We’re also making an assumption here that the P5 are all getting an even split of the revenue.

I think everyone will get a flat base amount but if the Big Ten and SEC are routinely putting 3 teams apiece into the field and the ACC and PAC 12 each have 1 apiece then the Big Ten and SEC should be paid more.

The conferences seem to be in agreement in principle to this model but the devil is in the details and if they can’t come to a consensus on the revenue split the whole thing could blow up.

(06-15-2021 06:41 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  We’re also making an assumption here that the P5 are all getting an even split of the revenue.

I think everyone will get a flat base amount but if the Big Ten and SEC are routinely putting 3 teams apiece into the field and the ACC and PAC 12 each have 1 apiece then the Big Ten and SEC should be paid more.

The conferences seem to be in agreement in principle to this model but the devil is in the details and if they can’t come to a consensus on the revenue split the whole thing could blow up.

I think the money split will be very much in-line with the current CFP, meaning the vast bulk of the money will be guaranteed, with only a marginal difference for putting more teams in the playoffs. Conferences would have little incentive to do a new playoffs if the money could swing radically from year to year based on performance. They apparently didn't care much about "certainty" with respect to guaranteeing their champ a spot in the playoffs, but since the founding of the BCS, they have always wanted a high degree of certainty with respect to money. Plus, the SEC and B1G are smart enough to know that performance is cyclical. What if they sign on to a heavily-incentive laden scheme, and then the next five years they are only putting one team in and the ACC and PAC are suddenly putting 2-3 teams in? Then they have signed over a lot of the money to those leagues.

So like the current CFP, I expect that about 90% of each P5 conferences money will be guaranteed regardless of whether they put teams in the playoff or not, with about a 10% variance for performance (right now, each P is guaranteed about $60m, and then you get an extra $6m for putting a team in the playoffs).

But hey, I've been wrong before, LOL.

(06-15-2021 05:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  The P5, when they formed the committee to look at expanding the playoffs actually formed a committee to solve the Gordian Knot. A way to remove on conference from existence, and how to disburse it's members to the other 4, for the purpose of increasing revenue for ALL of the P5 schools.
This is not to say that these recommendations will be adopted, BUT......
I can tell you this: My school's athletic deficit for this past year has been estimated to be $52 million. There is no way to make that up. The University and Rams Club have launched multiple fund raising incentives to beg for cash donations, with the only real incentive being pride and the promise of better seat locations for football (basketball seats are assigned in perpetuity based on permanent seat licenses for pledges made when the Dean Dome was constructed).

Desperate times call for desperate measures. I imagine the playoff committee will offer a consensus based solution to realignment.

There's no question in my mind that we wouldn't be having this expanded playoff thing right now if the virus hadn't struck. Because the dirty secret is that the virus hit the pockets of the Power conferences far worse than the G conferences. You have a $52m deficit. The SEC just announced it is advancing every school $24m this year against future media earnings to make up for their losses. Etcetera.

That's because (a) the power conferences had much more to lose. If you are Auburn and put 80,000 in the stands and typically make $5m profit from a home game, you lose a lot more from canceled games than a G5 school that struggles to fudge the numbers to report 25,000 in the stands to the NCAA when it really is getting about 15,000 actual butts in the seats and makes next to nothing. You can't lose what you aren't making to begin with. And then you factor in the much higher P5 costs - whether a game is played or not, Auburn still has all those higher-priced fixed costs, like coaches salaries, etc. to pay. The G5 were paying way less for their infrastructure.

Also, (b), paradoxically, the virus showed the strength of a funding model based on soaking students with fees and other transfers from the "academic side", which the G5 rely on heavily. In most places, those fees and transfers kept flowing from students to athletics even though games weren't being played. It's a morally empty model, but it worked.

In contrast, P5 schools tend to rely more on 'variable' funding, funding that varies directly with games being played. IMO, that's ultimately why the PAC and B1G reversed themselves, got off their more-virus-conscious-than-thou high horse, and played - when they took a look at how much of a hit was coming if they didn't play and ESPN didn't send them those $40 million media checks.

So the virus created an immediate "cash crunch" at many P5 schools, and IMO this led to eager thinking to expand the playoffs as a way to get a fresh cash infusion.

