The elephant in the room with regard to CFP expansion is how the payouts are going to work.

In a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids the most simplified way to do it is to give each conference a participating share (e.g. 50 million) and then additional shares if your conference appears in subsequent rounds.

Round 1 (all 16 participants receive $50 mil)
Round 2 (all 8 participants receive $50 mil)

And so forth as each round moves on....

In the case of the PAC they may only have a 50% chance on average of moving on to the second round meaning $50 mil one year and $100 the next for an average of $75 million per year and right now the PAC is making $70 million a year it would be that lucrative.

In an 8+8 scenario where each conference makes a guaranteed $50 million then another $50 per year that would suit the PAC a lot better because there is a 99.5% their champ would be in at least the Top 8 so for basically every season the PAC would be making $100 million and $150 million in half the seasons. An average of about $125 million per playoff.

With a conference like a MAC they could trade a guaranteed spot every year in the playoff with a 5% chance of winning for a guaranteed $50 million every year plus a 20% chance of earning an addition $50 million per year ($60 mil per year average) not as a significant of a difference as for a P5 conference but still more. Also it avoids the embarrassment of a 8-5 MAC Champion from getting rolled over by 4 TD's in a first round game.

(07-29-2022 07:26 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to CFP expansion is how the payouts are going to work.

In a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids the most simplified way to do it is to give each conference a participating share (e.g. 50 million) and then additional shares if your conference appears in subsequent rounds.

Round 1 (all 16 participants receive $50 mil)
Round 2 (all 8 participants receive $50 mil)

And so forth as each round moves on....

In the case of the PAC they may only have a 50% chance on average of moving on to the second round meaning $50 mil one year and $100 the next for an average of $75 million per year and right now the PAC is making $70 million a year it would be that lucrative.

In an 8+8 scenario where each conference makes a guaranteed $50 million then another $50 per year that would suit the PAC a lot better because there is a 99.5% their champ would be in at least the Top 8 so for basically every season the PAC would be making $100 million and $150 million in half the seasons. An average of about $125 million per playoff.

With a conference like a MAC they could trade a guaranteed spot every year in the playoff with a 5% chance of winning for a guaranteed $50 million every year plus a 20% chance of earning an addition $50 million per year ($60 mil per year average) not as a significant of a difference as for a P5 conference but still more. Also it avoids the embarrassment of a 8-5 MAC Champion from getting rolled over by 4 TD's in a first round game.

I don't see any scenario where the B1G is going to agree to the same guaranteed payout as the MAC, nor is it going to give the MAC a guaranteed spot in the playoffs.

In the current CFP, the B1G is guaranteed about $60 million. The MAC is guaranteed about $12 million.

I would expect to see the same ratio, about 5x more for the B1G compared to the MAC, in any future expanded playoff scenario. Maybe even a higher multiplier, because the B1G is even more powerful now, it's part of a P2 now not a P5.

Once those basic splits are established, then there might be money for advancing in the playoffs. But really, the last thing the power conferences want is a system that is like the NCAA tournament, where the bulk of the money varies based on number of teams in and then advancing. They want guaranteed huge checks whether their conference is having a great year or not in the playoffs.

I expect the Power leagues to want a system whereby it makes at least 5x as much money from the playoffs as the MAC, even if by some miracle in a given year they do not have a team in the playoffs and the MAC does.

The old split was roughly 85% P5 and 15% G5 (a little went to ND and FCS and Indies).
In the new deal, they will also have to account for the $215 million paid 2 out of 3 years ($144 million average) to the P5 from the Rose, Sugar and Orange. $40 million to Pac 12, Big 12, Big 10 and SEC. $27.5 million to the ACC and $27.5 million split between the Big 10, SEC and ND for the Orange. Since those are likely quarterfinals, that separate money will have to be funnelled to the P5 to make them whole.

(07-29-2022 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 07:26 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to CFP expansion is how the payouts are going to work.

In a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids the most simplified way to do it is to give each conference a participating share (e.g. 50 million) and then additional shares if your conference appears in subsequent rounds.

Round 1 (all 16 participants receive $50 mil)
Round 2 (all 8 participants receive $50 mil)

And so forth as each round moves on....

In the case of the PAC they may only have a 50% chance on average of moving on to the second round meaning $50 mil one year and $100 the next for an average of $75 million per year and right now the PAC is making $70 million a year it would be that lucrative.

