Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Another sad showing by AAC
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #61
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-05-2021 02:00 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:18 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  Troll thread.

The AAC consistently produces a champion on the same level of other P5 champions.

The past three years, the top G5 team has lost to the 4th place SEC team, the 3rd place B1G team and the 4th place SEC team, respectively in NY6 bowls. That's not really showing you are on the same level as a P5 champion.

The push for 5/1/2 is IMO primarily an AAC push, as the AAC stands to benefit far more than any other conference. It would mean that probably 4 years in 5, the AAC places a team in the playoffs. Other G5 will go many years without getting in (no SBC or CUSA team has made the NY6 in seven years) so would be IMO fools to agree to this. Among the P5, the PAC would also benefit, as they struggle to get their champ in the current CFP. But that's about it.

That isn't an entirely fair argument. UCF had a bad backup QB and Memphis' coaching staff decided Florida was nicer than the Cotton Bowl. UCF with Milton or Memphis with a coaching staff probably leads to wins based on how the games actually played out. Cincy was really the only full-ish strength AAC team to play recently and they choked away a win.

Eh. LSU was missing more talent on defense for that game vs UCF than UCF had on defense.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/lsu-fo...esta-bowl/

Penn State just beat Memphis, hung 50 on them and won by 14. P5 teams are almost always suffering more in terms of opt-outs and losses of talent than G5.

But that's all excuse-making. Bottom line is, the last three G5 champs have lost to teams that finished 4th, 3rd and 4th in their respective P5 conferences. IMO that does not support the notion that we need to have a G5 team in the playoffs.
(This post was last modified: 01-05-2021 06:41 PM by quo vadis.)
01-05-2021 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,030
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 232
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-05-2021 06:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 05:07 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-03-2021 01:39 PM)NJMark Wrote:  Is it supposed to prove something that the bigger brothers beat the smaller brothers?

I wonder what might happen if the AAC had anywhere close to the same financial resources as the P5.

To be fair, the P5 has earned their power. But the current system prevents anyone else from earning it too.

There's nothing preventing the AAC from having more resources.

Resources have to be created. They are not doled out by a central authority.

The market has determined that the AAC programs are not as attractive to fans and donors. That could change in time, but these programs have to achieve it themselves.

Power schools get more TV revenue because their products are more attractive and thus draw more eyeballs...that makes them more attractive to TV networks because they need eyeballs to make money.

And it's not nearly as much about TV money as people think. TV revenue is less than half of what the typical Power program takes in. The monetary disparities would be just as significant if ESPN or the like didn't exist. In fact, large checks from TV companies are a relatively new thing in and of itself.

That's true for the top 2/3 of the P5. Its not true for Washington St. and the like.

Washington State and the like got grandfathered in, I suppose. That's true as far as the current power structure, but even their resources are limited to what they can produce. The only caveat is they receive a disproportionate amount of TV revenue, but they are still poor compared to their peers.

Nonetheless, this reality does not prevent AAC schools or others from attaining equivalent or better resources. There is no entity out there giving away free money to some and randomly deciding some others shouldn't have it. There are no gatekeepers. The economics are organic.

Now, in the event we have schools that ascend economically, they will likely be welcomed into the P5 club. We can discuss the implications of being absorbed by the club as opposed to ascending in opposition to the club, which ironically is something that Notre Dame did generations ago. Either way, there's no system in place to arbitrarily reward some and punish others.

Roughly 15 years ago there was no barrier. The Pac 12 distributed $2.5 million to Washington St. when the Big East schools were getting a little over $1 million. USC was only getting about $7.5 million.

But now the gap is $20 million or more from the conference in addition to local resources.

I don't think we're quite understanding each other.

I know there's a TV revenue gap and it has grown, but what is the barrier in place that keeps AAC schools or schools from any other league from attaining such money? Who is forcing the AAC to take less money? And if such an entity existed, why would the AAC go along with it?

The only reason ESPN or any other network is doling that money out is because they make money doing so. If they could make that much money off of AAC games then they would be happy to pay for the privilege.

The market decides although you certainly have some outliers like Wazzu that get paid more simply because they were in the right league at the right time. Nonetheless, that's a function of being associated with a group of schools that earned their place and offered some grace to an institution or two for a variety of reasons. It's a bit unlucky for a UCF or Memphis or Houston to be on the outside looking in, but it doesn't mean they're being intentionally deprived. In other words, the barrier doesn't exist. It simply means the market is not rewarding them and they didn't have enough friends in high places to circumvent the nature of the economics.
01-06-2021 03:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Chappy Offline
Resident Goonie
*

Posts: 17,808
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: ECU
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #63
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
This is exactly what the CFP and before it the BCS did.