(06-15-2021 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the money split will be very much in-line with the current CFP, meaning the vast bulk of the money will be guaranteed, with only a marginal difference for putting more teams in the playoffs. ...

Except part of those guarantees are money for playing in Contract bowls when they are not hosting Semi-Finals. That's a big chunk of what makes the payout to the Big Ten and the SEC so much bigger than the total payout to the Group of Five.

If the biggest bowls host the quarterfinals, then sorting out how to use them to channel more money to the Big Ten or the SEC than the Group of Five get promised is going to be an issue. They could, of course, just offer to not give a full share to the Group of Five, but whether they can succeed in doing that is tricky.

Having one pile of money with (for simplicitly) 66% going to a fixed share and 34% going into a units system over four years make sure that the lions get the lion's share, 55% of the fixed share and if things go as expected 32.3% of the participation payments, for 87% of the notional CFP payment, and a larger share of the real total when the Bowl Payments are tallied in.

Pushing the fixed share down and the units payout up increases the power conference share under expected circumstances but increases variability of revenue.

(06-14-2021 12:37 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-14-2021 12:24 PM)solohawks Wrote:  These athletic departments will be billion dollar industries sooner than later

How much of that will the players who play these extra games see?

Nothing? All to facilities, coaches and administrators?

Everyone is okay with this, I guess.

This issue is what's going to lead to way more disruption.

(06-14-2021 01:33 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  I don't want to quote the full article, as you need to subscribe. I think I've quoted enough. But ESPN is not opposed and will make a good bid.

The current format remains for 2021 (this year) and 2022 (next year), with 2023 the earliest the new format will start.

The model proposed starts the Playoffs in Mid-December (sounds like the week before Christmas, the week after the Army-Navy game), with four on campus games (seeds 5 thru 8 hosting seeds 9 thru 12), then the quarterfinals on New Years Day. Doesn't sound like they figured out semi-finals, but my guess is back to campus. Not clear on New Years Six, but they need four anyway.

CoVid-19 probably sped up this happening. Schools want to recoup revenue, and the only steady revenue was TV, as gate and donations are down will likely stay down. Power five schools getting $27m instead of $9m per year from the playoffs goes a long way. (I expect G5 will also triple, although they only get about a quarter what the power schools get.) Everyone always needs money. Lots of debts to pay down.

There are a lot of details to be worked out, and that will take a long time. I'm guessing that many of those details will have to be finalized before the presidents sign off on playoff expansion. Even then, approval is likely to be tentative, pending negotiations with the most important party, ESPN or any other competitor that wants to submit a bid.

I'm a little confused about the premise of the valuation mentioned in the OP. Based on accounts of the current deal in the media, I calculate that the average payout to each of the 65 teams in the P5 is about $6 million. So if the PAC schools are going to average $9 million each, somebody is getting significantly less (around $5 million on average). Somehow I can't see the B1G and SEC agreeing to that kind of split.

I also am skeptical that first round hosts will get to keep the revenue from those games as seems to be the prevailing assumption on this site so far. If that were true, teams seeded #5-#8 would get more money than teams seeded #1-#4 who have a first round bye. For someone like Penn State or Texas A&M, who could sell 100,000 tickets at premium prices, that game alone would be worth far more than any school is currently getting from the CFP.

If the first round games were scheduled for the week after the Army-Navy game, that would be December 21st in 2024. That's a pretty early end to the season of a Top Ten team, and if you aren't seeded in the top 8, most of your fans are going to have to watch it on TV. For first round winners, that's a pretty short turnaround for making New Year's travel plans.

It's fine that some consultant thinks teams are going to get $27 million, but the only valuation that really counts is the one ESPN will make, and I'm still betting it will be significantly south of that number.

(06-15-2021 08:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the money split will be very much in-line with the current CFP, meaning the vast bulk of the money will be guaranteed, with only a marginal difference for putting more teams in the playoffs. ...

Except part of those guarantees are money for playing in Contract bowls when they are not hosting Semi-Finals. That's a big chunk of what makes the payout to the Big Ten and the SEC so much bigger than the total payout to the Group of Five.