In an 8+8 scenario where each conference makes a guaranteed $50 million then another $50 per year that would suit the PAC a lot better because there is a 99.5% their champ would be in at least the Top 8 so for basically every season the PAC would be making $100 million and $150 million in half the seasons. An average of about $125 million per playoff.

With a conference like a MAC they could trade a guaranteed spot every year in the playoff with a 5% chance of winning for a guaranteed $50 million every year plus a 20% chance of earning an addition $50 million per year ($60 mil per year average) not as a significant of a difference as for a P5 conference but still more. Also it avoids the embarrassment of a 8-5 MAC Champion from getting rolled over by 4 TD's in a first round game.

I don't see any scenario where the B1G is going to agree to the same guaranteed payout as the MAC, nor is it going to give the MAC a guaranteed spot in the playoffs.

In the current CFP, the B1G is guaranteed about $60 million. The MAC is guaranteed about $12 million.

I would expect to see the same ratio, about 5x more for the B1G compared to the MAC, in any future expanded playoff scenario. Maybe even a higher multiplier, because the B1G is even more powerful now, it's part of a P2 now not a P5.

Once those basic splits are established, then there might be money for advancing in the playoffs. But really, the last thing the power conferences want is a system that is like the NCAA tournament, where the bulk of the money varies based on number of teams in and then advancing. They want guaranteed huge checks whether their conference is having a great year or not in the playoffs.

I expect the Power leagues to want a system whereby it makes at least 5x as much money from the playoffs as the MAC, even if by some miracle in a given year they do not have a team in the playoffs and the MAC does.

If the CFP wants to appear fair as they all talk about they could give everyone a base share like I'm talking about then provide the money tilt toward the P2 on the back end. This is how its done in NCAA basketball with units.

B1G ends up with 8 total CFP appearances times 50 million for a total take home of $400 million while the MAC collects 50 million for a no show. That is still 8x what the MAC will earn under a "fair" system.

They could also go with a base share AND an additional share ranked 1-10 based on conference performance. The G5 already does this on a 1-5 basis. This of course would also tilt toward P2 and away from G5.

But I don't think its going to have anything to do with the P2 needed to have average earnings ahead of this or that conference which are unmerited like the way its set up now. I see a straight merit formula with a decent base guarantee which is a 3x to a 4x more than what a G5 conference is earning now.

(07-29-2022 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 07:26 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to CFP expansion is how the payouts are going to work.

In a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids the most simplified way to do it is to give each conference a participating share (e.g. 50 million) and then additional shares if your conference appears in subsequent rounds.

Round 1 (all 16 participants receive $50 mil)
Round 2 (all 8 participants receive $50 mil)

And so forth as each round moves on....

In the case of the PAC they may only have a 50% chance on average of moving on to the second round meaning $50 mil one year and $100 the next for an average of $75 million per year and right now the PAC is making $70 million a year it would be that lucrative.

In an 8+8 scenario where each conference makes a guaranteed $50 million then another $50 per year that would suit the PAC a lot better because there is a 99.5% their champ would be in at least the Top 8 so for basically every season the PAC would be making $100 million and $150 million in half the seasons. An average of about $125 million per playoff.

With a conference like a MAC they could trade a guaranteed spot every year in the playoff with a 5% chance of winning for a guaranteed $50 million every year plus a 20% chance of earning an addition $50 million per year ($60 mil per year average) not as a significant of a difference as for a P5 conference but still more. Also it avoids the embarrassment of a 8-5 MAC Champion from getting rolled over by 4 TD's in a first round game.

I don't see any scenario where the B1G is going to agree to the same guaranteed payout as the MAC, nor is it going to give the MAC a guaranteed spot in the playoffs.

In the current CFP, the B1G is guaranteed about $60 million. The MAC is guaranteed about $12 million.

I would expect to see the same ratio, about 5x more for the B1G compared to the MAC, in any future expanded playoff scenario. Maybe even a higher multiplier, because the B1G is even more powerful now, it's part of a P2 now not a P5.

Once those basic splits are established, then there might be money for advancing in the playoffs. But really, the last thing the power conferences want is a system that is like the NCAA tournament, where the bulk of the money varies based on number of teams in and then advancing. They want guaranteed huge checks whether their conference is having a great year or not in the playoffs.

