(12-14-2019 06:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: (12-14-2019 06:20 PM)JRsec Wrote: (12-14-2019 06:14 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: (12-14-2019 04:34 PM)JRsec Wrote: (12-14-2019 04:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: but they are really not that aligned
the Big 10 moved to 9 conference games (then expressed some regret about it after the first year) and then started talking about all conferences playing 9 conference games and the SEC SEC SEC gave a hard no as did the ACC
this in spite of the fact that many teams in the ACC would like to play an additional conference game for the "rivalry factor" and two ACC teams played each other this year in the "OOC"
but the overall leadership (unlike the Big 12) understands the detriment to the conference that an additional conference game brings
the SEC SEC SEC was fully against the change in the CCG rules while the Big 10 was OK with them as long as they could insert language to screw the ACC......the SEC SEC SEC still voted against that language and any change to CCG rules
so they are not at all aligned on those two major issues
now with playoff expansion the SEC SEC SEC MIGHT be for it, but it will depend on what they think it means for their chances to get two teams in many years and they will probably work to make sure there is language that specifically allows even three teams from one conference to get in and will surely be against any language that would prevent three teams from the same conference
1. The reason the ACC and SEC have not moved to 9 conference games is unlike the Big 10 in their last negotiations for rights money with FOX the SEC and ACC have not sold the value of that 9th conference game. The SEC might with CBS who wants to up content by a couple of games, or with whoever wins the bid. The Big 10 had that in their valuation for the last contract. The ACC won't approach that matter, unless voluntarily, until 2037.
2. Sankey has come out against CFP expansion period.
the number of conference games played does not increase the amount of content available to any media partner
in fact there is a good chance it would decrease it because it limits the number of OOC games that teams can buy in a guaranteed home game with no return game to the opponent the next season
playing additional conference games will not have any effect on the number of games available for CBS or anyone that bids on that content
there is only one game a week and the CCG available for bid and playing more conference games does not change that fact
people never seem to grasp this concept in discussions about media contracts
if Alabama plays north Texas state at home in a buy in game in 2030 and Florida plays FAU in a buy in game in 2030 that is two games owned by the SEC SEC SEC media partner
if Alabama plays FIU at home in 2031 for a buy in game and Florida plays USF in 2031 for a buy in game that is two games owned by the SEC SEC SEC media partners
if Alabama plays Florida at Alabama in 2030 that is one game owned by the SEC SEC SEC media partners and then Alabama plays at Florida in 2031 that is one game owned by the SEC SEC SEC media partners
so those additional home games are a net loss of one game a year and two games total over two years for the SEC SEC SEC media partners
in addition to that the SEC SEC SEC had a chance to sell "additional home games" of their main media partner ESPN wanted that when the SEC SEC SEC network was being created, but of course the SEC SEC SEC network is about having as much total content available as possible so having one game a year less to place on that third tier network is not of value to ESPN
and the ACC had a chance to do the same with the ACC network creation as well......but ESPN seemed to have no interest in that
not to mention the SEC SEC SEC and ACC both understand the concept of getting strength of schedule for the total CONFERENCE by beating teams from OTHER conference even if those other teams are very weak
and this concept has been proven with a mathematical study that was done on the PAC 12 with 8 or 9 conference games replacing a conference game with an OOC game equal to the WEAKEST OOC game on a teams schedule and the result was that all the teams in the conference with the exception of the weakest two with the two worst records had statistically meaningful increases in their overall strength of schedule
because of a couple of concepts that many people have a hard time grasping and that is you play many more conference games so even slight increase in wins for any member of your conference makes a large change in the strength of schedule for all members
and a the second concept that aggy especially has a hard time grasping and that is there is no loss that is better than a win no matter who you lose to vs who you win against
Content isn't measured in quantity. It's measured in quality and yes they pay more for that.
And Todge, in the SEC playing in conference is usually better than picking up just any OOC P game.
The rest of your post is pretty much Big 12 Schadenfreude. But it is what I expect.
The SEC presidents were well schooled by Mike Slive. We don't make any concession until we are paid for it and we give up nothing for free.