If the biggest bowls host the quarterfinals, then sorting out how to use them to channel more money to the Big Ten or the SEC than the Group of Five get promised is going to be an issue. They could, of course, just offer to not give a full share to the Group of Five, but whether they can succeed in doing that is tricky.

Having one pile of money with (for simplicitly) 66% going to a fixed share and 34% going into a units system over four years make sure that the lions get the lion's share, 55% of the fixed share and if things go as expected 32.3% of the participation payments, for 87% of the notional CFP payment, and a larger share of the real total when the Bowl Payments are tallied in.

Pushing the fixed share down and the units payout up increases the power conference share under expected circumstances but increases variability of revenue.

The winners in the current CFP payout distribution model are really the teams in the B12. To a lesser extent, the PAC also gets a sweetheart deal. Currently, 95% of CFP payouts are fixed (the other 5% is distributed based on participation by a team). The B12 and PAC have lower conference membership size…therefore distribute fixed payouts to fewer members. On a per school basis, the annual average fixed CFP payouts to the conferences (including contract bowls payments) are:

B12 (10 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Sugar = $93M per year…or $9.3M per team

PAC (12 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Rose = $93M per year…or $7.8M per team

SEC & BIG (14 teams each): $66M from CFP base + $36 from Sugar/Rose & Orange = $102M per year…or $7.3M per team

ACC (14 teams): $66M from CFP base + $18M from Orange = $84M per year…or $6.0M per team

G5 (59 teams): $90M from CFP base per year…or $1.5M per team

The CFP base payouts were from a Dec 2019 Sports Business Daily article.

(06-15-2021 10:17 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 08:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the money split will be very much in-line with the current CFP, meaning the vast bulk of the money will be guaranteed, with only a marginal difference for putting more teams in the playoffs. ...

Except part of those guarantees are money for playing in Contract bowls when they are not hosting Semi-Finals. That's a big chunk of what makes the payout to the Big Ten and the SEC so much bigger than the total payout to the Group of Five.

If the biggest bowls host the quarterfinals, then sorting out how to use them to channel more money to the Big Ten or the SEC than the Group of Five get promised is going to be an issue. They could, of course, just offer to not give a full share to the Group of Five, but whether they can succeed in doing that is tricky.

Having one pile of money with (for simplicitly) 66% going to a fixed share and 34% going into a units system over four years make sure that the lions get the lion's share, 55% of the fixed share and if things go as expected 32.3% of the participation payments, for 87% of the notional CFP payment, and a larger share of the real total when the Bowl Payments are tallied in.

Pushing the fixed share down and the units payout up increases the power conference share under expected circumstances but increases variability of revenue.

The winners in the current CFP payout distribution model are really the teams in the B12. To a lesser extent, the PAC also gets a sweetheart deal. Currently, 95% of CFP payouts are fixed (the other 5% is distributed based on participation by a team). The B12 and PAC have lower conference membership size…therefore distribute fixed payouts to fewer members. On a per school basis, the annual average fixed CFP payouts to the conferences (including contract bowls payments) are:

B12 (10 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Sugar = $93M per year…or $9.3M per team

PAC (12 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Rose = $93M per year…or $7.8M per team

SEC & BIG (14 teams each): $66M from CFP base + $36 from Sugar/Rose & Orange = $102M per year…or $7.3M per team

ACC (14 teams): $66M from CFP base + $18M from Orange = $84M per year…or $6.0M per team

G5 (59 teams): $90M from CFP base per year…or $1.5M per team

And that's what I expect when the dust settles. Yes, there are issues to be sorted out with respect to that Rose/Sugar/Orange money, but in the end, it will be sorted such that the P5 get the lion's share of the money and divided pretty much the same way.

We're going to end up with the same overall division of loot as the CFP, that's what I predict. And yes, that means the B12 and PAC will still have an advantage with the lesser number of members.

(06-15-2021 10:17 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 08:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the money split will be very much in-line with the current CFP, meaning the vast bulk of the money will be guaranteed, with only a marginal difference for putting more teams in the playoffs. ...

Except part of those guarantees are money for playing in Contract bowls when they are not hosting Semi-Finals. That's a big chunk of what makes the payout to the Big Ten and the SEC so much bigger than the total payout to the Group of Five.