I expect the Power leagues to want a system whereby it makes at least 5x as much money from the playoffs as the MAC, even if by some miracle in a given year they do not have a team in the playoffs and the MAC does.

I tend to agree with quo on this one kit-cat. The chances that the G5 get completely cut out and a separation occurs are very high, unequal distribution of playoff money if they are given a chance is guaranteed.

(07-29-2022 10:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  The old split was roughly 85% P5 and 15% G5 (a little went to ND and FCS and Indies).
In the new deal, they will also have to account for the $215 million paid 2 out of 3 years ($144 million average) to the P5 from the Rose, Sugar and Orange. $40 million to Pac 12, Big 12, Big 10 and SEC. $27.5 million to the ACC and $27.5 million split between the Big 10, SEC and ND for the Orange. Since those are likely quarterfinals, that separate money will have to be funnelled to the P5 to make them whole.

I thought the split was closer to 81% to 19% P5/G5. There is also the 300k academic bonus per school thrown in for having a high APR.

P5 conferences averaged from 70-79 million in 2019-2020 while G5 averaged from 15 to 27 million. The AAC was within 39.2% of the PAC and the MAC was within 19.4% of the B1G the biggest P5/G5 disparity.

https://businessofcollegesports.com/2019...f-payouts/

(07-29-2022 10:34 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 07:26 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to CFP expansion is how the payouts are going to work.

In a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids the most simplified way to do it is to give each conference a participating share (e.g. 50 million) and then additional shares if your conference appears in subsequent rounds.

Round 1 (all 16 participants receive $50 mil)
Round 2 (all 8 participants receive $50 mil)

And so forth as each round moves on....

In the case of the PAC they may only have a 50% chance on average of moving on to the second round meaning $50 mil one year and $100 the next for an average of $75 million per year and right now the PAC is making $70 million a year it would be that lucrative.

In an 8+8 scenario where each conference makes a guaranteed $50 million then another $50 per year that would suit the PAC a lot better because there is a 99.5% their champ would be in at least the Top 8 so for basically every season the PAC would be making $100 million and $150 million in half the seasons. An average of about $125 million per playoff.

With a conference like a MAC they could trade a guaranteed spot every year in the playoff with a 5% chance of winning for a guaranteed $50 million every year plus a 20% chance of earning an addition $50 million per year ($60 mil per year average) not as a significant of a difference as for a P5 conference but still more. Also it avoids the embarrassment of a 8-5 MAC Champion from getting rolled over by 4 TD's in a first round game.

I don't see any scenario where the B1G is going to agree to the same guaranteed payout as the MAC, nor is it going to give the MAC a guaranteed spot in the playoffs.

In the current CFP, the B1G is guaranteed about $60 million. The MAC is guaranteed about $12 million.

I would expect to see the same ratio, about 5x more for the B1G compared to the MAC, in any future expanded playoff scenario. Maybe even a higher multiplier, because the B1G is even more powerful now, it's part of a P2 now not a P5.

Once those basic splits are established, then there might be money for advancing in the playoffs. But really, the last thing the power conferences want is a system that is like the NCAA tournament, where the bulk of the money varies based on number of teams in and then advancing. They want guaranteed huge checks whether their conference is having a great year or not in the playoffs.

I expect the Power leagues to want a system whereby it makes at least 5x as much money from the playoffs as the MAC, even if by some miracle in a given year they do not have a team in the playoffs and the MAC does.

I tend to agree with quo on this one kit-cat. The chances that the G5 get completely cut out and a separation occurs are very high, unequal distribution of playoff money if they are given a chance is guaranteed.

So when you say very high the G5 are not involved you think the chances are 70-80% the G5 will be totally out of the new CFP system?

I feel a complete cut out of the G5 was much more so on the table at the start of the last CFP contract where the excuse machine was in full force to justify an unequal P5/G5 distribution. I'm not hearing that this time around at all.

What I'm hearing is an attempt to make the CFP payout fair under the guise of performance which we know is quite tilted toward the P2. The P5/G5 split thing is dead to be replaced by another top heavy payout system favoring the P2.

(07-29-2022 10:33 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 07:26 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to CFP expansion is how the payouts are going to work.

In a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids the most simplified way to do it is to give each conference a participating share (e.g. 50 million) and then additional shares if your conference appears in subsequent rounds.

Round 1 (all 16 participants receive $50 mil)
Round 2 (all 8 participants receive $50 mil)

And so forth as each round moves on....