Keeping Washington State as an example, they once went 0-11 and received a larger payout than TCU, who at the time was a Mountain West member and won a BCS bowl game that year, directly from the BCS. The BCS and the CFP were/are set up to keep the bulk of the access/revenue from these games dispersed among the power 5 and Notre Dame.
01-06-2021 07:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 16,930
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 683
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #64
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
8.7M watched the Peach Bowl (Cincinnati-Georgia). It was the highest rating for a bowl game involving the G5 and the seventh highest rated game all season.

https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-relea...ssion=true
01-06-2021 07:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TripleA Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,832
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1903
I Root For: Memphis Tigers
Location:

Memphis Hall of Fame
Post: #65
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-05-2021 06:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 02:00 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:18 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  Troll thread.

The AAC consistently produces a champion on the same level of other P5 champions.

The past three years, the top G5 team has lost to the 4th place SEC team, the 3rd place B1G team and the 4th place SEC team, respectively in NY6 bowls. That's not really showing you are on the same level as a P5 champion.

The push for 5/1/2 is IMO primarily an AAC push, as the AAC stands to benefit far more than any other conference. It would mean that probably 4 years in 5, the AAC places a team in the playoffs. Other G5 will go many years without getting in (no SBC or CUSA team has made the NY6 in seven years) so would be IMO fools to agree to this. Among the P5, the PAC would also benefit, as they struggle to get their champ in the current CFP. But that's about it.

That isn't an entirely fair argument. UCF had a bad backup QB and Memphis' coaching staff decided Florida was nicer than the Cotton Bowl. UCF with Milton or Memphis with a coaching staff probably leads to wins based on how the games actually played out. Cincy was really the only full-ish strength AAC team to play recently and they choked away a win.

Eh. LSU was missing more talent on defense for that game vs UCF than UCF had on defense.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/lsu-fo...esta-bowl/

Penn State just beat Memphis, hung 50 on them and won by 14. P5 teams are almost always suffering more in terms of opt-outs and losses of talent than G5.

But that's all excuse-making. Bottom line is, the last three G5 champs have lost to teams that finished 4th, 3rd and 4th in their respective P5 conferences. IMO that does not support the notion that we need to have a G5 team in the playoffs.

Did you actually watch that entire game? Nobody unbiased who did would ever describe it like that.

The game went back and forth for 54 minutes, until Penn State got a pick six to put it away. Until then, the game was predominantly within one score, and was always in doubt.

Memphis scored the most points on Penn State of any team that season, but you left that part out. And some AAC teams scored almost that many on Memphis that season, lol. Although we won both games, SMU scored 48 on us, and Tulsa 41.
01-06-2021 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,340
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 196
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #66
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 03:52 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 06:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 05:07 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:09 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's nothing preventing the AAC from having more resources.

Resources have to be created. They are not doled out by a central authority.

The market has determined that the AAC programs are not as attractive to fans and donors. That could change in time, but these programs have to achieve it themselves.

Power schools get more TV revenue because their products are more attractive and thus draw more eyeballs...that makes them more attractive to TV networks because they need eyeballs to make money.

And it's not nearly as much about TV money as people think. TV revenue is less than half of what the typical Power program takes in. The monetary disparities would be just as significant if ESPN or the like didn't exist. In fact, large checks from TV companies are a relatively new thing in and of itself.

That's true for the top 2/3 of the P5. Its not true for Washington St. and the like.

Washington State and the like got grandfathered in, I suppose. That's true as far as the current power structure, but even their resources are limited to what they can produce. The only caveat is they receive a disproportionate amount of TV revenue, but they are still poor compared to their peers.

Nonetheless, this reality does not prevent AAC schools or others from attaining equivalent or better resources. There is no entity out there giving away free money to some and randomly deciding some others shouldn't have it. There are no gatekeepers. The economics are organic.

Now, in the event we have schools that ascend economically, they will likely be welcomed into the P5 club. We can discuss the implications of being absorbed by the club as opposed to ascending in opposition to the club, which ironically is something that Notre Dame did generations ago. Either way, there's no system in place to arbitrarily reward some and punish others.

Roughly 15 years ago there was no barrier. The Pac 12 distributed $2.5 million to Washington St. when the Big East schools were getting a little over $1 million. USC was only getting about $7.5 million.

But now the gap is $20 million or more from the conference in addition to local resources.

I don't think we're quite understanding each other.

I know there's a TV revenue gap and it has grown, but what is the barrier in place that keeps AAC schools or schools from any other league from attaining such money? Who is forcing the AAC to take less money? And if such an entity existed, why would the AAC go along with it?

The only reason ESPN or any other network is doling that money out is because they make money doing so. If they could make that much money off of AAC games then they would be happy to pay for the privilege.

The market decides although you certainly have some outliers like Wazzu that get paid more simply because they were in the right league at the right time. Nonetheless, that's a function of being associated with a group of schools that earned their place and offered some grace to an institution or two for a variety of reasons. It's a bit unlucky for a UCF or Memphis or Houston to be on the outside looking in, but it doesn't mean they're being intentionally deprived. In other words, the barrier doesn't exist. It simply means the market is not rewarding them and they didn't have enough friends in high places to circumvent the nature of the economics.