If the biggest bowls host the quarterfinals, then sorting out how to use them to channel more money to the Big Ten or the SEC than the Group of Five get promised is going to be an issue. They could, of course, just offer to not give a full share to the Group of Five, but whether they can succeed in doing that is tricky.

Having one pile of money with (for simplicitly) 66% going to a fixed share and 34% going into a units system over four years make sure that the lions get the lion's share, 55% of the fixed share and if things go as expected 32.3% of the participation payments, for 87% of the notional CFP payment, and a larger share of the real total when the Bowl Payments are tallied in.

Pushing the fixed share down and the units payout up increases the power conference share under expected circumstances but increases variability of revenue.

The winners in the current CFP payout distribution model are really the teams in the B12. To a lesser extent, the PAC also gets a sweetheart deal. Currently, 95% of CFP payouts are fixed (the other 5% is distributed based on participation by a team). The B12 and PAC have lower conference membership size…therefore distribute fixed payouts to fewer members. On a per school basis, the annual average fixed CFP payouts to the conferences (including contract bowls payments) are:

B12 (10 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Sugar = $93M per year…or $9.3M per team

PAC (12 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Rose = $93M per year…or $7.8M per team

SEC & BIG (14 teams each): $66M from CFP base + $36 from Sugar/Rose & Orange = $102M per year…or $7.3M per team

ACC (14 teams): $66M from CFP base + $18M from Orange = $84M per year…or $6.0M per team

G5 (59 teams): $90M from CFP base per year…or $1.5M per team

And that's what I expect when the dust settles. Yes, there are issues to be sorted out with respect to that Rose/Sugar/Orange money, but in the end, it will be sorted such that the P5 get the lion's share of the money and divided pretty much the same way.

We're going to end up with the same overall division of loot as the CFP, that's what I predict. And yes, that means the B12 and PAC will still have an advantage with the lesser number of members. There's never been any inclination to try and adjust for that. Heck, in the BCS the Big East had the same advantage and nobody tried to change it.

(06-15-2021 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  And that's what I expect when the dust settles. Yes, there are issues to be sorted out with respect to that Rose/Sugar/Orange money, but in the end, it will be sorted such that the P5 get the lion's share of the money and divided pretty much the same way.

We're going to end up with the same overall division of loot as the CFP, that's what I predict. And yes, that means the B12 and PAC will still have an advantage with the lesser number of members. There's never been any inclination to try and adjust for that. Heck, in the BCS the Big East had the same advantage and nobody tried to change it.

Agreed. But the difference between the Big12's share and the 14-team conferences' share is only $2 million at present. If the formula stays the same (or similar), that's going to increase. Will it be $10 million? We don't know. But it'll be more.

(06-15-2021 07:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 05:13 AM)XLance Wrote:  The P5, when they formed the committee to look at expanding the playoffs actually formed a committee to solve the Gordian Knot. A way to remove on conference from existence, and how to disburse it's members to the other 4, for the purpose of increasing revenue for ALL of the P5 schools.
This is not to say that these recommendations will be adopted, BUT......
I can tell you this: My school's athletic deficit for this past year has been estimated to be $52 million. There is no way to make that up. The University and Rams Club have launched multiple fund raising incentives to beg for cash donations, with the only real incentive being pride and the promise of better seat locations for football (basketball seats are assigned in perpetuity based on permanent seat licenses for pledges made when the Dean Dome was constructed).

Desperate times call for desperate measures. I imagine the playoff committee will offer a consensus based solution to realignment.

There's no question in my mind that we wouldn't be having this expanded playoff thing right now if the virus hadn't struck. Because the dirty secret is that the virus hit the pockets of the Power conferences far worse than the G conferences. You have a $52m deficit. The SEC just announced it is advancing every school $24m this year against future media earnings to make up for their losses. Etcetera.

That's because (a) the power conferences had much more to lose. If you are Auburn and put 80,000 in the stands and typically make $5m profit from a home game, you lose a lot more from canceled games than a G5 school that struggles to fudge the numbers to report 25,000 in the stands to the NCAA when it really is getting about 15,000 actual butts in the seats and makes next to nothing. You can't lose what you aren't making to begin with. And then you factor in the much higher P5 costs - whether a game is played or not, Auburn still has all those higher-priced fixed costs, like coaches salaries, etc. to pay. The G5 were paying way less for their infrastructure.

