Just listen to the announcers on the UK-NC State game. They said had UK Played other than a SEC schedule they would not be 4-6. Now look at the SEC/Big Ten standings, too many 500 or below teams. In other words these schools need the G-5 (as much as the G-5 needs them) for home games, guaranteed wins.... other wise too many Ad's and coaches are going to be on a continuous hot seat.

That's actually the main reason I think they stay in the NCAA. It's not just football it other sports also. The G5, FCS games give winnable and more importantly home games. The same idea goes into basketball also. While a Kentucky Michigan State game may draw more tv ratings would each side be okay with a home and home series? A Kentucky- Western Kentucky game may draw more local interest.

With this being the era of conference networks no P5 is fighting over tv time as worse case scenario they're playing on the conference network. The biggest change in income would be donations, gate revenue, merch and food & drinks. P5 teams only need winnable interesting games to draw people in.

In football, the P5 already has a de facto breakaway. The revenues generated by the FBS schools & conferences are not shared with, nor managed by, the NCAA. The FBS is somewhat autonomous...the NCAA does not control the playoffs nor bowls. Interestingly, the P5 make-up about 50% of the FBS schools...more non-P5 schools are moving from FCS to FBS, yet the P5 seems to maintain its best interests.

Basketball is the sport where the NCAA should be concerned about a breakaway. Currently, there are about 350 D1 basketball schools and the NCAA manages this postseason tournament to fund most NCAA activities. The NCAA uses D1 basketball to subsidize D2 & D3 athletic programs, as well as subsidize scores of non-revenue sports and ancillary initiatives. If there is a breakaway, the driver will be basketball-related issues. It will be schools that generate significant and disproportionate revenues from basketball that could lead a breakaway.

Basketball schools like Kentucky or Indiana are unlikely to be the ringleaders because their share of football revenue mitigates their concerns about the NCAA financial adventures. Schools in the SEC and BIG generate nearly 80% of their revenues from football. Basketball and the NCAA finances are not a huge deal.

On the other hand, if schools like UNC, Duke, Villanova, Georgetown, Syracuse, Gonzaga, et al start complaining or getting financially squeezed...then the NCAA should be worried. A basketball breakaway (if it occurs) could occur because the Big East and ACC leaders decide that they need a different model. Other P5 and G5 conferences would join them because there would be a financial windfall from consolidating elite college basketball from 350 to 100-150 schools. Most of the G5 invests in college athletics and would likely be included in a basketball breakaway.

i think the G5 will realize soon that they don’t need the autonomous conferences and set about playing real football playoffs

(01-02-2021 04:01 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  i think the G5 will realize soon that they don’t need the autonomous conferences and set about playing real football playoffs

I think a better point to make is that the G5, like the P5, would make much more revenue than they do if they too quit subsidizing DII & DIII schools. NCAA control needs to go. Sports programs are a nice luxury at any school but they aren't a right that more successful programs should be taxed to guarantee.

And if the basketball first programs breakaway then football first programs will follow.

(01-02-2021 04:01 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  i think the G5 will realize soon that they don’t need the autonomous conferences and set about playing real football playoffs

My opinion is a little different. I think to prevent antitrust issues with Congress and keep interest and performance at adequate levels nationwide you would need to include a solid chunk of the G5. At the very least, the MWC and AAC would need to be in tow.

(01-02-2021 04:26 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 04:01 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  i think the G5 will realize soon that they don’t need the autonomous conferences and set about playing real football playoffs

My opinion is a little different. I think to prevent antitrust issues with Congress and keep interest and performance at adequate levels nationwide you would need to include a solid chunk of the G5. At the very least, the MWC and AAC would need to be in tow.

congress yes but if for what ever reason the AAC was invited to the autonomous league it would be a huge meltdown here in texas from the b-12 schools but what’s interesting is it’s houston boys that rule the state capital and there ain’t no ifs or buts about that, bullock is looong gone and richards

I agree, but "hard time" implies the P5 wants to break away but are being constrained, and for the reasons given, they do not.

(01-02-2021 04:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree, but "hard time" implies the P5 wants to break away but are being constrained, and for the reasons given, they do not.

