kickback to the leagues depending on the profitability of the sale. This is a reason I felt CUSA was going to take a hit, CBSSN was buying MAC and AAC content from ESPN for less than CBSSN was paying for CUSA content which was an X games for Y dollars deal.

That sublicensing is a decent source of revenue for ESPN. They basically serve a dual role of telecasting games and marketing games to other broadcasters except they generally will only deal with CBSSN, ASN, and local broadcasters and not NBC or Fox.

While MAC and AAC are to get a piece of the action remember that Return of the Jedi still isn't "profitable" no one entitled to residuals from that film have ever received any. So I'm skeptical ESPN truly takes care of them.

Bundling means the profitable sublicensing is done by the LLC not ESPN.

Bundling also means that anyone wanting the product doesn't have a simple substitute. You can't just swap CUSA if AAC wants more money.

About 8-10 years ago a huge name in the finance and tech world offered to guarantee double what WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, MWC were getting for media rights plus 50% of all revenue over a set amount on the condition that all five signed on. WAC, MWC, CUSA saw that as a sign that they could do wildly better on their own and declined.

The problem is ESPN owns almost the entire CFB post season. They basically own the conferences and have forced realignment with their bidding wars. Those G5 bowls are mostly ESPN own bowls.

A network be it FOX, CBS or NBC would have to make a big play to take either all or part of the college football post season. We are still waiting for FOX to get strong enough to make a serious pitch.

Aresco seems content with taking a safe offer from ESPN for Big East money since they have the exposure.

MWC may have some difficulty with deals next time around if they aren't regulars in an access bowl. They've missed the last 2 access bowls already.

Too bad CUSA doesn't have a better on the field product because they have the markets to break out for a better national deal.

(01-02-2017 04:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-01-2017 12:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Colorado State plays at Boise State for a late Saturday night on ESPN2, MWC gets 100% of the revenue.

Oklahoma travels to Houston for a Saturday early ABC game. Check the number of points and credit 100% to the AAC since OU isn't a member of the LLC.

I don't follow how you're getting the MWC and AAC commish's to say something other than "... why isn't that how it works now??"

I don't get the part where the MWC and AAC make more money.


Maybe the SB, MAC, and CUSA should try it out first, and prove the concept.

That's a stupid suggestion.

How can SBC, MAC, and CUSA prove the concept that bottling up the entire inventory will raise the price?????

ESPN's deal with MAC and AAC are what I call "whole banana" deals. ESPN owns everything and they sublicense some of the content with a kickback to the leagues depending on the profitability of the sale. This is a reason I felt CUSA was going to take a hit, CBSSN was buying MAC and AAC content from ESPN for less than CBSSN was paying for CUSA content which was an X games for Y dollars deal.

That sublicensing is a decent source of revenue for ESPN. They basically serve a dual role of telecasting games and marketing games to other broadcasters except they generally will only deal with CBSSN, ASN, and local broadcasters and not NBC or Fox.

While MAC and AAC are to get a piece of the action remember that Return of the Jedi still isn't "profitable" no one entitled to residuals from that film have ever received any. So I'm skeptical ESPN truly takes care of them.

Bundling means the profitable sublicensing is done by the LLC not ESPN.

Bundling also means that anyone wanting the product doesn't have a simple substitute. You can't just swap CUSA if AAC wants more money.

About 8-10 years ago a huge name in the finance and tech world offered to guarantee double what WAC, MAC, Sun Belt, CUSA, MWC were getting for media rights plus 50% of all revenue over a set amount on the condition that all five signed on. WAC, MWC, CUSA saw that as a sign that they could do wildly better on their own and declined.

That's an interesting deal. I'd never heard of anything like that. That said, I can see instantly why 2 of the 5 would never touch it. CUSA and the MW were making 10 to 140 times what the other 3 conferences were making. Equal revenue sharing would have resulted in a small cut in revenue for CUSA and MW. If a different system was used (say something like the old NCAA deals you've talked about), the "real" dollar divide between the income between the MW/CUSA and other leagues might have become even larger (or maybe smaller). No matter how it played out---some parties to the agreement wouldn't be keen about the gap increasing or decreasing (depending on point of view). Its too bad they couldn't figure out a way to capitalize on the opportunity.

I do find it interesting that opportunities for CUSA/MW to receive increased income AND direct access to the BCS system were both turned down. Looking back it seems some real opportunities were squandered by both those conferences. At the time, I used to think they were fairly well run---but as I learn more about the opportunities they passed on---Im starting to think just the opposite.

(01-02-2017 05:20 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The problem is ESPN owns almost the entire CFB post season. They basically own the conferences and have forced realignment with their bidding wars. Those G5 bowls are mostly ESPN own bowls.

A network be it FOX, CBS or NBC would have to make a big play to take either all or part of the college football post season. We are still waiting for FOX to get strong enough to make a serious pitch.

Aresco seems content with taking a safe offer from ESPN for Big East money since they have the exposure.

MWC may have some difficulty with deals next time around if they aren't regulars in an access bowl. They've missed the last 2 access bowls already.

Too bad CUSA doesn't have a better on the field product because they have the markets to break out for a better national deal.

Yup. Just a guess, but I think Aresco will sign an early extension with ESPN before next football season. The MAC is tied up for like 10 more years. So, getting all the G5 together on one deal isn't really possible for a long time.

(01-02-2017 06:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-02-2017 05:20 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The problem is ESPN owns almost the entire CFB post season. They basically own the conferences and have forced realignment with their bidding wars. Those G5 bowls are mostly ESPN own bowls.