Also, (b), paradoxically, the virus showed the strength of a funding model based on soaking students with fees and other transfers from the "academic side", which the G5 rely on heavily. In most places, those fees and transfers kept flowing from students to athletics even though games weren't being played. It's a morally empty model, but it worked.

In contrast, P5 schools tend to rely more on 'variable' funding, funding that varies directly with games being played. IMO, that's ultimately why the PAC and B1G reversed themselves, got off their more-virus-conscious-than-thou high horse, and played - when they took a look at how much of a hit was coming if they didn't play and ESPN didn't send them those $40 million media checks.

So the virus created an immediate "cash crunch" at many P5 schools, and IMO this led to eager thinking to expand the playoffs as a way to get a fresh cash infusion.

I think we would have eventually gotten an expanded playoff with the next CFP contract, but agree with you in the sense that the *urgency* to change expand the playoff before the current CFP contract ends is a direct result of the pandemic.

Believe me - I've looked at the financial hits that schools (and I'm talking major brand name schools with a lot of wealth on paper) have taken this past year and it's ugly. Even beyond athletics, international student tuition revenue tanked, room and board revenue got hammered, and there was restructuring of employees and programs everywhere (even in the Ivy League).

As I've said elsewhere, absolutely no one (whether the Big Ten/SEC or Sun Belt/MAC) is in a position to pass up easy revenue right now and CFP expansion is the easiest mechanism to instantly juice revenue in a material manner for a wide range of schools out there.

(06-15-2021 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 10:17 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 08:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the money split will be very much in-line with the current CFP, meaning the vast bulk of the money will be guaranteed, with only a marginal difference for putting more teams in the playoffs. ...

Except part of those guarantees are money for playing in Contract bowls when they are not hosting Semi-Finals. That's a big chunk of what makes the payout to the Big Ten and the SEC so much bigger than the total payout to the Group of Five.

If the biggest bowls host the quarterfinals, then sorting out how to use them to channel more money to the Big Ten or the SEC than the Group of Five get promised is going to be an issue. They could, of course, just offer to not give a full share to the Group of Five, but whether they can succeed in doing that is tricky.

Having one pile of money with (for simplicitly) 66% going to a fixed share and 34% going into a units system over four years make sure that the lions get the lion's share, 55% of the fixed share and if things go as expected 32.3% of the participation payments, for 87% of the notional CFP payment, and a larger share of the real total when the Bowl Payments are tallied in.

Pushing the fixed share down and the units payout up increases the power conference share under expected circumstances but increases variability of revenue.

The winners in the current CFP payout distribution model are really the teams in the B12. To a lesser extent, the PAC also gets a sweetheart deal. Currently, 95% of CFP payouts are fixed (the other 5% is distributed based on participation by a team). The B12 and PAC have lower conference membership size…therefore distribute fixed payouts to fewer members. On a per school basis, the annual average fixed CFP payouts to the conferences (including contract bowls payments) are:

B12 (10 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Sugar = $93M per year…or $9.3M per team

PAC (12 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Rose = $93M per year…or $7.8M per team

SEC & BIG (14 teams each): $66M from CFP base + $36 from Sugar/Rose & Orange = $102M per year…or $7.3M per team

ACC (14 teams): $66M from CFP base + $18M from Orange = $84M per year…or $6.0M per team

G5 (59 teams): $90M from CFP base per year…or $1.5M per team

And that's what I expect when the dust settles. Yes, there are issues to be sorted out with respect to that Rose/Sugar/Orange money, but in the end, it will be sorted such that the P5 get the lion's share of the money and divided pretty much the same way.

We're going to end up with the same overall division of loot as the CFP, that's what I predict. And yes, that means the B12 and PAC will still have an advantage with the lesser number of members. There's never been any inclination to try and adjust for that. Heck, in the BCS the Big East had the same advantage and nobody tried to change it.

I think that the SEC and BIG will seek some changes to the distribution model. The P2 conferences reasonably expect to have more participants in the 12 team playoffs, so they can risk greater percentages of variable payouts.