"Congress will get involved is the most overused wholly BS excuse ever given in this matter. As along as others are free to breakaway and form their own league there is no anti-trust. In fact one reason the P5 broke away in football was because in the OU/UGA lawsuit the SCOTUS thought the NCAA had too much control.

Now as to Congress who are they? They are largely law graduates from the P5 law schools in their states. Who votes for them? The largest alumni bases of their state schools most of which are P5 schools. If the handful of states that don't have a P5 program file a suit, well good lucky with that! It sure as hell isn't passing the House or Senate.

And another thing too many here never think about is that if pay for play becomes part of the equation then each school will have the right to try to earn as much as they can to cover their budgets and Title IX requirements (however those are then formulated because that might change as well).

Corporate PAC money controls elections. Media corporations which have driven realignment thinking for the sake of organizing the product to be more profitable for them will not endorse policies that restrict their profits, and neither will the conglomerates which own them.

This fantasy that "Congress will stop them" needs to die. There is zero reason to think they pursue this issue at the expense of their largest constituent bases, their largest corporate donors, or that SCOTUS which has already found the likeliest monopoly to be the damned NCAA thereby ruling that UGA and OU had the right to negotiate their own independent contracts for TV football games will ever rule in favor of mandated central control vs the free market.

(01-02-2021 01:14 PM)46566 Wrote:  That's actually the main reason I think they stay in the NCAA. It's not just football it other sports also. The G5, FCS games give winnable and more importantly home games. The same idea goes into basketball also. While a Kentucky Michigan State game may draw more tv ratings would each side be okay with a home and home series? A Kentucky- Western Kentucky game may draw more local interest.

There are some other ways that they benefit, as well. Playing non-P5 teams promotes viewership by millions of non-P5 (military academies, Mormons) and G5 conference fans and in states (e.g., Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming), cities (e.g., Cincy, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Houston, Memphis, and San Diego) and regions (e.g., western NY, sections of California, Louisiana and Ohio, western Michigan, & west Texas) where there aren't any P5 teams.

Another factor is that playing such non-P5 teams can promote regional recruitment.

In addition, if the P5s were to stop playing the non-P5s, their schedules would become more repetitive and less interesting. Americans tend to prefer innovation and variety to repetition, and it's for this reason that the number of professional franchises has expanded to the extent that it has.

Of course, they can try putting up a wall of separation to see what happens, but if they do, they might end up shooting themselves in the foot.

Why?

For one thing, the viewership numbers have caused the major networks to rethink the notion that they can only make money from broadcasting the top 5 conferences. The proof of this is their agreement to double or triple the amount that they formerly paid to broadcast AAC and MWC games.

To illustrate the benefits to the major networks (in this case, ESPN), while the AAC viewership may only be 1/4 or 1/5 that of the average P5 conference, ESPN only has to pay the AAC schools 1/4 ($77 million/yr) of what they have to pay the P5 conference schools ($300+ million/yr). Not only that, but unlike their P5 deals - which only provide them with the exclusive rights to broadcast a limited selection of P5 conference games, ESPN's deal with the AAC provides them with exclusive rights to broadcast practically any AAC game they wish to, with no competition from any proprietary conference or school network. On top of that, the AAC schools have further sweetened the deal by shouldering many of the responsibilities and costs of broadcasting the AAC conference games.

What this means is that the major networks have learned that they're able to get roughly the same return on their investment from broadcasting non-P5 games that they can get on broadcasting P5 games.

The name of the game is profit. If it's just as easy to double your money by broadcasting an unlimited selection of G5 conference games - - without having to set aside the $3 billion per conference/per decade that it costs to broadcast a limited selection of P5 games - - it's a no-brainer to do so, especially since the G5 conferences will bend over backwards to sweeten the deal.

.

Finally, the P5 has reason to be concerned that, as the "senior" league, they might find themselves making the same mistake that the original did NFL when they tried to bankrupt the up-and-coming AFL into oblivion in the 1960s.

Just like the NFL learned, to their chagrin, trying to destroy the competition by doing something like that might all too easily backfire, causing popular opinion to gravitate swiftly to the up-and-coming challenger. Much like the tale of Robin Hood, which captivated the British for centuries, ordinary, everyday people tend quite often to cheer for the underdogs, in their battles with their wealthy and powerful oppressors.