A network be it FOX, CBS or NBC would have to make a big play to take either all or part of the college football post season. We are still waiting for FOX to get strong enough to make a serious pitch.

Aresco seems content with taking a safe offer from ESPN for Big East money since they have the exposure.

MWC may have some difficulty with deals next time around if they aren't regulars in an access bowl. They've missed the last 2 access bowls already.

Too bad CUSA doesn't have a better on the field product because they have the markets to break out for a better national deal.

Yup. Just a guess, but I think Aresco will sign an early extension with ESPN before next football season. The MAC is tied up for like 10 more years. So, getting all the G5 together on one deal isn't really possible for a long time.

If the AAC could strike off with FOX for a big $$$ deal that might open some doors down the road for the post season.

When you play ESPN's game the best you can hope for is ESPN's participation trophy.

It's not in espns greater plans to pay more money to the AAC, I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the AAC altogether
I'd like to see the AAC drop ESPN altogether... That would be a step in the right direction

(01-04-2017 08:53 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  It's not in espns greater plans to pay more money to the AAC, I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the AAC altogether
I'd like to see the AAC drop ESPN altogether... That would be a step in the right direction

And go where exactly? You think Fox Sports or any other network is going to give the AAC a deal that pays more money AND gives as much television exposure if the AAC "drops" ESPN? The only way the conference is going to make more money will be if 2 or more networks bid for the next TV contract.

Right now ESPN has the conference by the short hairs.

If I were an owner of a sports network as large as ESPN, and have no worries about drag beat networks like Disney Channel and all that? I would offer the AAC and MWC a contract where each school gets paid the same amount as the Big 12 or more than the ACC. I see more value in most of those schools than I do for some in the ACC, Big 12 and PAC 12. I would throw a bone for the MWC to expand to 20 and take Sacramento State, UTEP, UTSA, Portland State, Sacramento State, Eastern Washington (part of Spokane metro), NDSU, SDSU and if one of the Portland State, Sacramento State or E. Washington says no? I go with Montana.

For AAC to go to 20?
Army, Old Dominion, UMASS. Middle Tennessee State
Wichita State, Missouri State, Southern Mississippi, Arkansas State

(01-04-2017 08:53 AM)JHS55 Wrote:  It's not in espns greater plans to pay more money to the AAC, I wouldn't be surprised if they drop the AAC altogether
I'd like to see the AAC drop ESPN altogether... That would be a step in the right direction

Unlikely. ESPN is about to lose 50% of thier current Big10 inventory. ESPN didn't really need the AAC when they signed them in 2013. Now they do. They need the better AAC games to fill in all those vacated Big10 broadcast windows.

On the other hand, the AAC is desperate for more revenue as soon as possible. The agreement they signed in 2013 was inked when they were in danger of imploding and was far below expectations within the industry. At the same time, ESPN would like to lock up AAC inventory a least for the duration of the next Big10 contact with FOX (6 yrs). So, I think there is sufficient motivation on both sides creating the conditions necessary for an early extension to happen sometime in the next year.

With more groups getting interested in live sports I think we will see a better deal for the AAC in the near future. I think they messed up with a couple of adds like Tulsa and Tulane but overall it's a nice conference with plenty of potential.

Google, Amazon, Twitter, etc.. are all going to be interested in live sports moving forward. I dont' know if anybody noticed but there were some football games on weird networks showing up this season. Twitter streamed games like army/navy as well as an Air Force game and other FBS schools. Be In sports had games as well. Campus Insiders is another network that popped up on my sling which had some live football games. Sling also has a bunch of regional PAC networks as well.

One interesting thing I think might happen is conference networks like the B1G and PAC could buy content as well from regional schools who sometime play OOC games. Say the B1G decided to buy the MAC contentt and put them on the conference network or the PAC decided to buy some MW content for it's network.

So here's my idea for how to handle the G5 postseason.
1) No G5 conference championship games. This serves the purpose of capping G5 membership (no new FCS move-ups, incentivizes trimming underperformers to get back to 10 members). This also frees up one extra week in the G5 schedule.
2) The G5 conference champs and G5 independents are ranked by the CFP committee alongside the P5. The final G5 ranking comes out at the conclusion of the regular season.
3) During P5 championship weekend, the top 4 ranked G5 schools play a semifinal.
4) Final CFP rankings (including G5 schools) are posted and CFP selection occurs. If a Go5 school is selected for the CFP, the the other G5 semifinal winner also gets an access bowl bid (big hypothetical carrot for the G5). It likely won't happen.
5) If no G5 school is selected for the CFP, then the G5 final is played to kick off the bowl season. The G5 champ then plays in an access bowl game to be played the Saturday between New Year's Day and the CFP final.

(01-04-2017 09:41 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  If I were an owner of a sports network as large as ESPN, and have no worries about drag beat networks like Disney Channel and all that? I would offer the AAC and MWC a contract where each school gets paid the same amount as the Big 12 or more than the ACC. I see more value in most of those schools than I do for some in the ACC, Big 12 and PAC 12. I would throw a bone for the MWC to expand to 20 and take Sacramento State, UTEP, UTSA, Portland State, Sacramento State, Eastern Washington (part of Spokane metro), NDSU, SDSU and if one of the Portland State, Sacramento State or E. Washington says no? I go with Montana.

For AAC to go to 20?
Army, Old Dominion, UMASS. Middle Tennessee State
Wichita State, Missouri State, Southern Mississippi, Arkansas State

You would go broke. No lender would touch you.