(04-08-2022 11:30 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I've seen this show before...

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/01/23/th...s-decision

Good find.

And why I've always thought the line was 80-100, not 40. That's where they've always gone before, I-A and I-AA, CFA vs. non-CFA, Equity conferences vs. non-equity conferences.

Plus it gives the power teams a few more "peers" to play to pad their winning percentage.

(04-09-2022 02:30 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:00 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  What is not well understood is how important a big tent is to the overall interest in college athletics.

Fans of G5 conferences are tuning into the college football season as they perceive they are a part of it.

Go to this limited 30-40 team model and there wouldn't be as much overall interest in it.

I highly doubt the big tent includes G5.
The G5 is the G5 because they lack viewers and fans. Even if they’re lost, it won’t offset the reduction in costs of including them in revenue sharing. In reality they will have the least amount of fans turning away from college football because their program can’t compete. They already don’t.

Pushing out 20-30 P5 programs is a bigger question. Some may protest turning away from CFB. But again, even if all the fans of the culled schools don’t watch the super league, it won’t offset the super league not having to pay then. If they had large enough pull for that to be a negative, they’d be included. It’s simply better for the top 40 to make 4 billion on 40 schools than 5 billion on 65+. They’ll lose fans, but that’s okay, the elasticity is in their favor

I agree. The G5 are not an issue. Certainly not the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA. A lot of casual fans probably don't know they aren't FCS (even they even knew the term).
Reality is a lot of G5 students are fans of Enormous State University. Remember a friend who worked as a student to get Louisiana Tech to move back to I-A telling me how disgusted she was when half the students left the LT game at halftime to go watch LSU on TV.

(04-08-2022 08:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...e-football

Quote:Clemson head football coach Dabo Swinney said this week he thinks a lack of uniformity will lead to a complete restructuring in college athletics at some point. In particular, he sees the larger, more prominent Power 5 schools forming their own division in football.

"I think there's going to be a complete blowup ... especially in football, and there needs to be," Swinney told ESPN. "I think eventually there will be some type of break and another division. Right now, you got everybody in one group, and it's not feasible. Alabama has different problems than Middle Tennessee, but we're trying to make them all the same and it's just not. I think you'll have 40 or 50 teams and a commissioner and here are the rules."

Middle Tennessee’s covert PsyOp programs are effective. Lower the morale of elite program coaches & mine the portal for their talent. If Saban argues the SEC is different than CUSA, we have entered phase2 of our campaign to disrupt, confuse, and create elitist discontent.

(04-09-2022 09:07 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

What about the Pac 12, should they dissolve? The Big XII surely won't make more than they would with Oklahoma and Texas. Should that conference dissolve as well?

I keep hearing about how important this gap is, but I have yet to see the returns on the field/court for Maryland, Rutgers, and Missouri. Texas A&M has been about par for their overrated/underachieving self as well.

Please point to the evidence where this revenue gap has doomed ACC basketball and football.

The fact is, the situation is much more nuanced especially with NIL. You of all people should see how NIL has diminished the conference media payouts gap. Once schools make a certain amount of money, the rest is just icing for them to blow on crap that doesn't matter.

I think the revenue gap shows itself in the non-rev sports. Except for baseball, the smaller conferences get swamped. And in basketball, the Big East, without football revenue, has not been as strong as it once was. Many of the conferences that formerly would challenge for NCAA wildcards have become one bid leagues. As for the P5, that revenue gap is VERY recent. The P5/G5/non football revenue gap wasn't that big in dollar terms prior to 2010. Remember just before the Pac 16 was discussed, the Pac 12 had distributions that varied from $7.5 million for USC down to $2.5 million for WSU. Now the P5 is $25 million or more ahead of the other conferences.

(04-09-2022 01:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 11:30 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I've seen this show before...

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/01/23/th...s-decision

Good find.

And why I've always thought the line was 80-100, not 40. That's where they've always gone before, I-A and I-AA, CFA vs. non-CFA, Equity conferences vs. non-equity conferences.

Plus it gives the power teams a few more "peers" to play to pad their winning percentage.

That was 1978.

As late as 1996 a P5 +BE +WAC-16 +CUSA split made some sense.

Today the G5 has bigger budgets and spends more on coaches than most of the P5 did in 1996. Who would be in that top 80-100 today to join the P5 are not some of the same names as in 1996.