your post is nonsense as always
it has been proven by a study on the PAC 12 that playing more conference games hurts the strength of schedule
and anyone with a clue understands that when the SEC SEC SEC network was created and the SEC SEC SEC and ESPN extended their tier 2 agreement the SEC SEC SEC andESPN had a chance at that time to work on any compensation for additional conference games played and they did not do so
just like the ACC had that same chance with the creation of the ACC network and the extension of their deal with ESPN
plus you simply cannot understand that the CBS deal is for one game a week and a CCG it is not for one game a week, a CCG and any potential new games created by playing more conference games
further in addition to not grasping the concept that new conference games does not increase available content you do not seem to understand that the CBS rights are for one game a week that CBS gets to choose as what they believe to be the BEST game that week
so there is no additional value to be brought to that deal by playing more conference games that are (in your opinion) "more valuable" than OOC games
so there will be no change in the value of the CBS deal from fictional additional available conference games for the media partners and there will be no change in value of it from (in your opinion) "more valuable" conference games vs OOC games.....because the CBS contract is already for the single most valuable game that week so the increase (or decrease) in value of any other games does not matter because the bidder for that content still gets a choice of ONE GAME each week they feel is the most valuable
not to mention what you (and many others) cannot grasp is SEC SEC SEC conference games have value based on the rankings of the teams in the conference and those rankings year in and year out are easier to maintain because of getting more WINS for many conference members over weak OOC teams and by the scheduling of late season D1-AA games that allow the SEC SEC SEC teams to get a large number of wins late in the season and stay even or even move up in the polls while other conferences are beating up on each other and dropping teams in the polls
again the scheduling strength has been proven by a study on the PAC 12.....but it involves maths and logic so it is beyond you and many others and would be looked at as schadenfreude
The only thing nonsensical around here is your tunnel vision drivel which you spew with paper daggers for arguments every time you post.
1. The PAC got paid for extra conference games it was the only way they got a raise that cycle of contracts. Now the Big 10 got a bigger raise than the nice raise they would have gotten anyway when they agreed to 9 conference games.
The content value is in losing one Rent-a-kill game out of the 4 that the Big 10 annually started the season with in days gone by. You better believe that networks would rather have the TV draw of even a Rutgers playing Michigan than a Michigan playing a Middle Tennessee State.
So yeah playing more conference games means more losses for conference teams. But if you get paid to do it and you need cash it is what it is.
If the SEC is going to do that they are going to have to get a big payday because a home game is worth between 5-7 million to the average SEC school in gate, concessions, rented tailgate spaces, etc, depending on the school and its stadium capacity.
2. When the SEC renegotiated it was for adding Texas A&M and Missouri it was not during a contract period. The only thing necessary for the raise were the additions and the market subscriptions added to the SECN's payouts a year later. When the SEC last renewed with ESPN adding extra conference games wasn't even a topic for conversation. So bogus argument on your part and ditto for the ACC whose contract also got renegotiated and extended following Louisville's addition and the signing of the GOR.
3. If you add a conference game you add 7 more conference games. CBS doesn't broadcast many SEC non conference games. We were in week 2 of a year starting with a week 0 before CBS even showed a game this year. They would like to have some weekends where they show two. If the SEC adds a 9th conference game and gives them 7 more games from which to select 2 both ESPN and CBS get better content. It's the SECN that gets fewer games. Big deal. The payout is better per game for those broadcast over the networks. But if that ever happens we'll have to get a nice bump in pay to make it so. And we are about to get a whopper within the next 2 years.
4. What you don't grasp is that some schools get a large national audience without having to have a top ranking. Texas is the poster child for this, and Michigan illustrates this in years when they aren't top 10. Well Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, L.S.U., Florida, and even lowly Tennessee grabs the audiences as well. Content is more about brand vs brand than rank vs rank although the latter does add. But a #1 ranked Baylor playing a #14 Oklahoma State won't get the same audience as unranked Florida State playing Miami, or unranked Tennessee playing South Carolina. So spare me your anecdotal evidence created in your own mind to suit your own purposes.
Concessions by conferences with the largest national draws (think SEC and Big 10) come at a price. When they pay enough we'll consider changes to the format. That's quite a bit of difference from conferences who make concessions because they have to try to keep up, like the PAC, and conferences that have to schedule more degree of difficulty because there is no national interest in 7 of their 10 schools like the Big 12.
Obviously you don't grasp that the CBS contract will be renewed or finalized with a competitor of theirs by 2022 from all accounts down here. If they want more games there's two ways to meet their demands. Add another conference game (since they aren't buying the cheap wins for a national broadcast) or add more schools.
I don't thing the SEC will sell another conference game this time. I don think they would consider expansion if the right schools were available.
The SEC will command a much higher contract value this time because the old contract is so very dated, the SEC afternoon 2:30 slot is the best rated in the CFB industry, our schools lead the nation in TV ratings, lead the nation in % of households within our footprint that watch which is important to advertisers, and because we have the most brand vs brand football of any conference in the nation as it now stands.
The report on the Finebaum show yesterday was that the next contract will be the biggest ever for a conference. We'll await the details.
And Todge, the only problem with comprehension is that you, like Buckaineer, only hear what you want to hear and only spout things favorable to the Big 12. It's tedious, intentionally misleading, willfully obtuse, and usually written in an insulting manner which will meet with the same outcome as your previous stints on this board.
/
Delaney: 16 team conferences? 8 team playoff?