TV revenue is a symptom rather than a cause. To answer your question, the CFP is the entity that forces us to make less money. They placed a ceiling of 1 NY6 bowl that doesn't advance on 5 of the 10 conferences, then artificially lower their rankings.

Think of it this way. If the NHTSA said Toyotas were allowed to legally drive on highways, and Hondas were not, Honda would sell less cars which would drive their prices down. The NHTSA isn't directly forcing Honda to take less money, but they are unevenly influencing the market.

If you replaced names and logos with barcodes, and showed the game results and all stats to a committee, with one conference 3-0 against the other, they would have likely gotten the Sun Belt and Big 12 mixed up with each other this year. The rankings would be completely different. Over time, the Sun Belt, getting to the CFP more often, would become more valuable than the Big 12.
01-06-2021 10:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #67
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 07:32 AM)Chappy Wrote:  This is exactly what the CFP and before it the BCS did.

Keeping Washington State as an example, they once went 0-11 and received a larger payout than TCU, who at the time was a Mountain West member and won a BCS bowl game that year, directly from the BCS. The BCS and the CFP were/are set up to keep the bulk of the access/revenue from these games dispersed among the power 5 and Notre Dame.

Well, the post-season pay has basically the same structure as regular-season pay, it is based on the strength of the conference/league not on merit. E.g., the Los Angeles Lakers or New England Patriots (as franchises) don't get more of the NBA or NFL playoffs money because they advance far in the playoffs than do NBA or NFL teams that miss them entirely.

In CFB, the P5 conferences get a much larger cut of the bowl/CFP revenue because the networks believe they add by far the most value. Doesn't matter whether a particular P5 team is awful, or G5 team is good, or not.
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2021 11:17 AM by quo vadis.)
01-06-2021 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #68
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 07:38 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  8.7M watched the Peach Bowl (Cincinnati-Georgia). It was the highest rating for a bowl game involving the G5 and the seventh highest rated game all season.

https://espnpressroom.com/us/press-relea...ssion=true

Damn, those are great ratings across the board for the CFP/NY6 games, and belie the lower ratings that the NBA and MLB received during the virus crisis.

Georgia is a really big TV draw, their title game vs Alabama is easily the highest-rated CFP title game since the first one, despite it being an all-SEC game. And no question, people were interested in seeing what an unbeaten Cincy would do.

Also helped that these were actual New Year's Day games, I think.
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2021 11:14 AM by quo vadis.)
01-06-2021 11:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #69
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 08:39 AM)TripleA Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 06:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 02:00 PM)Titans3775 Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:18 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  Troll thread.

The AAC consistently produces a champion on the same level of other P5 champions.

The past three years, the top G5 team has lost to the 4th place SEC team, the 3rd place B1G team and the 4th place SEC team, respectively in NY6 bowls. That's not really showing you are on the same level as a P5 champion.

The push for 5/1/2 is IMO primarily an AAC push, as the AAC stands to benefit far more than any other conference. It would mean that probably 4 years in 5, the AAC places a team in the playoffs. Other G5 will go many years without getting in (no SBC or CUSA team has made the NY6 in seven years) so would be IMO fools to agree to this. Among the P5, the PAC would also benefit, as they struggle to get their champ in the current CFP. But that's about it.

That isn't an entirely fair argument. UCF had a bad backup QB and Memphis' coaching staff decided Florida was nicer than the Cotton Bowl. UCF with Milton or Memphis with a coaching staff probably leads to wins based on how the games actually played out. Cincy was really the only full-ish strength AAC team to play recently and they choked away a win.

Eh. LSU was missing more talent on defense for that game vs UCF than UCF had on defense.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/lsu-fo...esta-bowl/

Penn State just beat Memphis, hung 50 on them and won by 14. P5 teams are almost always suffering more in terms of opt-outs and losses of talent than G5.

But that's all excuse-making. Bottom line is, the last three G5 champs have lost to teams that finished 4th, 3rd and 4th in their respective P5 conferences. IMO that does not support the notion that we need to have a G5 team in the playoffs.

Did you actually watch that entire game? Nobody unbiased who did would ever describe it like that.

The game went back and forth for 54 minutes, until Penn State got a pick six to put it away. Until then, the game was predominantly within one score, and was always in doubt.

Memphis scored the most points on Penn State of any team that season, but you left that part out. And some AAC teams scored almost that many on Memphis that season, lol. Although we won both games, SMU scored 48 on us, and Tulsa 41.

I did watch the game, and yes, the final score was not indicative, the game was in doubt in to the fourth quarter. Memphis played a good game and was competitive until the final moments. I just pushed the spin the other way because the poster I responded to said something to the effect that if this or that hadn't happened, Memphis would have won.
01-06-2021 11:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eichorst Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 138
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Nebraska
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 11:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I did watch the game, and yes, the final score was not indicative, the game was in doubt in to the fourth quarter. Memphis played a good game and was competitive until the final moments. I just pushed the spin the other way because the poster I responded to said something to the effect that if this or that hadn't happened, Memphis would have won.