.

At some point in the next 5-6 years, the major networks may recognize that it will be in their longer-term best interest to shift a growing share of their broadcasting time to the coverage of the C-USA, Sun Belt and MAC, as they have already begun to do for vis a vis the MWC and AAC.

A side benefit of such a strategy would be that, by building up their coverage of non-P5 events, they would able to establish a stronger and stronger bargaining position vis a vis the P5 conferences.

It might turn out that the best kind of collegiate sports broadcasting portfolio that some of the major networks can assemble might include a deal with 1 or 2 P5 conferences and 1 or 2 G5 conferences. The G5 packages would give them an unlimited selection of low-cost games to broadcast, with which they could provide a wide range of viewing options, and the P5 packages would provide them with a more limited number of high-cost, high-viewership events.

It isn't likely to be an "either-or" proposition for the major networks, going forward. To the contrary, those days seem to be coming to an end. It appears more likely to be in the best long-term interest of the major networks for the viewing options to become more like a "Chinese Menu" (1 from column A, 1 from column B, etc.)...

...and if that's the case, it will not be in the best interests of ESPN or the other major networks for the 65 P5 teams to become artificially sequestered from the 65 non-P5 FBS teams.

.

I keep laughing at the Anti-Trust talk. If the conferences break away, where is the anti-trust. The P5 learned from the BCS how to manage to avoid anti-trust. Remember the NCAA just bought the NIT, that is what the CFP basically did. Breaking away crushes more of the small D1 schools that depend on the NCAA Tournament. If a group of schools want to form a conference and the networks are willing to pay, then there is no anti-trust. The NCAA and G5 stay intact. If they can't compete, why is that the P5's fault? To me, the P5 makes more money by no longer having to create a welfare net for the other schools. NCAA will beg them to stay, the are closer to telling the G5 to walk. The problem 4 of the 5 conferences will take more money to keep afloat.

(01-02-2021 05:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 04:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree, but "hard time" implies the P5 wants to break away but are being constrained, and for the reasons given, they do not.

"Congress will get involved is the most overused wholly BS excuse ever given in this matter. As along as others are free to breakaway and form their own league there is no anti-trust. In fact one reason the P5 broke away in football was because in the OU/UGA lawsuit the SCOTUS thought the NCAA had too much control.

Now as to Congress who are they? They are largely law graduates from the P5 law schools in their states. Who votes for them? The largest alumni bases of their state schools most of which are P5 schools. If the handful of states that don't have a P5 program file a suit, well good lucky with that! It sure as hell isn't passing the House or Senate.

And another thing too many here never think about is that if pay for play becomes part of the equation then each school will have the right to try to earn as much as they can to cover their budgets and Title IX requirements (however those are then formulated because that might change as well).

Corporate PAC money controls elections. Media corporations which have driven realignment thinking for the sake of organizing the product to be more profitable for them will not endorse policies that restrict their profits, and neither will the conglomerates which own them.

This fantasy that "Congress will stop them" needs to die. There is zero reason to think they pursue this issue at the expense of their largest constituent bases, their largest corporate donors, or that SCOTUS which has already found the likeliest monopoly to be the damned NCAA thereby ruling that UGA and OU had the right to negotiate their own independent contracts for TV football games will ever rule in favor of mandated central control vs the free market.

Actually no. The lawmakers are now being made up of people from G5, FCS or D2 schools. A lot of lawmakers from Arkansas are either from Arkansas State, Arkansas Tech, Little Rock or UCA. I am seeing law makers in all the states with football pulses want to add more schools in the P5. Texas wants to be king makers trying to get many schools into the P5, and get them AAU status. Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin should look to do the same. When you have states like Texas and California, and maybe Florida having more power? You need to have allies to over rule the politics. If I am the PAC 12 north schools? I would try and get an allie in schools like UNR and Boise State since they will be outmatched.

(01-02-2021 04:26 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 04:01 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  i think the G5 will realize soon that they don’t need the autonomous conferences and set about playing real football playoffs

My opinion is a little different. I think to prevent antitrust issues with Congress and keep interest and performance at adequate levels nationwide you would need to include a solid chunk of the G5. At the very least, the MWC and AAC would need to be in tow.