In the case of the PAC they may only have a 50% chance on average of moving on to the second round meaning $50 mil one year and $100 the next for an average of $75 million per year and right now the PAC is making $70 million a year it would be that lucrative.

In an 8+8 scenario where each conference makes a guaranteed $50 million then another $50 per year that would suit the PAC a lot better because there is a 99.5% their champ would be in at least the Top 8 so for basically every season the PAC would be making $100 million and $150 million in half the seasons. An average of about $125 million per playoff.

With a conference like a MAC they could trade a guaranteed spot every year in the playoff with a 5% chance of winning for a guaranteed $50 million every year plus a 20% chance of earning an addition $50 million per year ($60 mil per year average) not as a significant of a difference as for a P5 conference but still more. Also it avoids the embarrassment of a 8-5 MAC Champion from getting rolled over by 4 TD's in a first round game.

I don't see any scenario where the B1G is going to agree to the same guaranteed payout as the MAC, nor is it going to give the MAC a guaranteed spot in the playoffs.

In the current CFP, the B1G is guaranteed about $60 million. The MAC is guaranteed about $12 million.

I would expect to see the same ratio, about 5x more for the B1G compared to the MAC, in any future expanded playoff scenario. Maybe even a higher multiplier, because the B1G is even more powerful now, it's part of a P2 now not a P5.

Once those basic splits are established, then there might be money for advancing in the playoffs. But really, the last thing the power conferences want is a system that is like the NCAA tournament, where the bulk of the money varies based on number of teams in and then advancing. They want guaranteed huge checks whether their conference is having a great year or not in the playoffs.

I expect the Power leagues to want a system whereby it makes at least 5x as much money from the playoffs as the MAC, even if by some miracle in a given year they do not have a team in the playoffs and the MAC does.

If the CFP wants to appear fair

yeah, that's not a big priority. at all.

Quote:But I don't think its going to have anything to do with the P2 needed to have average earnings ahead of this or that conference which are unmerited like the way its set up now.

well, you're just wrong. whatever system is chosen will be chosen based on the expected percenrages of revenue for the SEC, Big Ten, Middle 3 and G5.

Quote:I see a straight merit formula

I have no idea what makes you think that would happen.

Quote:with a decent base guarantee which is a 3x to a 4x more than what a G5 conference is earning now.

very possible, if there is 3x the total revenue, the MAC would expect to 3x their cut

(07-29-2022 10:53 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:34 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 07:26 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to CFP expansion is how the payouts are going to work.

In a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids the most simplified way to do it is to give each conference a participating share (e.g. 50 million) and then additional shares if your conference appears in subsequent rounds.

Round 1 (all 16 participants receive $50 mil)
Round 2 (all 8 participants receive $50 mil)

And so forth as each round moves on....

In the case of the PAC they may only have a 50% chance on average of moving on to the second round meaning $50 mil one year and $100 the next for an average of $75 million per year and right now the PAC is making $70 million a year it would be that lucrative.

In an 8+8 scenario where each conference makes a guaranteed $50 million then another $50 per year that would suit the PAC a lot better because there is a 99.5% their champ would be in at least the Top 8 so for basically every season the PAC would be making $100 million and $150 million in half the seasons. An average of about $125 million per playoff.

With a conference like a MAC they could trade a guaranteed spot every year in the playoff with a 5% chance of winning for a guaranteed $50 million every year plus a 20% chance of earning an addition $50 million per year ($60 mil per year average) not as a significant of a difference as for a P5 conference but still more. Also it avoids the embarrassment of a 8-5 MAC Champion from getting rolled over by 4 TD's in a first round game.

I don't see any scenario where the B1G is going to agree to the same guaranteed payout as the MAC, nor is it going to give the MAC a guaranteed spot in the playoffs.

In the current CFP, the B1G is guaranteed about $60 million. The MAC is guaranteed about $12 million.

I would expect to see the same ratio, about 5x more for the B1G compared to the MAC, in any future expanded playoff scenario. Maybe even a higher multiplier, because the B1G is even more powerful now, it's part of a P2 now not a P5.

Once those basic splits are established, then there might be money for advancing in the playoffs. But really, the last thing the power conferences want is a system that is like the NCAA tournament, where the bulk of the money varies based on number of teams in and then advancing. They want guaranteed huge checks whether their conference is having a great year or not in the playoffs.