And I don't mean to suggest that Memphis and the other AAC teams have been world-killers, just that they're obviously "good enough" to not get blown out, they play competitive, fun games that would likely get strong ratings. Nobody would be saying that the AAC cinderella didn't belong in an 8-team (or larger) playoff.
01-06-2021 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #71
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 12:00 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 11:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I did watch the game, and yes, the final score was not indicative, the game was in doubt in to the fourth quarter. Memphis played a good game and was competitive until the final moments. I just pushed the spin the other way because the poster I responded to said something to the effect that if this or that hadn't happened, Memphis would have won.

And I don't mean to suggest that Memphis and the other AAC teams have been world-killers, just that they're obviously "good enough" to not get blown out, they play competitive, fun games that would likely get strong ratings. Nobody would be saying that the AAC cinderella didn't belong in an 8-team (or larger) playoff.

Well, IMO, the results of recent NY6 games involving G5 champs *do not* suggest that the G5 champ automatically belongs in an 8-team playoff. Remember, these games they were competitive in (but still lost) were against teams that finished 3rd or 4th in their conferences, they weren't losing to the champs.
01-06-2021 12:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,030
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 232
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 10:42 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 03:52 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 06:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 05:07 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-04-2021 02:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  That's true for the top 2/3 of the P5. Its not true for Washington St. and the like.

Washington State and the like got grandfathered in, I suppose. That's true as far as the current power structure, but even their resources are limited to what they can produce. The only caveat is they receive a disproportionate amount of TV revenue, but they are still poor compared to their peers.

Nonetheless, this reality does not prevent AAC schools or others from attaining equivalent or better resources. There is no entity out there giving away free money to some and randomly deciding some others shouldn't have it. There are no gatekeepers. The economics are organic.

Now, in the event we have schools that ascend economically, they will likely be welcomed into the P5 club. We can discuss the implications of being absorbed by the club as opposed to ascending in opposition to the club, which ironically is something that Notre Dame did generations ago. Either way, there's no system in place to arbitrarily reward some and punish others.

Roughly 15 years ago there was no barrier. The Pac 12 distributed $2.5 million to Washington St. when the Big East schools were getting a little over $1 million. USC was only getting about $7.5 million.

But now the gap is $20 million or more from the conference in addition to local resources.

I don't think we're quite understanding each other.

I know there's a TV revenue gap and it has grown, but what is the barrier in place that keeps AAC schools or schools from any other league from attaining such money? Who is forcing the AAC to take less money? And if such an entity existed, why would the AAC go along with it?

The only reason ESPN or any other network is doling that money out is because they make money doing so. If they could make that much money off of AAC games then they would be happy to pay for the privilege.

The market decides although you certainly have some outliers like Wazzu that get paid more simply because they were in the right league at the right time. Nonetheless, that's a function of being associated with a group of schools that earned their place and offered some grace to an institution or two for a variety of reasons. It's a bit unlucky for a UCF or Memphis or Houston to be on the outside looking in, but it doesn't mean they're being intentionally deprived. In other words, the barrier doesn't exist. It simply means the market is not rewarding them and they didn't have enough friends in high places to circumvent the nature of the economics.

TV revenue is a symptom rather than a cause. To answer your question, the CFP is the entity that forces us to make less money. They placed a ceiling of 1 NY6 bowl that doesn't advance on 5 of the 10 conferences, then artificially lower their rankings.

Think of it this way. If the NHTSA said Toyotas were allowed to legally drive on highways, and Hondas were not, Honda would sell less cars which would drive their prices down. The NHTSA isn't directly forcing Honda to take less money, but they are unevenly influencing the market.

If you replaced names and logos with barcodes, and showed the game results and all stats to a committee, with one conference 3-0 against the other, they would have likely gotten the Sun Belt and Big 12 mixed up with each other this year. The rankings would be completely different. Over time, the Sun Belt, getting to the CFP more often, would become more valuable than the Big 12.

The NHTSA is a government entity and carries the force of law with it. So out of the gate, we're not talking about the same dynamics. Either way, the NHTSA does not regulate how many Toyotas are sold in comparison with Hondas. The market decides.

The reality is...the same is true in college athletics.

The BCS or CFP carries no force of law behind it. It is a 100% voluntary association. The NCAA is also a 100% voluntary association. Neither of these entities have any capability of restricting someone from creating or attaining resources.

Setting aside the fact that postseason money is really just a fraction of overall revenue anyway, the manner in which it is doled out is nonetheless reflective of a predetermined agreement. It is not the result of an authority arbitrarily deciding that some participants will get one amount while other participants will receive less. The entity has no authority to force that sort of agreement on anyone. Everyone's participation in the system is 100% voluntary.

So let me propose a question...

If indeed the BCS/CFP is an entity that has the power to deprive schools/leagues of resources then why on earth would anyone sign up to be affiliated with them and simultaneously agree to occupy the role of the lesser? Why not just unaffiliate from such a group and do your own thing? Your own bowls or your own playoff? Why not completely buck the system and get the albatross off your shoulders?

Once you've answered that last question then you'll have the answer to your first question.