The G5 and P5 may soon be in same boat. Granted, the P5 will be in first class state rooms and the G5 will be below decks in steerage---but NIL laws, court ordered increases in FCOA, and even court mandated (or legislated) full on free agency are still possible at the FBS level. Its very possible that if the economics of competitive player bidding become the law of the land for building college rosters---that may mean the NCAA is largely no longer needed by the group of schools that opt to field teams in the major revenue producing sports.

(01-02-2021 07:17 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 04:26 PM)Sicembear11 Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 04:01 PM)JHS55 Wrote:  i think the G5 will realize soon that they don’t need the autonomous conferences and set about playing real football playoffs

My opinion is a little different. I think to prevent antitrust issues with Congress and keep interest and performance at adequate levels nationwide you would need to include a solid chunk of the G5. At the very least, the MWC and AAC would need to be in tow.

The G5 and P5 may soon be in same boat. Granted, the P5 will be in first class state rooms and the G5 will be below decks in steerage---but NIL laws, court ordered increases in FCOA, and even court mandated (or legislated) full on free agency are still possible at the FBS level. Its very possible that if the economics of competitive player bidding become the law of the land for building college rosters---that may mean the NCAA is largely no longer needed by the group of schools that opt to field teams in the major revenue producing sports.

It is in place at all levels. The next step would be paying high school players.

(01-02-2021 07:00 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I keep laughing at the Anti-Trust talk. If the conferences break away, where is the anti-trust. The P5 learned from the BCS how to manage to avoid anti-trust. Remember the NCAA just bought the NIT, that is what the CFP basically did. Breaking away crushes more of the small D1 schools that depend on the NCAA Tournament. If a group of schools want to form a conference and the networks are willing to pay, then there is no anti-trust. The NCAA and G5 stay intact. If they can't compete, why is that the P5's fault? To me, the P5 makes more money by no longer having to create a welfare net for the other schools. NCAA will beg them to stay, the are closer to telling the G5 to walk. The problem 4 of the 5 conferences will take more money to keep afloat.

The anti-trust issue are certainly real, and not imaginary, but you're completely missing the point if you think that slipping out of anti-trust difficulties is all there is to it.

Much more importantly, ESPN and the other major networks would have little or no incentive to support a breakaway by the P5 conferences. Quite the contrary, they might have a much stronger incentive to maintain the status quo.

As things already stand, the major networks have started to alter the ratio of P5 to G5 games that they air, in the direction of the non-P5 teams. This has been due, in part, to the fact that the P5 conferences have been able to negotiate such extremely large payments that the major networks have been forced to limit the number of games that they will obtain the rights to broadcast.

This has given the major networks a strong incentive to broadcast a mixture of P5 and non-P5 games, and for this reason, they have been strengthening their broadcasting partnerships with the G5 conferences and putting more effort into promoting games between non-P5 teams, as a way to generate a comparable amount of revenue by offsetting their inability to cover all of the P5 games and expanding the number of non-P5 games that they broadcast.

It's the financial incentives, not the legal matters, that will keep the non-P5s in the picture, and these financial incentives may one day become the great equalizer between the P5s and the non-P5s.

(01-02-2021 07:39 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 07:00 PM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I keep laughing at the Anti-Trust talk. If the conferences break away, where is the anti-trust. The P5 learned from the BCS how to manage to avoid anti-trust. Remember the NCAA just bought the NIT, that is what the CFP basically did. Breaking away crushes more of the small D1 schools that depend on the NCAA Tournament. If a group of schools want to form a conference and the networks are willing to pay, then there is no anti-trust. The NCAA and G5 stay intact. If they can't compete, why is that the P5's fault? To me, the P5 makes more money by no longer having to create a welfare net for the other schools. NCAA will beg them to stay, the are closer to telling the G5 to walk. The problem 4 of the 5 conferences will take more money to keep afloat.

The anti-trust issue are certainly real, and not imaginary, but you're completely missing the point if you think that slipping out of anti-trust difficulties is all there is to it.

Much more importantly, ESPN and the other major networks would have little or no incentive to support a breakaway by the P5 conferences. Quite the contrary, they might have a much stronger incentive to maintain the status quo.