I expect the Power leagues to want a system whereby it makes at least 5x as much money from the playoffs as the MAC, even if by some miracle in a given year they do not have a team in the playoffs and the MAC does.

I tend to agree with quo on this one kit-cat. The chances that the G5 get completely cut out and a separation occurs are very high, unequal distribution of playoff money if they are given a chance is guaranteed.

So when you say very high the G5 are not involved you think the chances are 70-80% the G5 will be totally out of the new CFP system?

I feel a complete cut out of the G5 was much more so on the table at the start of the last CFP contract where the excuse machine was in full force to justify an unequal P5/G5 distribution. I'm not hearing that this time around at all.

What I'm hearing is an attempt to make the CFP payout fair under the guise of performance which we know is quite tilted toward the P2. The P5/G5 split thing is dead to be replaced by another top heavy payout system favoring the P2.

No one with the ability to affect the distribution of money from an expanded playoff —- the B1G, Fox, the SEC, and ESPN —- cares whether the system appears fair to the G5 or to the ACC, Big XII, or PAC-10. The ACC, Big XII, and PAC, if it still exists, should push to get annual autobids, and perhaps give one to the best of the best of the rest, particularly in a 16 team scenario, but that’s it. No one is going to tune into to see the tallest midgets from the MAC, C-USA, AAC, Fun Belt, and MWC get waxed by the third or fourth place SEC and B1G schools.

(07-29-2022 11:00 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:33 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 07:26 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to CFP expansion is how the payouts are going to work.

In a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids the most simplified way to do it is to give each conference a participating share (e.g. 50 million) and then additional shares if your conference appears in subsequent rounds.

Round 1 (all 16 participants receive $50 mil)
Round 2 (all 8 participants receive $50 mil)

And so forth as each round moves on....

In the case of the PAC they may only have a 50% chance on average of moving on to the second round meaning $50 mil one year and $100 the next for an average of $75 million per year and right now the PAC is making $70 million a year it would be that lucrative.

In an 8+8 scenario where each conference makes a guaranteed $50 million then another $50 per year that would suit the PAC a lot better because there is a 99.5% their champ would be in at least the Top 8 so for basically every season the PAC would be making $100 million and $150 million in half the seasons. An average of about $125 million per playoff.

With a conference like a MAC they could trade a guaranteed spot every year in the playoff with a 5% chance of winning for a guaranteed $50 million every year plus a 20% chance of earning an addition $50 million per year ($60 mil per year average) not as a significant of a difference as for a P5 conference but still more. Also it avoids the embarrassment of a 8-5 MAC Champion from getting rolled over by 4 TD's in a first round game.

I don't see any scenario where the B1G is going to agree to the same guaranteed payout as the MAC, nor is it going to give the MAC a guaranteed spot in the playoffs.

In the current CFP, the B1G is guaranteed about $60 million. The MAC is guaranteed about $12 million.

I would expect to see the same ratio, about 5x more for the B1G compared to the MAC, in any future expanded playoff scenario. Maybe even a higher multiplier, because the B1G is even more powerful now, it's part of a P2 now not a P5.

Once those basic splits are established, then there might be money for advancing in the playoffs. But really, the last thing the power conferences want is a system that is like the NCAA tournament, where the bulk of the money varies based on number of teams in and then advancing. They want guaranteed huge checks whether their conference is having a great year or not in the playoffs.

I expect the Power leagues to want a system whereby it makes at least 5x as much money from the playoffs as the MAC, even if by some miracle in a given year they do not have a team in the playoffs and the MAC does.

If the CFP wants to appear fair

yeah, that's not a big priority. at all.

Quote:But I don't think its going to have anything to do with the P2 needed to have average earnings ahead of this or that conference which are unmerited like the way its set up now.

well, you're just wrong. whatever system is chosen will be chosen based on the expected percenrages of revenue for the SEC, Big Ten, Middle 3 and G5.

Quote:I see a straight merit formula

I have no idea what makes you think that would happen.

Quote:with a decent base guarantee which is a 3x to a 4x more than what a G5 conference is earning now.

very possible, if there is 3x the total revenue, the MAC would expect to 3x their cut

3x of what the MAC makes with a bottom level performance would be $48 to $50 million under the new contract.

Since they don't want to make the P5/G5 distinction, something the SEC/B1G want to move away from they can hide the inequality of payment under "merit" knowing full well the entire system is skewed toward the top with the P2 having 70% of the football recruiting power to themselves.