In other words, where does the money actually come from?
01-06-2021 03:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Chappy Offline
Resident Goonie
*

Posts: 17,808
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: ECU
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #73
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 07:32 AM)Chappy Wrote:  This is exactly what the CFP and before it the BCS did.

Keeping Washington State as an example, they once went 0-11 and received a larger payout than TCU, who at the time was a Mountain West member and won a BCS bowl game that year, directly from the BCS. The BCS and the CFP were/are set up to keep the bulk of the access/revenue from these games dispersed among the power 5 and Notre Dame.

Well, the post-season pay has basically the same structure as regular-season pay, it is based on the strength of the conference/league not on merit. E.g., the Los Angeles Lakers or New England Patriots (as franchises) don't get more of the NBA or NFL playoffs money because they advance far in the playoffs than do NBA or NFL teams that miss them entirely.

In CFB, the P5 conferences get a much larger cut of the bowl/CFP revenue because the networks believe they add by far the most value. Doesn't matter whether a particular P5 team is awful, or G5 team is good, or not.

You can’t really compare it to pro leagues IMO.

I have no problem with the power conferences getting paid more for their TV contracts than the G5 get. But why shouldn’t the playoff $$ be split more like the basketball tournament, with the schools who actually play in the games getting the same amount? And if we ever get a real good payoff instead of the +1 we have now (which the head of the BCS once claimed was “logistically impossible”, by the way) teams that advance get more.
01-06-2021 10:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #74
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 10:55 PM)Chappy Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 07:32 AM)Chappy Wrote:  This is exactly what the CFP and before it the BCS did.

Keeping Washington State as an example, they once went 0-11 and received a larger payout than TCU, who at the time was a Mountain West member and won a BCS bowl game that year, directly from the BCS. The BCS and the CFP were/are set up to keep the bulk of the access/revenue from these games dispersed among the power 5 and Notre Dame.

Well, the post-season pay has basically the same structure as regular-season pay, it is based on the strength of the conference/league not on merit. E.g., the Los Angeles Lakers or New England Patriots (as franchises) don't get more of the NBA or NFL playoffs money because they advance far in the playoffs than do NBA or NFL teams that miss them entirely.

In CFB, the P5 conferences get a much larger cut of the bowl/CFP revenue because the networks believe they add by far the most value. Doesn't matter whether a particular P5 team is awful, or G5 team is good, or not.

You can’t really compare it to pro leagues IMO.

I have no problem with the power conferences getting paid more for their TV contracts than the G5 get. But why shouldn’t the playoff $$ be split more like the basketball tournament, with the schools who actually play in the games getting the same amount? And if we ever get a real good payoff instead of the +1 we have now (which the head of the BCS once claimed was “logistically impossible”, by the way) teams that advance get more.

Well, in the CFP that is how it is. IIRC, if a team makes the playoffs, their conference gets a bonus $6 million on top of the base amount that every conference gets. Although IIRC there is no extra bonus for making the title game. That is its own reward.
(This post was last modified: 01-06-2021 11:09 PM by quo vadis.)
01-06-2021 11:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CoastalJuan Offline
Business Drunk
*

Posts: 4,340
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 196
I Root For: ECU
Location: Right near da beeech
Post: #75
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 03:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 10:42 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 03:52 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 06:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 05:07 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Washington State and the like got grandfathered in, I suppose. That's true as far as the current power structure, but even their resources are limited to what they can produce. The only caveat is they receive a disproportionate amount of TV revenue, but they are still poor compared to their peers.

Nonetheless, this reality does not prevent AAC schools or others from attaining equivalent or better resources. There is no entity out there giving away free money to some and randomly deciding some others shouldn't have it. There are no gatekeepers. The economics are organic.

Now, in the event we have schools that ascend economically, they will likely be welcomed into the P5 club. We can discuss the implications of being absorbed by the club as opposed to ascending in opposition to the club, which ironically is something that Notre Dame did generations ago. Either way, there's no system in place to arbitrarily reward some and punish others.

Roughly 15 years ago there was no barrier. The Pac 12 distributed $2.5 million to Washington St. when the Big East schools were getting a little over $1 million. USC was only getting about $7.5 million.

But now the gap is $20 million or more from the conference in addition to local resources.

I don't think we're quite understanding each other.

I know there's a TV revenue gap and it has grown, but what is the barrier in place that keeps AAC schools or schools from any other league from attaining such money? Who is forcing the AAC to take less money? And if such an entity existed, why would the AAC go along with it?

The only reason ESPN or any other network is doling that money out is because they make money doing so. If they could make that much money off of AAC games then they would be happy to pay for the privilege.

The market decides although you certainly have some outliers like Wazzu that get paid more simply because they were in the right league at the right time. Nonetheless, that's a function of being associated with a group of schools that earned their place and offered some grace to an institution or two for a variety of reasons. It's a bit unlucky for a UCF or Memphis or Houston to be on the outside looking in, but it doesn't mean they're being intentionally deprived. In other words, the barrier doesn't exist. It simply means the market is not rewarding them and they didn't have enough friends in high places to circumvent the nature of the economics.