As things already stand, the major networks have started to alter the ratio of P5 to G5 games that they air, in the direction of the non-P5 teams. This has been due, in part, to the fact that the P5 conferences have been able to negotiate such extremely large payments that the major networks have been forced to limit the number of games that they will obtain the rights to broadcast.

This has given the major networks a strong incentive to broadcast a mixture of P5 and non-P5 games, and for this reason, they have been strengthening their broadcasting partnerships with the G5 conferences and putting more effort into promoting games between non-P5 teams, as a way to generate a comparable amount of revenue by offsetting their inability to cover all of the P5 games and expanding the number of non-P5 games that they broadcast.

It's the financial incentives, not the legal matters, that will keep the non-P5s in the picture, and these financial incentives may one day become the great equalizer between the P5s and the non-P5s.

Sorry Jed, you couldn't be more wrong. The networks have funded realignment paying the P5 more and more to segregate. They want as many national eyes on each telecast as they can get because they profit from the advertising rates which go up with schools that have a national audience. So "realignment" has really been consolidation. The G5 have gotten more exposure but the revenue gap widens every time a P5 signs a new contract or every time another brand consolidates with other brands in an expanding P5.

So he reality is contrary to your "opinion" which you have because it is the lynchpin of your ideas.

The evidence to the contrary on anti-trust I laid out in my previous post in this thread. Breakaways are no anti trust. NCAA membership and control is. And the Oklahoma/Georgia vs the NCAA case attests to that. And that is real, not some paper tiger threat of legal action which doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

Now if/when pay or play becomes a court reality the separation will be further legitimized and for profit further distanced from alleged amateurism. For good or ill those are the realities and the sooner the G5 assimilates that information and takes action in their own behalf the better off they will be.

(01-02-2021 05:08 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  There are some other ways that they benefit, as well. Playing non-P5 teams promotes viewership by millions of non-P5 (military academies, Mormons) and G5 conference fans and in states (e.g., Arkansas, where there aren't any P5 teams.

Arkansas Razorbacks hardest hit.

Quote: cities (e.g., Cincy,

Ohio State says hello.

Quote:Philadelphia,

Penn State

Quote: New Orleans,

LSU

Quote:Houston,

Texas? A&M?

Quote: Memphis and San Diego

Decent point, although I think between Tennessee, Arkansas, the Mississippi schools and Missouri, I think it's fair to count Memphis as solidly SEC country.

Quote: and regions (e.g., western NY,

Syracuse

Quote:sections of California, Louisiana and Ohio, western Michigan, & west Texas) where there aren't any P5 teams.

California maybe. West Texas has Texas Tech. Get a map, bro.

Quote:To illustrate the benefits to the major networks (in this case, ESPN), while the AAC viewership may only be 1/4 or 1/5 that of the average P5 conference, ESPN only has to pay the AAC schools 1/4 ($77 million/yr) of what they have to pay the P5 conference schools ($300+ million/yr). Not only that, but unlike their P5 deals - which only provide them with the exclusive rights to broadcast a limited selection of P5 conference games, ESPN's deal with the AAC provides them with exclusive rights to broadcast practically any AAC game they wish to, with no competition from any proprietary conference or school network. On top of that, the AAC schools have further sweetened the deal by shouldering many of the responsibilities and costs of broadcasting the AAC conference games.

I'm going to point out a few things that it seems like you don't know.
1. ESPN holds the rights to the bottom-of-the-barrel ACC, SEC and Big 12 games. It's only the B1G and PAC whose sub-Tier 1 content is outside the ESPN empire.
2. ESPN owns the SEC and ACC Networks. So it's not like putting content on SECN instead of ESPN-U is some loss to ESPN.

What ESPN is paying crazy money for to the big conferences is the rights to the biggest games. ESPN (and Fox) aren't paying the Big Ten or SEC primarily for "lots of games". They're paying top dollar for the big time mega-event games. One day, Ohio STate-Michigan is going to be a matchup of top ten teams. That's the game that Fox is paying crazy money for. ESPN is paying the SEC all that money so that, next year, when Auburn or LSU is in the top 5 and plays Alabama, that's an ESPN game. (Quibble--next year that's still a CBS game).