If the quarterfinals are around New Years Day, I could also see conferences beginning to sponsor the top 4 bowls. For example, the highest rated conference champion (if in the top 4) amongst the BIG & PAC would be the home team in the Rose Bowl. A top 4 conference champion from the SEC would host the Sugar Bowl; a top 4 champion from the B12 would align with the Cotton Bowl; a top 4 champ from the ACC would align with the Orange; and a top 4 champ from the G5 aligns with the Peach Bowl.

(06-15-2021 12:59 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 10:17 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 08:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the money split will be very much in-line with the current CFP, meaning the vast bulk of the money will be guaranteed, with only a marginal difference for putting more teams in the playoffs. ...

Except part of those guarantees are money for playing in Contract bowls when they are not hosting Semi-Finals. That's a big chunk of what makes the payout to the Big Ten and the SEC so much bigger than the total payout to the Group of Five.

If the biggest bowls host the quarterfinals, then sorting out how to use them to channel more money to the Big Ten or the SEC than the Group of Five get promised is going to be an issue. They could, of course, just offer to not give a full share to the Group of Five, but whether they can succeed in doing that is tricky.

Having one pile of money with (for simplicitly) 66% going to a fixed share and 34% going into a units system over four years make sure that the lions get the lion's share, 55% of the fixed share and if things go as expected 32.3% of the participation payments, for 87% of the notional CFP payment, and a larger share of the real total when the Bowl Payments are tallied in.

Pushing the fixed share down and the units payout up increases the power conference share under expected circumstances but increases variability of revenue.

The winners in the current CFP payout distribution model are really the teams in the B12. To a lesser extent, the PAC also gets a sweetheart deal. Currently, 95% of CFP payouts are fixed (the other 5% is distributed based on participation by a team). The B12 and PAC have lower conference membership size…therefore distribute fixed payouts to fewer members. On a per school basis, the annual average fixed CFP payouts to the conferences (including contract bowls payments) are:

B12 (10 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Sugar = $93M per year…or $9.3M per team

PAC (12 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Rose = $93M per year…or $7.8M per team

SEC & BIG (14 teams each): $66M from CFP base + $36 from Sugar/Rose & Orange = $102M per year…or $7.3M per team

ACC (14 teams): $66M from CFP base + $18M from Orange = $84M per year…or $6.0M per team

G5 (59 teams): $90M from CFP base per year…or $1.5M per team

And that's what I expect when the dust settles. Yes, there are issues to be sorted out with respect to that Rose/Sugar/Orange money, but in the end, it will be sorted such that the P5 get the lion's share of the money and divided pretty much the same way.

We're going to end up with the same overall division of loot as the CFP, that's what I predict. And yes, that means the B12 and PAC will still have an advantage with the lesser number of members. There's never been any inclination to try and adjust for that. Heck, in the BCS the Big East had the same advantage and nobody tried to change it.

I think that the SEC and BIG will seek some changes to the distribution model. The P2 conferences reasonably expect to have more participants in the 12 team playoffs, so they can risk greater percentages of variable payouts.

If the quarterfinals are around New Years Day, I could also see conferences beginning to sponsor the top 4 bowls. For example, the highest rated conference champion (if in the top 4) amongst the BIG & PAC would be the home team in the Rose Bowl. A top 4 conference champion from the SEC would host the Sugar Bowl; a top 4 champion from the B12 would align with the Cotton Bowl; a top 4 champ from the ACC would align with the Orange; and a top 4 champ from the G5 aligns with the Peach Bowl.

I think the P5 (including the SEC and Big Ten) are going to have their proverbial cake and eat it, too, here. It won't be one or the other: they're going to get a greater guaranteed payout from the latter bowl sponsorships that you've described and then also receive greater variable payouts on top of that. They don't have to choose.

I just perused all the posts in this thread and struggled to understand, as my math skills are horrendous.

But it does seem this will be strong for all D-I college football programs.

(06-15-2021 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 10:17 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 08:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the money split will be very much in-line with the current CFP, meaning the vast bulk of the money will be guaranteed, with only a marginal difference for putting more teams in the playoffs. ...

Except part of those guarantees are money for playing in Contract bowls when they are not hosting Semi-Finals. That's a big chunk of what makes the payout to the Big Ten and the SEC so much bigger than the total payout to the Group of Five.