The real dividing line financially and competitively is P5/G5.

I long for the good old days when winners and losers were determined on the gridiron. If Sweeney were to get his wish, how long would it take before many of the anointed 40 or 50 schools drifted toward relative mediocrity in that new peer-group, thereby creating demands for an even more exclusive club?

(04-09-2022 01:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 01:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 11:30 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I've seen this show before...

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/01/23/th...s-decision

Good find.

And why I've always thought the line was 80-100, not 40. That's where they've always gone before, I-A and I-AA, CFA vs. non-CFA, Equity conferences vs. non-equity conferences.

Plus it gives the power teams a few more "peers" to play to pad their winning percentage.

That was 1978.

As late as 1996 a P5 +BE +WAC-16 +CUSA split made some sense.

Today the G5 has bigger budgets and spends more on coaches than most of the P5 did in 1996. Who would be in that top 80-100 today to join the P5 are not some of the same names as in 1996.

The real dividing line financially and competitively is P5/G5.

https://www.sportico.com/business/commer...234646029/

Check this site to get an idea of the 80 or so schools that might be considered. It doesn't include the privates unfortunately but it will give you a very good idea about who generates revenue and who is spending. Go to compare schools and choose how you want to compare them.

(04-09-2022 01:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 01:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 11:30 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I've seen this show before...

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/01/23/th...s-decision

Good find.

And why I've always thought the line was 80-100, not 40. That's where they've always gone before, I-A and I-AA, CFA vs. non-CFA, Equity conferences vs. non-equity conferences.

Plus it gives the power teams a few more "peers" to play to pad their winning percentage.

That was 1978.

As late as 1996 a P5 +BE +WAC-16 +CUSA split made some sense.

Today the G5 has bigger budgets and spends more on coaches than most of the P5 did in 1996. Who would be in that top 80-100 today to join the P5 are not some of the same names as in 1996.

The real dividing line financially and competitively is P5/G5.

There still is a pretty big dropoff after the top of the G5. https://www.csnbbs.com/thread-943149.html
This is revenues, which include student fees and subsidies, but WSU is #67 at $69,000,000. SMU is right behind them (BYU and UConn ahead). But it drops down to #82 Hawaii at $43.7 pretty quick. Only 95 are above $35 million. Future P5ers, BYU 65, UH 69, UCF 73, UC 76.

Another way to look at it is go back to 1982 and see how much of the FB power the P5 had at the time.

SEC (10)
B1G (10)
PAC (10)
ACC (8)
XII (8)

Only 46 members in those 5 conferences and only about 65-70% of the total FB power with major independents outside of that power structure.

For 2025.

SEC (16)
B1G (14)
PAC (12)
ACC (14/15)
XII (12)

It will be a situation where 92-95% of the FB power is concentrated in the P5 conferences.

Factoring in even more realignment which will squeeze out the last drops of FB power from the G5 the P5/G5 split line is where a split if it happens will be.

(04-09-2022 01:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 01:31 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 01:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 11:30 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I've seen this show before...

https://vault.si.com/vault/1978/01/23/th...s-decision

Good find.

And why I've always thought the line was 80-100, not 40. That's where they've always gone before, I-A and I-AA, CFA vs. non-CFA, Equity conferences vs. non-equity conferences.

Plus it gives the power teams a few more "peers" to play to pad their winning percentage.

That was 1978.

As late as 1996 a P5 +BE +WAC-16 +CUSA split made some sense.

Today the G5 has bigger budgets and spends more on coaches than most of the P5 did in 1996. Who would be in that top 80-100 today to join the P5 are not some of the same names as in 1996.

The real dividing line financially and competitively is P5/G5.

There still is a pretty big dropoff after the top of the G5. https://www.csnbbs.com/thread-943149.html
This is revenues, which include student fees and subsidies, but WSU is #67 at $69,000,000. SMU is right behind them (BYU and UConn ahead). But it drops down to #82 Hawaii at $43.7 pretty quick. Only 95 are above $35 million. Future P5ers, BYU 65, UH 69, UCF 73, UC 76.

But I've said the P5 will most likely take in a few more schools yet from the G5 ranks.

That depletes the amount of G5 that will have quasi financial party with the bottom of the P5.

(04-09-2022 08:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  For all of you touting this breakaway:

How does this new entity defend itself from other government institutions seeking admission? How does it avoid anti-trust lawsuits? Just look at all these little schools moving to D1 these days.