TV revenue is a symptom rather than a cause. To answer your question, the CFP is the entity that forces us to make less money. They placed a ceiling of 1 NY6 bowl that doesn't advance on 5 of the 10 conferences, then artificially lower their rankings.

Think of it this way. If the NHTSA said Toyotas were allowed to legally drive on highways, and Hondas were not, Honda would sell less cars which would drive their prices down. The NHTSA isn't directly forcing Honda to take less money, but they are unevenly influencing the market.

If you replaced names and logos with barcodes, and showed the game results and all stats to a committee, with one conference 3-0 against the other, they would have likely gotten the Sun Belt and Big 12 mixed up with each other this year. The rankings would be completely different. Over time, the Sun Belt, getting to the CFP more often, would become more valuable than the Big 12.

The NHTSA is a government entity and carries the force of law with it. So out of the gate, we're not talking about the same dynamics. Either way, the NHTSA does not regulate how many Toyotas are sold in comparison with Hondas. The market decides.

The reality is...the same is true in college athletics.

The BCS or CFP carries no force of law behind it. It is a 100% voluntary association. The NCAA is also a 100% voluntary association. Neither of these entities have any capability of restricting someone from creating or attaining resources.

Setting aside the fact that postseason money is really just a fraction of overall revenue anyway, the manner in which it is doled out is nonetheless reflective of a predetermined agreement. It is not the result of an authority arbitrarily deciding that some participants will get one amount while other participants will receive less. The entity has no authority to force that sort of agreement on anyone. Everyone's participation in the system is 100% voluntary.

So let me propose a question...

If indeed the BCS/CFP is an entity that has the power to deprive schools/leagues of resources then why on earth would anyone sign up to be affiliated with them and simultaneously agree to occupy the role of the lesser? Why not just unaffiliate from such a group and do your own thing? Your own bowls or your own playoff? Why not completely buck the system and get the albatross off your shoulders?

Once you've answered that last question then you'll have the answer to your first question.

In other words, where does the money actually come from?

The same reason black baseball players didn't want a separate designation. They wanted to play with and against the best. I'm sure there was plenty of "he's a great baseball player for that league, but isn't facing the grueling slate that these other players are are up against week in and week out" before all the barriers were removed.
01-07-2021 01:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AllTideUp Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,030
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation: 232
I Root For: Alabama
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-07-2021 01:28 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 03:42 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 10:42 AM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 03:52 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  
(01-05-2021 06:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Roughly 15 years ago there was no barrier. The Pac 12 distributed $2.5 million to Washington St. when the Big East schools were getting a little over $1 million. USC was only getting about $7.5 million.

But now the gap is $20 million or more from the conference in addition to local resources.

I don't think we're quite understanding each other.

I know there's a TV revenue gap and it has grown, but what is the barrier in place that keeps AAC schools or schools from any other league from attaining such money? Who is forcing the AAC to take less money? And if such an entity existed, why would the AAC go along with it?

The only reason ESPN or any other network is doling that money out is because they make money doing so. If they could make that much money off of AAC games then they would be happy to pay for the privilege.

The market decides although you certainly have some outliers like Wazzu that get paid more simply because they were in the right league at the right time. Nonetheless, that's a function of being associated with a group of schools that earned their place and offered some grace to an institution or two for a variety of reasons. It's a bit unlucky for a UCF or Memphis or Houston to be on the outside looking in, but it doesn't mean they're being intentionally deprived. In other words, the barrier doesn't exist. It simply means the market is not rewarding them and they didn't have enough friends in high places to circumvent the nature of the economics.

TV revenue is a symptom rather than a cause. To answer your question, the CFP is the entity that forces us to make less money. They placed a ceiling of 1 NY6 bowl that doesn't advance on 5 of the 10 conferences, then artificially lower their rankings.

Think of it this way. If the NHTSA said Toyotas were allowed to legally drive on highways, and Hondas were not, Honda would sell less cars which would drive their prices down. The NHTSA isn't directly forcing Honda to take less money, but they are unevenly influencing the market.

If you replaced names and logos with barcodes, and showed the game results and all stats to a committee, with one conference 3-0 against the other, they would have likely gotten the Sun Belt and Big 12 mixed up with each other this year. The rankings would be completely different. Over time, the Sun Belt, getting to the CFP more often, would become more valuable than the Big 12.

The NHTSA is a government entity and carries the force of law with it. So out of the gate, we're not talking about the same dynamics. Either way, the NHTSA does not regulate how many Toyotas are sold in comparison with Hondas. The market decides.

The reality is...the same is true in college athletics.

The BCS or CFP carries no force of law behind it. It is a 100% voluntary association. The NCAA is also a 100% voluntary association. Neither of these entities have any capability of restricting someone from creating or attaining resources.