If the biggest bowls host the quarterfinals, then sorting out how to use them to channel more money to the Big Ten or the SEC than the Group of Five get promised is going to be an issue. They could, of course, just offer to not give a full share to the Group of Five, but whether they can succeed in doing that is tricky.

Having one pile of money with (for simplicitly) 66% going to a fixed share and 34% going into a units system over four years make sure that the lions get the lion's share, 55% of the fixed share and if things go as expected 32.3% of the participation payments, for 87% of the notional CFP payment, and a larger share of the real total when the Bowl Payments are tallied in.

Pushing the fixed share down and the units payout up increases the power conference share under expected circumstances but increases variability of revenue.

The winners in the current CFP payout distribution model are really the teams in the B12. To a lesser extent, the PAC also gets a sweetheart deal. Currently, 95% of CFP payouts are fixed (the other 5% is distributed based on participation by a team). The B12 and PAC have lower conference membership size…therefore distribute fixed payouts to fewer members. On a per school basis, the annual average fixed CFP payouts to the conferences (including contract bowls payments) are:

B12 (10 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Sugar = $93M per year…or $9.3M per team

PAC (12 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Rose = $93M per year…or $7.8M per team

SEC & BIG (14 teams each): $66M from CFP base + $36 from Sugar/Rose & Orange = $102M per year…or $7.3M per team

ACC (14 teams): $66M from CFP base + $18M from Orange = $84M per year…or $6.0M per team

G5 (59 teams): $90M from CFP base per year…or $1.5M per team

And that's what I expect when the dust settles. Yes, there are issues to be sorted out with respect to that Rose/Sugar/Orange money, but in the end, it will be sorted such that the P5 get the lion's share of the money and divided pretty much the same way.

We're going to end up with the same overall division of loot as the CFP, that's what I predict. And yes, that means the B12 and PAC will still have an advantage with the lesser number of members.

Agree. Don't see much change in the general structure. The B$G and $EC might try to give the Big 12 a little less to account for them having only 10, so rather than being split 5 ways evenly, it would be split 12-12-12-12-10, penalizing them for having less than 12.

If the top dollar figure stays the same regardless of the number of conferences, that's a strong motive to pare down to a P4.

(06-15-2021 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 10:17 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 08:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the money split will be very much in-line with the current CFP, meaning the vast bulk of the money will be guaranteed, with only a marginal difference for putting more teams in the playoffs. ...

Except part of those guarantees are money for playing in Contract bowls when they are not hosting Semi-Finals. That's a big chunk of what makes the payout to the Big Ten and the SEC so much bigger than the total payout to the Group of Five.

If the biggest bowls host the quarterfinals, then sorting out how to use them to channel more money to the Big Ten or the SEC than the Group of Five get promised is going to be an issue. They could, of course, just offer to not give a full share to the Group of Five, but whether they can succeed in doing that is tricky.

Having one pile of money with (for simplicitly) 66% going to a fixed share and 34% going into a units system over four years make sure that the lions get the lion's share, 55% of the fixed share and if things go as expected 32.3% of the participation payments, for 87% of the notional CFP payment, and a larger share of the real total when the Bowl Payments are tallied in.

Pushing the fixed share down and the units payout up increases the power conference share under expected circumstances but increases variability of revenue.

The winners in the current CFP payout distribution model are really the teams in the B12. To a lesser extent, the PAC also gets a sweetheart deal. Currently, 95% of CFP payouts are fixed (the other 5% is distributed based on participation by a team). The B12 and PAC have lower conference membership size…therefore distribute fixed payouts to fewer members. On a per school basis, the annual average fixed CFP payouts to the conferences (including contract bowls payments) are:

B12 (10 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Sugar = $93M per year…or $9.3M per team

PAC (12 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Rose = $93M per year…or $7.8M per team

SEC & BIG (14 teams each): $66M from CFP base + $36 from Sugar/Rose & Orange = $102M per year…or $7.3M per team

ACC (14 teams): $66M from CFP base + $18M from Orange = $84M per year…or $6.0M per team

G5 (59 teams): $90M from CFP base per year…or $1.5M per team

And that's what I expect when the dust settles. Yes, there are issues to be sorted out with respect to that Rose/Sugar/Orange money, but in the end, it will be sorted such that the P5 get the lion's share of the money and divided pretty much the same way.