A stagnant exclusive breakaway is unrealistic when you’re dealing with rich alumni who influence politics. The majority of schools are latched to the government tit.

A few years ago I had a conversation with a retired guy who spent years in athletics administrations in the SEC and ACC and I asked him about the possibility of a Power 5 breakaway and he pretty much said in no uncertain terms he didn't have any idea where college athletics was headed but that was one thing he was sure would never happen because congress will stop it. IIRC former Ohio State president Gordon Gee made an allusion to it in that recorded conversation that got leaked where he also bashed the SEC and Notre Dame.

And for the people that would give some variation of "but congress can be bought", you're talking something that a large number of districts and states will have vested interest in and not just a few.

(04-09-2022 10:47 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 10:36 AM)Big 12 fan too Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:54 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

ACC = Dead Man Walking

Most sensible move would be for the ACC to dissolve and let each school find its best fit whether that's the SEC, B1G or a reconstituted ACC.

That $30M media (and growing) media rights shortfall is untenable for the schools trying to compete at the top level of D1 no matter how badly UNC, Duke and UVA want to keep their fiefdom intact.

Which collapses first? ACC or Pac 12?

The Pac 12 may fold the moment students are deem employees.

Being at a huge revenue disadvantage is destabilizing, but philosophically being as far apart as USC is with some of its conference mates is existential crisis.

Perhaps they get a short term tv deal in which USC gets a bigger share. A bridge towards 6-8 leaving.

It hasn't seemed to negatively impact Cincinnati. How is that possible?

You mean the Cincinnati that’s leaving the American for a conference with more revenue/school?

What a good example of how revenue deltas are destabilizing. Thank you for providing that. It doesn’t even matter how schools are doing in their lower revenue conference. OU is another one.

USC, Clemson and others likely want to follow. And when they do, the already weak conferences of the Pac 12 and ACC will likely seek dissolution. In the NIL and perhaps employee era (depending on SCOTUS) making $20 to $70 million per year less than the P2 is going to make schools less competitive.

Sounds like you’re coming to understand.

Actually I think Deebo is correct, P5 already is too large.

But many of the cut schools will come from the South. To maximize media revenues from a National league you have to be in the big Metros. So instead of concentrating where the recruits are the strongest you have to have a strong presence in the biggest markets (LA, NYC, Chicago, Seattle, Houston, SF, Philly, Boston, Atlanta, DFW, Houston, DC, Miami). Very limited number of slots for schools in smaller DMA. Alabama is probably the only school you'd take out of the States of Alabama and Mississippi for example. On the other hand market demands you have USC and UCLA as well as schools like UConn, Rutgers and at least one of Cal/Stanford to cover your DMAs. For sure Miami, Notre Dame, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Texas A&M, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Washington, Arizona State (over Arizona), Colorado, Oregon, North Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Tennessee have to be in your 40 team league. Fifteen left, still need one for Boston and one for New York and one for the West (either in Utah, Nevada or California), probably need one near KC, definitely need a 3rd Texas school. And still you want to include powers in small DMAs like Clemson (or would the powers that be take South Carolina instead ... it's an either or with 40), LSU and Oklahoma.

That would be one brutal cut to get down to 40.

More realistically the P5 break away the NCAA, maybe accept the Big East for Basketball (only costs them adding UConn Football), giving you 70 football and 80 Basketball schools.

Open scheduling and invitational football and basketball playoffs. Run more as a federation with a minimalist sanctioning body instead of something like the NCAA with it's formal structure. This way there is no "invitation" to join per se. And nobody outside the club gets invited. That is where I think it's headed.

I honestly don't think any schools will pull out, because that means they are forever done at the top level.

(04-09-2022 02:41 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  For all of you touting this breakaway:

How does this new entity defend itself from other government institutions seeking admission? How does it avoid anti-trust lawsuits? Just look at all these little schools moving to D1 these days.

A stagnant exclusive breakaway is unrealistic when you’re dealing with rich alumni who influence politics. The majority of schools are latched to the government tit.

A few years ago I had a conversation with a retired guy who spent years in athletics administrations in the SEC and ACC and I asked him about the possibility of a Power 5 breakaway and he pretty much said in no uncertain terms he didn't have any idea where college athletics was headed but that was one thing he was sure would never happen because congress will stop it. IIRC former Ohio State president Gordon Gee made an allusion to it in that recorded conversation that got leaked where he also bashed the SEC and Notre Dame.