Quote:What this means is that the major networks have learned that they're able to get roughly the same return on their investment from broadcasting non-P5 games that they can get on broadcasting P5 games.

No, that's wrong. See my last paragraph. The best AAC regular season game of the year would be say #7 Cincinnati vs #22 Navy. That's not the top-rated game that week. ESPN and Fox are paying for the highest rated games of the year.

Quote:The name of the game is profit. If it's just as easy to double your money by broadcasting an unlimited selection of G5 conference games - - without having to set aside the $3 billion per conference/per decade that it costs to broadcast a limited selection of P5 games - - it's a no-brainer to do so, especially since the G5 conferences will bend over backwards to sweeten the deal.

You can broadcast as many games as you want. The point is to broadcast games that will draw an audience. No matter how cheap the TV rights to Troy vs South Alabama are, nobody wants to watch it if it's on against Alabama vs Auburn.

Quote:At some point in the next 5-6 years, the major networks may recognize that it will be in their longer-term best interest to shift a growing share of their broadcasting time to the coverage of the C-USA, Sun Belt and MAC, as they have already begun to do for vis a vis the MWC and AAC.

Yeaaah, look back at 2019. How many AAC games were on ABC? I just clicked through wikipedia. Two (2) AAC conference games plus the CCG. College Gameday went to Memphis on Nov 2, and the Memphis-Cincinnati game on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

Quote:...and if that's the case, [b]it will not be in the best interests of ESPN or the other major networks for the 65 P5 teams to become artificially sequestered from the 65 non-P5 FBS teams.

OK, after a lot of highly questionable assumptions, you come to a very valid conclusion. ESPN would rather negotiate with 5 strong conferences and 5 weaker conferences than with one united P5 big-time-college-football cartel. That is absolutely true.

(01-02-2021 05:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 04:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I agree, but "hard time" implies the P5 wants to break away but are being constrained, and for the reasons given, they do not.

"Congress will get involved is the most overused wholly BS excuse ever given in this matter. As along as others are free to breakaway and form their own league there is no anti-trust. In fact one reason the P5 broke away in football was because in the OU/UGA lawsuit the SCOTUS thought the NCAA had too much control.

Now as to Congress who are they? They are largely law graduates from the P5 law schools in their states. Who votes for them? The largest alumni bases of their state schools most of which are P5 schools. If the handful of states that don't have a P5 program file a suit, well good lucky with that! It sure as hell isn't passing the House or Senate.

And another thing too many here never think about is that if pay for play becomes part of the equation then each school will have the right to try to earn as much as they can to cover their budgets and Title IX requirements (however those are then formulated because that might change as well).

Corporate PAC money controls elections. Media corporations which have driven realignment thinking for the sake of organizing the product to be more profitable for them will not endorse policies that restrict their profits, and neither will the conglomerates which own them.

This fantasy that "Congress will stop them" needs to die. There is zero reason to think they pursue this issue at the expense of their largest constituent bases, their largest corporate donors, or that SCOTUS which has already found the likeliest monopoly to be the damned NCAA thereby ruling that UGA and OU had the right to negotiate their own independent contracts for TV football games will ever rule in favor of mandated central control vs the free market.

You know what's an even more powerful legislative force than PACs? Voting to protect money and pork coming into your district, which includes those district's universities. And that doesn't even get into the tools State legislatures have in their toolbox to stop it.

(01-02-2021 08:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 05:08 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  There are some other ways that they benefit, as well. Playing non-P5 teams promotes viewership by millions of non-P5 (military academies, Mormons) and G5 conference fans and in states (e.g., Arkansas, where there aren't any P5 teams.

Arkansas Razorbacks hardest hit.

Quote: cities (e.g., Cincy,

Ohio State says hello.

Quote:Philadelphia,

Penn State

Quote: New Orleans,

LSU

Quote:Houston,

Texas? A&M?

Quote: Memphis and San Diego

Decent point, although I think between Tennessee, Arkansas, the Mississippi schools and Missouri, I think it's fair to count Memphis as solidly SEC country.

Quote: and regions (e.g., western NY,

Syracuse

Quote:sections of California, Louisiana and Ohio, western Michigan, & west Texas) where there aren't any P5 teams.