We're going to end up with the same overall division of loot as the CFP, that's what I predict. And yes, that means the B12 and PAC will still have an advantage with the lesser number of members.

The B1G and SEC may have been OK with the B12 and PAC getting the same amount despite having fewer members because they were gettin a lot more from the Rose Bowl and to a lesser extent the Sugar Bowl. But if all the bowls are now just quarterfinals, with no guarantee that the previously contracted tie-ins will be accommodated, all that money may just be lumped together with what ESPN's share is. That puts everybody back to square one in deciding how to slice the pie. I don't think it will be as easy as saying we'll keep doing it the way we have been doing it.

And if we start from scratch, I think the larger conferences are going to want whatever portion of the P5 money is not based on performance in the tournament (a la the NCAAT) to be split evenly 65 ways.

(06-15-2021 01:42 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  I just perused all the posts in this thread and struggled to understand, as my math skills are horrendous.

But it does seem this will be strong for all D-I college football programs.

Only FBS, not all D-I, revenues would increase. Assuming the initial valuation estimates are accurate, then CFP payouts triple. If the distribution mechanism remains similar, then fixed disbursement to

a) P5 schools’ revenue will increase from an average of $7M to $22M.

b) G5 schools’ revenue will increase from an average of $1.5M to $4.5M

Schools selected for the 12 team playoffs would also get increased payouts.

Everyone gets more money, but winners of games now have to play more times. The champion will play one or two extra games.

So are going to get an announcement soon or not?

(06-15-2021 02:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 10:17 AM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 08:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-15-2021 06:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think the money split will be very much in-line with the current CFP, meaning the vast bulk of the money will be guaranteed, with only a marginal difference for putting more teams in the playoffs. ...

Except part of those guarantees are money for playing in Contract bowls when they are not hosting Semi-Finals. That's a big chunk of what makes the payout to the Big Ten and the SEC so much bigger than the total payout to the Group of Five.

If the biggest bowls host the quarterfinals, then sorting out how to use them to channel more money to the Big Ten or the SEC than the Group of Five get promised is going to be an issue. They could, of course, just offer to not give a full share to the Group of Five, but whether they can succeed in doing that is tricky.

Having one pile of money with (for simplicitly) 66% going to a fixed share and 34% going into a units system over four years make sure that the lions get the lion's share, 55% of the fixed share and if things go as expected 32.3% of the participation payments, for 87% of the notional CFP payment, and a larger share of the real total when the Bowl Payments are tallied in.

Pushing the fixed share down and the units payout up increases the power conference share under expected circumstances but increases variability of revenue.

The winners in the current CFP payout distribution model are really the teams in the B12. To a lesser extent, the PAC also gets a sweetheart deal. Currently, 95% of CFP payouts are fixed (the other 5% is distributed based on participation by a team). The B12 and PAC have lower conference membership size…therefore distribute fixed payouts to fewer members. On a per school basis, the annual average fixed CFP payouts to the conferences (including contract bowls payments) are:

B12 (10 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Sugar = $93M per year…or $9.3M per team

PAC (12 teams): $66M from CFP base + $27M from Rose = $93M per year…or $7.8M per team

SEC & BIG (14 teams each): $66M from CFP base + $36 from Sugar/Rose & Orange = $102M per year…or $7.3M per team

ACC (14 teams): $66M from CFP base + $18M from Orange = $84M per year…or $6.0M per team

G5 (59 teams): $90M from CFP base per year…or $1.5M per team

And that's what I expect when the dust settles. Yes, there are issues to be sorted out with respect to that Rose/Sugar/Orange money, but in the end, it will be sorted such that the P5 get the lion's share of the money and divided pretty much the same way.

We're going to end up with the same overall division of loot as the CFP, that's what I predict. And yes, that means the B12 and PAC will still have an advantage with the lesser number of members.

Agree. Don't see much change in the general structure. The B$G and $EC might try to give the Big 12 a little less to account for them having only 10, so rather than being split 5 ways evenly, it would be split 12-12-12-12-10, penalizing them for having less than 12.

If no consolidation more like 14-14-14.5-12-10.