Setting aside the fact that postseason money is really just a fraction of overall revenue anyway, the manner in which it is doled out is nonetheless reflective of a predetermined agreement. It is not the result of an authority arbitrarily deciding that some participants will get one amount while other participants will receive less. The entity has no authority to force that sort of agreement on anyone. Everyone's participation in the system is 100% voluntary.

So let me propose a question...

If indeed the BCS/CFP is an entity that has the power to deprive schools/leagues of resources then why on earth would anyone sign up to be affiliated with them and simultaneously agree to occupy the role of the lesser? Why not just unaffiliate from such a group and do your own thing? Your own bowls or your own playoff? Why not completely buck the system and get the albatross off your shoulders?

Once you've answered that last question then you'll have the answer to your first question.

In other words, where does the money actually come from?

The same reason black baseball players didn't want a separate designation. They wanted to play with and against the best. I'm sure there was plenty of "he's a great baseball player for that league, but isn't facing the grueling slate that these other players are are up against week in and week out" before all the barriers were removed.

It is absolutely not the same reason at all. Frankly, that's a worse comparison than the original one you made. I'm not trying to be rude here, but the answer is obvious.

There is no arbitrary segregation along any lines whatsoever.

The AAC schools or any G5 schools are partnered with the NCAA and the CFP because that is the best deal they can get. In fact, you basically said the same thing. They want to be associated with the best whereas if they bucked the system then their association would be universally declared as inferior...even by the very institutions that would be forming said association.

The only difference is the declaration of inferiority wouldn't have anything to do some arbitrary factor like race or ethnicity. It would have nothing to do with perception. In this case, it has everything to do with the schools having less ability(currently) to generate revenue on their own.

They're not being deprived of anything.

Even if the CFP money was divided 100% equally, that wouldn't be enough to make up the gap in overall revenue. Actually, there's no reason for the Power leagues to include the G5 in the sharing. The P5 could separate tomorrow and make more money by itself. One day, they might do that although real world politics might prevent it.
01-07-2021 02:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MidknightWhiskey Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 652
Joined: Oct 2019
Reputation: 57
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #77
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-06-2021 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 12:00 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 11:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I did watch the game, and yes, the final score was not indicative, the game was in doubt in to the fourth quarter. Memphis played a good game and was competitive until the final moments. I just pushed the spin the other way because the poster I responded to said something to the effect that if this or that hadn't happened, Memphis would have won.

And I don't mean to suggest that Memphis and the other AAC teams have been world-killers, just that they're obviously "good enough" to not get blown out, they play competitive, fun games that would likely get strong ratings. Nobody would be saying that the AAC cinderella didn't belong in an 8-team (or larger) playoff.

Well, IMO, the results of recent NY6 games involving G5 champs *do not* suggest that the G5 champ automatically belongs in an 8-team playoff. Remember, these games they were competitive in (but still lost) were against teams that finished 3rd or 4th in their conferences, they weren't losing to the champs.

So following that logic the Big 12 & Notre Dame don't belong in an 8 team playoff since they've never won a playoff game. Nor the Pac 12 who's only won once 6 years ago. Using your qualifiers only Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, Georgia, Oregon & LSU qualify since they're the only ones who've won a playoff game so far. How thrilling.
01-07-2021 08:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #78
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-07-2021 08:36 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 12:00 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 11:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I did watch the game, and yes, the final score was not indicative, the game was in doubt in to the fourth quarter. Memphis played a good game and was competitive until the final moments. I just pushed the spin the other way because the poster I responded to said something to the effect that if this or that hadn't happened, Memphis would have won.

And I don't mean to suggest that Memphis and the other AAC teams have been world-killers, just that they're obviously "good enough" to not get blown out, they play competitive, fun games that would likely get strong ratings. Nobody would be saying that the AAC cinderella didn't belong in an 8-team (or larger) playoff.

Well, IMO, the results of recent NY6 games involving G5 champs *do not* suggest that the G5 champ automatically belongs in an 8-team playoff. Remember, these games they were competitive in (but still lost) were against teams that finished 3rd or 4th in their conferences, they weren't losing to the champs.

So following that logic the Big 12 & Notre Dame don't belong in an 8 team playoff since they've never won a playoff game. Nor the Pac 12 who's only won once 6 years ago. Using your qualifiers only Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, Georgia, Oregon & LSU qualify since they're the only ones who've won a playoff game so far. How thrilling.

That's not really my logic. There's a difference between losing playoff games, where you played an actual playoff-level team, and losing to teams that were not playoff level. The G5 champ has been losing to 3rd and 4th place finishers in P5 conferences.

Also, nobody is saying that Oklahoma and Notre Dame, or any other playoff losers, should get an *autobid* to the current playoffs. The 5/1/2 model would give an autobid to the top G5 team. That's a much higher bar to meet, so the standards for proof that it is needed should be higher.

Recently, the G5 have not come anywhere near meeting even a low bar.