And for the people that would give some variation of "but congress can be bought", you're talking something that a large number of districts and states will have vested interest in and not just a few.

IMO the breakaway will happen in such a way that everyone will have the opportunity to join if they wish but the price and requirements will be to steep.

For example, I could see something created that is akin to a salary max/minimum. Just spit balling, 100k minimum and 2 million max. So yes all of the current FCS might have the golden ticket in hand but in order to compete they'll have to sacrifice other sports.

Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see...

(04-09-2022 03:00 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:41 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  For all of you touting this breakaway:

How does this new entity defend itself from other government institutions seeking admission? How does it avoid anti-trust lawsuits? Just look at all these little schools moving to D1 these days.

A stagnant exclusive breakaway is unrealistic when you’re dealing with rich alumni who influence politics. The majority of schools are latched to the government tit.

A few years ago I had a conversation with a retired guy who spent years in athletics administrations in the SEC and ACC and I asked him about the possibility of a Power 5 breakaway and he pretty much said in no uncertain terms he didn't have any idea where college athletics was headed but that was one thing he was sure would never happen because congress will stop it. IIRC former Ohio State president Gordon Gee made an allusion to it in that recorded conversation that got leaked where he also bashed the SEC and Notre Dame.

And for the people that would give some variation of "but congress can be bought", you're talking something that a large number of districts and states will have vested interest in and not just a few.

IMO the breakaway will happen in such a way that everyone will have the opportunity to join if they wish but the price and requirements will be to steep.

For example, I could see something created that is akin to a salary max/minimum. Just spit balling, 100k minimum and 2 million max. So yes all of the current FCS might have the golden ticket in hand but in order to compete they'll have to sacrifice other sports.

Maybe I'm wrong, we'll see...

Agree, they’ll use NIL and soon perhaps pay-to-play to informally separate. Conferences making way less are free to try and compete. They will likely technically have access at first, just like the CUSA did. But eventually the fanbases will shrink and there won’t be the political capital in getting in the way of the most popular 40-50 schools from doing what they want

(04-09-2022 02:41 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  For all of you touting this breakaway:

How does this new entity defend itself from other government institutions seeking admission? How does it avoid anti-trust lawsuits? Just look at all these little schools moving to D1 these days.

A stagnant exclusive breakaway is unrealistic when you’re dealing with rich alumni who influence politics. The majority of schools are latched to the government tit.

A few years ago I had a conversation with a retired guy who spent years in athletics administrations in the SEC and ACC and I asked him about the possibility of a Power 5 breakaway and he pretty much said in no uncertain terms he didn't have any idea where college athletics was headed but that was one thing he was sure would never happen because congress will stop it. IIRC former Ohio State president Gordon Gee made an allusion to it in that recorded conversation that got leaked where he also bashed the SEC and Notre Dame.

And for the people that would give some variation of "but congress can be bought", you're talking something that a large number of districts and states will have vested interest in and not just a few.

Why would Congress stop it for the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA? That doesn't leave any states out. UCF is the only 2025 P5 school who was hasn't been a major program since at least 1955 (FSU is the only other one not before 1950). Only 2 of the 35 (UTEP and NMSU) were major schools prior to 1960. 17 of the 35 have been in the top level less than 20 years, including 10 in the Sun Belt and 6 in the CUSA. Only UTEP, NMSU, USM and ULL from the latter two conferences were in the top division prior to the I-A, I-AA split. Most of the 10 long time MAC members were relegated down for a year in 1982.

Dropping essentially just those 3 would just restore things basically to the way they were in 1996 before the NCAA quit enforcing its I-A standards.

With the MWC, only Boise (1996) moved up later than 1995. With the AAC, its only 5 schools; new members UNCC (2015), UTSA (2012), FAU (2006), UAB (1996 although they dropped fb briefly) and USF (2001).

(04-09-2022 11:29 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 11:24 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 09:55 PM)stever20 Wrote:  of course Swinney said that because he knows the ACC is absolutely ****** money wise. And the gap between them and the SEC is just going to explode when the new TV deal for the SEC takes over.