California maybe. West Texas has Texas Tech. Get a map, bro.

Quote:To illustrate the benefits to the major networks (in this case, ESPN), while the AAC viewership may only be 1/4 or 1/5 that of the average P5 conference, ESPN only has to pay the AAC schools 1/4 ($77 million/yr) of what they have to pay the P5 conference schools ($300+ million/yr). Not only that, but unlike their P5 deals - which only provide them with the exclusive rights to broadcast a limited selection of P5 conference games, ESPN's deal with the AAC provides them with exclusive rights to broadcast practically any AAC game they wish to, with no competition from any proprietary conference or school network. On top of that, the AAC schools have further sweetened the deal by shouldering many of the responsibilities and costs of broadcasting the AAC conference games.

I'm going to point out a few things that it seems like you don't know.
1. ESPN holds the rights to the bottom-of-the-barrel ACC, SEC and Big 12 games. It's only the B1G and PAC whose sub-Tier 1 content is outside the ESPN empire.
2. ESPN owns the SEC and ACC Networks. So it's not like putting content on SECN instead of ESPN-U is some loss to ESPN.

What ESPN is paying crazy money for to the big conferences is the rights to the biggest games. ESPN (and Fox) aren't paying the Big Ten or SEC primarily for "lots of games". They're paying top dollar for the big time mega-event games. One day, Ohio STate-Michigan is going to be a matchup of top ten teams. That's the game that Fox is paying crazy money for. ESPN is paying the SEC all that money so that, next year, when Auburn or LSU is in the top 5 and plays Alabama, that's an ESPN game. (Quibble--next year that's still a CBS game).

Quote:What this means is that the major networks have learned that they're able to get roughly the same return on their investment from broadcasting non-P5 games that they can get on broadcasting P5 games.

No, that's wrong. See my last paragraph. The best AAC regular season game of the year would be say #7 Cincinnati vs #22 Navy. That's not the top-rated game that week. ESPN and Fox are paying for the highest rated games of the year.

Quote:The name of the game is profit. If it's just as easy to double your money by broadcasting an unlimited selection of G5 conference games - - without having to set aside the $3 billion per conference/per decade that it costs to broadcast a limited selection of P5 games - - it's a no-brainer to do so, especially since the G5 conferences will bend over backwards to sweeten the deal.

You can broadcast as many games as you want. The point is to broadcast games that will draw an audience. No matter how cheap the TV rights to Troy vs South Alabama are, nobody wants to watch it if it's on against Alabama vs Auburn.

Quote:At some point in the next 5-6 years, the major networks may recognize that it will be in their longer-term best interest to shift a growing share of their broadcasting time to the coverage of the C-USA, Sun Belt and MAC, as they have already begun to do for vis a vis the MWC and AAC.

Yeaaah, look back at 2019. How many AAC games were on ABC? I just clicked through wikipedia. Two (2) AAC conference games plus the CCG. College Gameday went to Memphis on Nov 2, and the Memphis-Cincinnati game on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

Quote:...and if that's the case, [b]it will not be in the best interests of ESPN or the other major networks for the 65 P5 teams to become artificially sequestered from the 65 non-P5 FBS teams.

OK, after a lot of highly questionable assumptions, you come to a very valid conclusion. ESPN would rather negotiate with 5 strong conferences and 5 weaker conferences than with one united P5 big-time-college-football cartel. That is absolutely true.

Excellent feedback. Many solid points, and many things I didn't know.

Yep, I missed up on Arkansas, but I think the other States are correct.

Yep, there are OSU fans in Cincy, but some P5 teams would still do well by scheduling games with the Bearcats.

Finally, I'm glad that that at least the conclusion is "validated!"

(01-02-2021 10:29 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 08:03 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-02-2021 05:08 PM)jedclampett Wrote:  There are some other ways that they benefit, as well. Playing non-P5 teams promotes viewership by millions of non-P5 (military academies, Mormons) and G5 conference fans and in states (e.g., Arkansas, where there aren't any P5 teams.

Arkansas Razorbacks hardest hit.

Quote: cities (e.g., Cincy,

Ohio State says hello.

Quote:Philadelphia,

Penn State

Quote: New Orleans,

LSU

Quote:Houston,

Texas? A&M?