Should the top G5 champ be considered for an 8-team playoff? Absolutely. And in fact, both UCF in 2018 and Cincy in 2020 would have made a straight-8 playoff. But should the G5 champ be automatically in? No.
(This post was last modified: 01-08-2021 05:44 PM by quo vadis.)
01-08-2021 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MidknightWhiskey Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 652
Joined: Oct 2019
Reputation: 57
I Root For: UCF
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-08-2021 05:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2021 08:36 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 12:00 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 11:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I did watch the game, and yes, the final score was not indicative, the game was in doubt in to the fourth quarter. Memphis played a good game and was competitive until the final moments. I just pushed the spin the other way because the poster I responded to said something to the effect that if this or that hadn't happened, Memphis would have won.

And I don't mean to suggest that Memphis and the other AAC teams have been world-killers, just that they're obviously "good enough" to not get blown out, they play competitive, fun games that would likely get strong ratings. Nobody would be saying that the AAC cinderella didn't belong in an 8-team (or larger) playoff.

Well, IMO, the results of recent NY6 games involving G5 champs *do not* suggest that the G5 champ automatically belongs in an 8-team playoff. Remember, these games they were competitive in (but still lost) were against teams that finished 3rd or 4th in their conferences, they weren't losing to the champs.

So following that logic the Big 12 & Notre Dame don't belong in an 8 team playoff since they've never won a playoff game. Nor the Pac 12 who's only won once 6 years ago. Using your qualifiers only Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, Georgia, Oregon & LSU qualify since they're the only ones who've won a playoff game so far. How thrilling.

That's not really my logic. There's a difference between losing playoff games, where you played an actual playoff-level team, and losing to teams that were not playoff level. The G5 champ has been losing to 3rd and 4th place finishers in P5 conferences.

Also, nobody is saying that Oklahoma and Notre Dame, or any other playoff losers, should get an *autobid* to the current playoffs. The 5/1/2 model would give an autobid to the top G5 team. That's a much higher bar to meet, so the standards for proof that it is needed should be higher.

Recently, the G5 have not come anywhere near meeting even a low bar.

Should the top G5 champ be considered for an 8-team playoff? Absolutely. And in fact, both UCF in 2018 and Cincy in 2020 would have made a straight-8 playoff. But should the G5 champ be automatically in? No.

Pac 12 would meet the same threshold as the AAC then since they made it a couple years (same as AAC NY6 wins) and haven't most years.

The problem is as we've all seen from the committee if there is not an autobid the goal posts will be moved to prevent anyone not in an autonomous conference + ND from getting in. So moving to 8 or even 12 doesn't matter without a guarantee. IMO the best scenario is all FBS conf champs +2 wild cards. That will never happen though so best we can hope for is 8 with P6 conf champs +2. G4 can then get an NY6 access bowl. Honestly everyone wins in that setup since the AAC has had defacto ownership of the NY6 access bowl so far, this gives an undefeated Coastal or App St etc an unbiased shot at the NY6 spot.
01-08-2021 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 37,744
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #80
RE: Another sad showing by AAC
(01-08-2021 08:08 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(01-08-2021 05:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2021 08:36 PM)MidknightWhiskey Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 12:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2021 12:00 PM)Eichorst Wrote:  And I don't mean to suggest that Memphis and the other AAC teams have been world-killers, just that they're obviously "good enough" to not get blown out, they play competitive, fun games that would likely get strong ratings. Nobody would be saying that the AAC cinderella didn't belong in an 8-team (or larger) playoff.

Well, IMO, the results of recent NY6 games involving G5 champs *do not* suggest that the G5 champ automatically belongs in an 8-team playoff. Remember, these games they were competitive in (but still lost) were against teams that finished 3rd or 4th in their conferences, they weren't losing to the champs.

So following that logic the Big 12 & Notre Dame don't belong in an 8 team playoff since they've never won a playoff game. Nor the Pac 12 who's only won once 6 years ago. Using your qualifiers only Alabama, Clemson, Ohio St, Georgia, Oregon & LSU qualify since they're the only ones who've won a playoff game so far. How thrilling.

That's not really my logic. There's a difference between losing playoff games, where you played an actual playoff-level team, and losing to teams that were not playoff level. The G5 champ has been losing to 3rd and 4th place finishers in P5 conferences.

Also, nobody is saying that Oklahoma and Notre Dame, or any other playoff losers, should get an *autobid* to the current playoffs. The 5/1/2 model would give an autobid to the top G5 team. That's a much higher bar to meet, so the standards for proof that it is needed should be higher.

Recently, the G5 have not come anywhere near meeting even a low bar.

Should the top G5 champ be considered for an 8-team playoff? Absolutely. And in fact, both UCF in 2018 and Cincy in 2020 would have made a straight-8 playoff. But should the G5 champ be automatically in? No.

Pac 12 would meet the same threshold as the AAC then since they made it a couple years (same as AAC NY6 wins) and haven't most years.

The problem is as we've all seen from the committee if there is not an autobid the goal posts will be moved to prevent anyone not in an autonomous conference + ND from getting in.

Well, we actually haven't "seen" that. Some people do believe it though.

The best solution to that problem IMO would be to let computers do the selecting.
01-08-2021 10:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.