Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
So what now?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
AlwaysSunny Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,214
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 27
I Root For: NCAA
Location:
Post: #21
RE: So what now?
(08-24-2021 02:29 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  https://bigten.org/news/2021/8/24/genera...iance.aspx

Here is the announcement

What I see happening is that two non conference football games are accounted for by playing a team from the other two leagues leaving the last game as a viable alternative to schedule a MAC or CUSA type program. Similar to what many schools already do.

1 vs 1 2 vs 2 etc could be one way or the games could form a rotation.

Schools like Indiana that regularly go around the MAC and D 1 FCS schools in Indiana for non conference games will have a tougher route to bowls


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that's what you see then you're really not paying attention to what the P5 is doing right now.
08-24-2021 10:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #22
RE: So what now?
(08-24-2021 08:29 AM)MacLord Wrote:  One (unintended) effect is to further devalue the bowl games. Mississippi State Vs Virginia Tech: of mild interest. Mississippi State Vs Virginia Tech when they play out of the same pool and meet up often: of dubious interest.

This doesn't include Mississippi State, but on the general point, why would they do it so that the same match up repeats frequently?

This is assuming details for a process that is still being created, and assuming the working group will be blind to the issue as they agree on the details.
08-25-2021 12:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #23
RE: So what now?
(08-24-2021 10:10 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  And... that's pretty much exactly what they just did. They have no reason to schedule anyone else outside of conference now.
__________________________
(08-24-2021 02:29 PM)indianasniff Wrote:  https://bigten.org/news/2021/8/24/genera...iance.aspx

Here is the announcement

What I see happening is that two non conference football games are accounted for by playing a team from the other two leagues leaving the last game as a viable alternative to schedule a MAC or CUSA type program. Similar to what many schools already do.

1 vs 1 2 vs 2 etc could be one way or the games could form a rotation.

First, putting one non-conference game into the pool seems a lot more likely. Increasing the P5 quotas by one creates one more P5 games to offer into the pool, except for schools like OSU and Clemson that may already be scheduling above the current P5 minimum. Even with just one game in the pool, getting those schools into the system requires some time to restructure or unwind contracts.

And it likely won't be 1v1, 2v2, etc. ... more like splitting the schools into four tiers for a two year cycle, home/away tiers 1 through 4 (5 schools each), away/home tiers 1 through 4 (5 schools each), then at the start of each year, sorting out the tier 1, tier2, tier3, tier4 games.

Likely include a replay block ... each school cannot be scheduled against the facing school in their tier they've played the most recently.

If the Alliance schools also agree to not do new FCS contracts going ahead, the impact on the Go5 schools would be less dramatic, since, for example, every year the Big Ten division that is allowed to have FCS games under the current rule may have 5-6 FCS games total, so it might be about 8-9 games converted from Go5 to P5, 5-6 converted from FCS. The impact on ACC Go5 buy games, where more FCS games are played at present, might be even more muted.

The current tight Go5 buy game market, with the resulting contracts sometimes closer to $2m than $1m, would definitely loosen, but buy games would not really go away.

Indeed, if the CFP12 increases the MAC payout, maybe Kent State could afford to go down from selling three games (and buying one FCS games) to only selling two, and that would be a good thing.

And if the Alliance stops scheduling FCS games, that also makes it less expensive for MAC schools to buy FCS games.
(This post was last modified: 08-25-2021 12:38 AM by BruceMcF.)
08-25-2021 12:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Polish Hammer Offline
King of all Dukes
*

Posts: 14,702
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Kent State/James Madison
Location:
Post: #24
RE: So what now?
I know it would never happen, but I would love to see a mandate on home games and/or forcing teams to go on the road more often. They limit FCS wins that count toward bowl eligibility, why now limit the amount of home wins? No reason a powerhouse should be able to stay home for 8 home games per season while the poorer ones need to get out on the road for the bodybag payday games. Cap the amount of home games at 6 with a 7th every so many years. It would force them out on the road and/or force them to pay up for a “road game” that is actually a friendly neutral site like years ago Indiana played a home game against Penn State in DC which is a key recruiting area for PSU. With the trickle down effect the MAC would snare some home games and/or games at a nearby site that could house a larger crowd.
08-25-2021 06:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Schadenfreude Online
Professional Tractor Puller
*

Posts: 9,634
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 238
I Root For: Bowling Green
Location: Colorado

CrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #25
RE: So what now?
I didn't see enough detail in that alliance announcement to really sense whether it will have any impact at all on the MAC in terms of scheduling.

That said: Didn't the Big Ten, ACC, and Pac 12 announce that they want to slow down on expansion of the so-called college football playoff? That seems a significant negative for us, even if it isn't an actual step backward (because the expansion was not yet a done deal).
08-25-2021 08:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #26
RE: So what now?
(08-25-2021 08:41 AM)Schadenfreude Wrote:  I didn't see enough detail in that alliance announcement to really sense whether it will have any impact at all on the MAC in terms of scheduling.

That said: Didn't the Big Ten, ACC, and Pac 12 announce that they want to slow down on expansion of the so-called college football playoff? That seems a significant negative for us, even if it isn't an actual step backward (because the expansion was not yet a done deal).

There seems to be some reporting that the want the CFP12 to go onto the open market, maybe have multiple telecast partners. That cannot happen in 2023, which is within the current contract, so it would have to be done as a contract extension with ESPN.

That would push the start of the CFP12 to 2026.
08-25-2021 09:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #27
RE: So what now?
SEC will operate like its two FB conferences a SW and SE one and play 10 conference games with the big matchups "in house"

PAC/B1G/ACC will set up big matchups "interconference" and play 10 games (8 confernce/2 alliance).