Quote: Memphis and San Diego

Decent point, although I think between Tennessee, Arkansas, the Mississippi schools and Missouri, I think it's fair to count Memphis as solidly SEC country.

Quote: and regions (e.g., western NY,

Syracuse

Quote:sections of California, Louisiana and Ohio, western Michigan, & west Texas) where there aren't any P5 teams.

California maybe. West Texas has Texas Tech. Get a map, bro.

Quote:To illustrate the benefits to the major networks (in this case, ESPN), while the AAC viewership may only be 1/4 or 1/5 that of the average P5 conference, ESPN only has to pay the AAC schools 1/4 ($77 million/yr) of what they have to pay the P5 conference schools ($300+ million/yr). Not only that, but unlike their P5 deals - which only provide them with the exclusive rights to broadcast a limited selection of P5 conference games, ESPN's deal with the AAC provides them with exclusive rights to broadcast practically any AAC game they wish to, with no competition from any proprietary conference or school network. On top of that, the AAC schools have further sweetened the deal by shouldering many of the responsibilities and costs of broadcasting the AAC conference games.

I'm going to point out a few things that it seems like you don't know.
1. ESPN holds the rights to the bottom-of-the-barrel ACC, SEC and Big 12 games. It's only the B1G and PAC whose sub-Tier 1 content is outside the ESPN empire.
2. ESPN owns the SEC and ACC Networks. So it's not like putting content on SECN instead of ESPN-U is some loss to ESPN.

What ESPN is paying crazy money for to the big conferences is the rights to the biggest games. ESPN (and Fox) aren't paying the Big Ten or SEC primarily for "lots of games". They're paying top dollar for the big time mega-event games. One day, Ohio STate-Michigan is going to be a matchup of top ten teams. That's the game that Fox is paying crazy money for. ESPN is paying the SEC all that money so that, next year, when Auburn or LSU is in the top 5 and plays Alabama, that's an ESPN game. (Quibble--next year that's still a CBS game).

Quote:What this means is that the major networks have learned that they're able to get roughly the same return on their investment from broadcasting non-P5 games that they can get on broadcasting P5 games.

No, that's wrong. See my last paragraph. The best AAC regular season game of the year would be say #7 Cincinnati vs #22 Navy. That's not the top-rated game that week. ESPN and Fox are paying for the highest rated games of the year.

Quote:The name of the game is profit. If it's just as easy to double your money by broadcasting an unlimited selection of G5 conference games - - without having to set aside the $3 billion per conference/per decade that it costs to broadcast a limited selection of P5 games - - it's a no-brainer to do so, especially since the G5 conferences will bend over backwards to sweeten the deal.

You can broadcast as many games as you want. The point is to broadcast games that will draw an audience. No matter how cheap the TV rights to Troy vs South Alabama are, nobody wants to watch it if it's on against Alabama vs Auburn.

Quote:At some point in the next 5-6 years, the major networks may recognize that it will be in their longer-term best interest to shift a growing share of their broadcasting time to the coverage of the C-USA, Sun Belt and MAC, as they have already begun to do for vis a vis the MWC and AAC.

Yeaaah, look back at 2019. How many AAC games were on ABC? I just clicked through wikipedia. Two (2) AAC conference games plus the CCG. College Gameday went to Memphis on Nov 2, and the Memphis-Cincinnati game on the Friday after Thanksgiving.

Quote:...and if that's the case, [b]it will not be in the best interests of ESPN or the other major networks for the 65 P5 teams to become artificially sequestered from the 65 non-P5 FBS teams.

OK, after a lot of highly questionable assumptions, you come to a very valid conclusion. ESPN would rather negotiate with 5 strong conferences and 5 weaker conferences than with one united P5 big-time-college-football cartel. That is absolutely true.

Excellent feedback. Many solid points, and many things I didn't know.

Yep, I missed up on Arkansas, but I think the other States are correct.

Yep, there are OSU fans in Cincy, but some P5 teams would still do well by scheduling games with the Bearcats.

Finally, I'm glad that that at least the conclusion is "validated!"

To be brief, you're right that the G5 are a valuable asset or partner to the P5.
You're wrong about their potential as s competitor to the P5