Dabo wants to have the same revenue streams, and the same booster-fueled $30 million NIL pools, that the wealthiest SEC teams have. He's frustrated that he doesn't have as much of those things, and he's frustrated that he's not in the SEC, and he's venting.

Any change in the system is only going to satisfy the biggest of the big names if they are pretty much assured of winning as many games as they do now, because their revenue streams are dependent on consistently winning 10+ games a year. Roughly speaking, it has to be like England's Premier League, where there are a few teams that almost always occupy the top spots in the league, the bulk of the league that's happy to finish somewhere in the middle most of the time, and a few teams that don't mind finishing at the bottom because they're just happy to be in the elite league, and everyone in the league makes mountains of money from TV.

But that's what teams like Ohio State and Alabama already have! They get pretty much everything they want out of the Big Ten and SEC. They don't need to blow up what they have, and they don't need to invite Clemson or anyone else in college football into their "club".

Exactly. It's so obvious why he's saying it. Because he knows otherwise Clemson is absolutely ******. The ACC is just going to fall more and more behind. And he absolutely knows it.

Who gives a ****? He's gone to Tuscaloosa as soon as Saban retires. Which will be long before Clemson ever sniffs leaving the ACC.

Falling more and more behind haha. When was the ACC ever ahead of the SEC? The ACC performed much better in the 2010's than the 2000's.

And if you look at the post 1995 schools in the P5, AAC and MWC, they are in relatively big markets not directly covered by the P5-Charlotte, San Antonio, Birmingham, Tampa, Orlando and Boise (FAU the exception, Boca basically covered by Miami).

(04-09-2022 03:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 02:41 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(04-09-2022 08:00 AM)esayem Wrote:  For all of you touting this breakaway:

How does this new entity defend itself from other government institutions seeking admission? How does it avoid anti-trust lawsuits? Just look at all these little schools moving to D1 these days.

A stagnant exclusive breakaway is unrealistic when you’re dealing with rich alumni who influence politics. The majority of schools are latched to the government tit.

A few years ago I had a conversation with a retired guy who spent years in athletics administrations in the SEC and ACC and I asked him about the possibility of a Power 5 breakaway and he pretty much said in no uncertain terms he didn't have any idea where college athletics was headed but that was one thing he was sure would never happen because congress will stop it. IIRC former Ohio State president Gordon Gee made an allusion to it in that recorded conversation that got leaked where he also bashed the SEC and Notre Dame.

And for the people that would give some variation of "but congress can be bought", you're talking something that a large number of districts and states will have vested interest in and not just a few.

Why would Congress stop it for the MAC, Sun Belt and CUSA? That doesn't leave any states out. UCF is the only 2025 P5 school who was hasn't been a major program since at least 1955 (FSU is the only other one not before 1950). Only 2 of the 35 (UTEP and NMSU) were major schools prior to 1960. 17 of the 35 have been in the top level less than 20 years, including 10 in the Sun Belt and 6 in the CUSA. Only UTEP, NMSU, USM and ULL from the latter two conferences were in the top division prior to the I-A, I-AA split. Most of the 10 long time MAC members were relegated down for a year in 1982.

Dropping essentially just those 3 would just restore things basically to the way they were in 1996 before the NCAA quit enforcing its I-A standards.

With the MWC, only Boise (1996) moved up later than 1995. With the AAC, its only 5 schools; new members UNCC (2015), UTSA (2012), FAU (2006), UAB (1996 although they dropped fb briefly) and USF (2001).

I don't disagree with a P5 breakaway + a few for a football division, but it isn't happening for all-sports. They couldn't even get it done the first time trying to ditch the MAC in football, what makes you think it can happen now?

That is a possibility, to join a P5 breakaway league you have to buy an equity share, perhaps $50m to start and provide $10m per year to be distributed to members based on performance.

That would bow out everyone without a big TV contract. A Similar smaller Basketball fee could be made as well (say $10m up front, $2m per year as an Independent). Again anyone can be invited to the tournament, but only equity holders get credits (non members a one time cash payment).

The P5 conferences can put up the ransom to enter, but the others cannot. I see this working like F1 distribution program where it's based on conference and individual performance. And in fact once it's set up the entry fees only apply to new members.

I can see a few schools raising the money to get in (maybe Memphis, SMU and perhaps few basketball schools like Gonzaga), but most will grumble and fall away.

No division I or II, no FBS and FCS, just one partnership for Tournaments and Playoffs.