XII at the moment can only play a 7 FB game schedule. What makes sense for them is to take a "in house" approach and expand to 14 or 16 schools becoming effectively the "best of the rest" conference.

MAC should do the same thing, go to 16 with AAC leftovers (Temple, ECU) and ODU/Marshall from CUSA then run a 10 game conference schedule.
08-26-2021 11:57 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cmufanatic Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,161
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 23
I Root For: cmu chippewas
Location: metro detroit
Post: #28
RE: So what now?
(08-26-2021 11:57 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  SEC will operate like its two FB conferences a SW and SE one and play 10 conference games with the big matchups "in house"

PAC/B1G/ACC will set up big matchups "interconference" and play 10 games (8 confernce/2 alliance).

XII at the moment can only play a 7 FB game schedule. What makes sense for them is to take a "in house" approach and expand to 14 or 16 schools becoming effectively the "best of the rest" conference.

MAC should do the same thing, go to 16 with AAC leftovers (Temple, ECU) and ODU/Marshall from CUSA then run a 10 game conference schedule.

agree, would love to see MAC be proactive and get some discussions moving
08-26-2021 12:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #29
RE: So what now?
(08-26-2021 11:57 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  SEC will operate like its two FB conferences a SW and SE one and play 10 conference games with the big matchups "in house"

They may move to 9. Moving to 10 is just going for clickbait sensationalism over realistic analysis.

Quote: PAC/B1G/ACC will set up big matchups "interconference" and play 10 games (8 confernce/2 alliance).

Maybe eventually, but it will take over a decade to fully roll out.

Quote: XII at the moment can only play a 7 FB game schedule. What makes sense for them is to take a "in house" approach and expand to 14 or 16 schools becoming effectively the "best of the rest" conference.

What makes the most sense for them is the move that makes the most for them per school, which will be 10 or 12. Expanding to 14 or 16 schools will cut their distribution per school.

Quote: MAC should do the same thing, go to 16 with AAC leftovers (Temple, ECU) and ODU/Marshall from CUSA then run a 10 game conference schedule.

No, MAC should not do it for the same reason that the Big12 will not do it, because it would not benefit the current members of the MAC.

Similar to the PAC12 did not expand to 14, despite your predicting they would do so earlier this week based on an invalid analysis which incorrectly concluded that the Alliance scheduling requires three equal sized conferences.
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2021 07:51 AM by BruceMcF.)
08-27-2021 07:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kit-Cat Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,000
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: Championships
Location:

CrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #30
RE: So what now?
I did not predict the PAC would go to 14 this week. What I said is IF they were to expand they might do so by calling out a number say 14 or 16, giving a justification perhaps that it positions the PAC better for alliance competition.

XII expansion IMO is tricky because if you do add schools it starts to warp the geography. It may make more sense to go oversized to reduce travel costs and once you go from 14 to 16 or 16 to 18 on a percentage basis its less of an impact to the per school TV money split.

C2C option:

West: SDSU, UNLV, Boise St, BYU, Colorado St, Texas Tech
Central: Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma St, Kansas, K-State, Iowa St
East: Temple, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF, USF

A 3 division configuration with true west, central and east divisions might be optimal from a total contract value perspective. Then you have start times across the country to maximize TV windows. This way travel isn't so much of a problem.

Then within the configuration they can go to 9 or 10 conference games, matching the top XII teams so they can maximize playoff chances, just like the SEC and alliance are trying to do.
08-27-2021 09:38 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #31
RE: So what now?
(08-27-2021 09:38 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  I did not predict the PAC would go to 14 this week. What I said is IF they were to expand they might do so by calling out a number say 14 or 16, giving a justification perhaps that it positions the PAC better for alliance competition. ...

They "might" do so? Oh, my goodness it's impressive how your strongest claims get toned down when you are defending them:
(08-25-2021 12:19 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  If the PAC does decide to expand it will be to a preconceived total number, be it 14, 15, 16 or beyond.

My hunch is they might just go to 14 to stay in numeric lockstep with the B1G and ACC.
08-27-2021 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Steve1981 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,367
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 258
I Root For: UMass
Location: North Quabbin Region
Post: #32
RE: So what now?
Probably native but with CFP money and the huge lift in the media contract, think it will still hurt not having BigTen money games, but will manage.
08-27-2021 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #33
RE: So what now?
(08-27-2021 12:44 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Probably native but with CFP money and the huge lift in the media contract, think it will still hurt not having BigTen money games, but will manage.

There will still be Big Ten money games. Not as many, but the Big Stadium schools are going to complain enough about only have six home games a season every other season.

And partly its simply diminishing returns when you run it in reverse. The second buy game is less valuable than the first. The third is less valuable than the second.

Now run that backward. The more they restrict the Go5 buy games, the harder power conference schools will fight to hold onto the remaining one.

And when it comes to unwinding contracts to make room for Alliance games, the FCS games are not scheduled as far ahead, and are the cheapest to get out of. So adding "no FCS games" to the "11 P5 games" offer when the new media contract comes around is an attractive way to speed up getting to the "first level" of Alliance scheduling where every school has one "Alliance" game.

While that would be bad news for FCS schools, it would soften the impact on Go5 schools ... both by reducing the number of Go5 buy games lost, and by making the FCS buy game market more of a buyers market.
(This post was last modified: 08-27-2021 02:08 PM by BruceMcF.)
08-27-2021 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 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, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.