(06-18-2021 02:36 AM)Attackcoog Wrote: (06-17-2021 08:39 PM)quo vadis Wrote: (06-17-2021 10:49 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: AAC cutting its own deal with the CFP could happen. I'm not sure I'd give it particularly high chances to happen, maybe 25%. Aresco will certainly try.
However this is another reason why I doubt we'll see the same G5 revenue sharing agreement as before. It seems to make more sense to give every conference the same base share then tilt it based on performance with the access being equal now.
Why would the SEC give itself the same base share as the MAC? It didn't do that in the old CFP deal so why would it do so now?
The whole reason there is big interest in FBS college football, and its playoffs, is because of the appeal of the P5 teams.
I mean basically, if that's the revenue model adopted, the P5 should just make these playoffs an NCAA-run event. Because that's essentially the distribution model of the NCAA hoops tournament - nobody has any guarantees more than anyone else, revenue varies purely on merit. If the MAC gets more teams in the NCAA tournament and they perform better than the PAC teams do, the MAC makes more that year than the PAC.
And I don't think the P5 want this to be an NCAA event. That's the whole basis of FBS.
I do not understand why some think this is a possibility. I will be shocked if the money is split any differently than it was with the CFP - with each P5 getting a huge guaranteed chunk of cash, and the entire G5 splitting a much smaller amount.
But I am open to further education on this.
Your leaving out the bowls. The contract bowls represent an additional big lump sum payment that will only go to conferences with a bowl tie with a CFP sponsored bowl (P5’s). Thats yet another pool of money that will substantially swing the total percentage in the P5 favor. So, there could be one smaller pool of money that is divided evenly---one larger pool based on contract bowls, and another large pool based on CFP participation and conference performance. That said---I agree, regardless of the system----the same basic 80%-20% P5-G5 split (or certainly something very close to it) will likely be the outcome. I do think the fact that the AAC has earned more than any other G5 conference in CFP payouts and that the AAC now has demonstrable evidence that it has substantially higher media value than the rest of the G4--it does have a reasonable and legitimate argument for a CFP compensation share that is negotiated and valued independently from the other G5's.
The way I see it, the #1 goal of the AAC for its entire existence has been to exit the group of 5 and join the P5. They have little hope of doing the latter anytime soon---but they have it within their power to do the former. The renegotiation of the CFP is literally the ONLY shot they will have to exit being grouped with the G4 for the next 12 years. My sense is this is an issue that the AAC will be willing to blow up the entire deal over. I dont see how this deal gets done without the AAC exiting the G5. That said, there are probably plenty of potential ways the uncoupling of the AAC from the G4 can be handled that can be acceptable to all. I dont think (or expect) that the AAC will be grouped with the P5---but I do think any system that continues to group the AAC with the G4 and compensate them on that basis will be vetoed by the AAC. I think the AAC is going to insist that it negotiate its CFP compensation share individually rather than as part of a 5 conference group (and to be fair---the other 4 "G" conferences should be free to do that as well if they wish).
Well, FWIW, I did have the contract bowls in mind. Even excluding the extra big money going to the P5 via their contracts with the Rose/Sugar/Orange bowls, the P5 still were getting a much huger chunk of the "purely" CFP money, I think the base is what, around $60 million per P5 whereas the Gs essentially split something like $80 million total amongst themselves.
IIRC, add it all up, including the contract bowl money, and each P5 averages about $80m from the CFP/NY6 and the G5 gets about $80m in total, so the split is about 82% P to 18% G overall. The Gs are treated like one big P5 conference. Something like that.
So that's what I expect to happen again this time around as well, though perhaps with some boost of G5 pay (maybe from 20% overall to 30% overall) just because there is so much more loot to share, if the contract doubles or triples as a result. That's what happened from BCS to CFP - the "P" share of the BCS money was like 91%, and that fell to 82% with the CFP, IMO just because there was so much more loot to share. So maybe the Gs walk away collectively with 25% to 30% of the overall new deal.
Also, I don't see how this deal gets done *with* the AAC exiting the G5, at least not in any practical way. The argument seems to be that "well, the AAC just wants that real bad! So it will get it". But if I am the MAC commissioner and the AAC says "no deal unless we get separated from the Gs" then i just say "no deal if he gets his way". Why would I agree to that just because Aresco/ AAC wants it really really bad? I want lots of things in life really really bad, doesn't mean I get them. So to me, since the deal otherwise will benefit everyone greatly, nobody will use the nuke-option on it.
Plus, there's the other side of it, the P-side. And I've seen no indications the Ps are sympathetic to the AAC. If I am the SEC commissioner I tell AAC reps, "well, if you want to go through the charade of sitting at a table in room A while we negotiate with the other G4 in room B so you can say you negotiated separately from the other Gs and make a propaganda twitter post about that, fine, but I can tell you this, the outcome will be the same - you will get the same money that the MAC gets".
And that's an interesting issue you raise about the MAC "negotiating separately if it can". There's an old saying, along the lines of "you can't be a King if you have no Subjects". Kind of like with Autonomy, there is no value to the AAC of being "autonomy" if everyone else is autonomy as well, which is what I think would happen if the AAC really pushes on autonomy, threatens to go to court - everyone will be autonomy so no real value gained there. For autonomy to be valuable, there has to be a "non-autonomy" group that you can now position yourself as better than.
Similarly with CFP negotiations - if the AAC manages to negotiate separate from the G5, then I would guess the rest of the G5 would insist on separate negotiations too, which means no more G5. Which again means no real gain to the AAC, because the value in negotiating separately would be to say "hey, see! We're being treated differently from that G4 group over there, we've Separated from them!".
In that case, the AAC might get more money from separate negotiations, but we already have a situation like that to see what the results are likely to be: Media deals and bowls. The AAC might end up with a bit more CFP money, as we have with media money, but it won't achieve "P" status in the public mind, because the media and bowl deals - negotiated separately - did not do so.
That's the thing - the AAC had a real chance to prove itself "P" recently on the open market, with its media deal and bowl deals. And it just failed to do that. All it was able to do was show itself to the be "best of the Gs", but still squarely G. Neither deal was "in the ballpark" with the Ps. So I don't think the AAC can achieve via bargaining with the other conferences what it failed to do in the market.
But the great thing about arguments like this is we really will see, and probably pretty soon.
/
I say something nice about the AAC: Very clearly ahead of other G5s.