NCAAT. Each conference is paid out by units and will earn 1 unit by default for sending their champion to the NCAAT. But the real money of course is made by the power conferences which send 6,7,8 to the NCAAT and make additional money by advancing rounds.

(07-29-2022 11:06 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:53 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:34 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 07:26 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to CFP expansion is how the payouts are going to work.

In a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids the most simplified way to do it is to give each conference a participating share (e.g. 50 million) and then additional shares if your conference appears in subsequent rounds.

Round 1 (all 16 participants receive $50 mil)
Round 2 (all 8 participants receive $50 mil)

And so forth as each round moves on....

In the case of the PAC they may only have a 50% chance on average of moving on to the second round meaning $50 mil one year and $100 the next for an average of $75 million per year and right now the PAC is making $70 million a year it would be that lucrative.

In an 8+8 scenario where each conference makes a guaranteed $50 million then another $50 per year that would suit the PAC a lot better because there is a 99.5% their champ would be in at least the Top 8 so for basically every season the PAC would be making $100 million and $150 million in half the seasons. An average of about $125 million per playoff.

With a conference like a MAC they could trade a guaranteed spot every year in the playoff with a 5% chance of winning for a guaranteed $50 million every year plus a 20% chance of earning an addition $50 million per year ($60 mil per year average) not as a significant of a difference as for a P5 conference but still more. Also it avoids the embarrassment of a 8-5 MAC Champion from getting rolled over by 4 TD's in a first round game.

I don't see any scenario where the B1G is going to agree to the same guaranteed payout as the MAC, nor is it going to give the MAC a guaranteed spot in the playoffs.

In the current CFP, the B1G is guaranteed about $60 million. The MAC is guaranteed about $12 million.

I would expect to see the same ratio, about 5x more for the B1G compared to the MAC, in any future expanded playoff scenario. Maybe even a higher multiplier, because the B1G is even more powerful now, it's part of a P2 now not a P5.

Once those basic splits are established, then there might be money for advancing in the playoffs. But really, the last thing the power conferences want is a system that is like the NCAA tournament, where the bulk of the money varies based on number of teams in and then advancing. They want guaranteed huge checks whether their conference is having a great year or not in the playoffs.

I expect the Power leagues to want a system whereby it makes at least 5x as much money from the playoffs as the MAC, even if by some miracle in a given year they do not have a team in the playoffs and the MAC does.

I tend to agree with quo on this one kit-cat. The chances that the G5 get completely cut out and a separation occurs are very high, unequal distribution of playoff money if they are given a chance is guaranteed.

So when you say very high the G5 are not involved you think the chances are 70-80% the G5 will be totally out of the new CFP system?

I feel a complete cut out of the G5 was much more so on the table at the start of the last CFP contract where the excuse machine was in full force to justify an unequal P5/G5 distribution. I'm not hearing that this time around at all.

What I'm hearing is an attempt to make the CFP payout fair under the guise of performance which we know is quite tilted toward the P2. The P5/G5 split thing is dead to be replaced by another top heavy payout system favoring the P2.

No one with the ability to affect the distribution of money from an expanded playoff —- the B1G, Fox, the SEC, and ESPN —- cares whether the system appears fair to the G5 or to the ACC, Big XII, or PAC-10. The ACC, Big XII, and PAC, if it still exists, should push to get annual autobids, and perhaps give one to the best of the best of the rest, particularly in a 16 team scenario, but that’s it. No one is going to tune into to see the tallest midgets from the MAC, C-USA, AAC, Fun Belt, and MWC get waxed by the third or fourth place SEC and B1G schools.

A new CFP contract has to be ratified by a majority of conferences.

The votes are not going to be there to continue the P5/G5 system. If the PAC/ACC/XII want more autobids they need to push for an 8+8 or giving every conference an autobid which is what is on the table in the 16 team discussion.

My point on this thread is that 8+8 would be more lucrative rather than giving out a base pay by default to 10 autobids.

If I had to be a betting man right now on the new format this what I'd give as probabilities.

50% (6+6 is approved)
35% (16 team playoff some format)
15% Something completely else.

Everyone but the SEC feels there has to be some measure of automatic qualifier for conference champions. I just don't see a straight 8/12/16 having anymore legs than a P2 only playoff which might make sense down the road but not yet.

(07-29-2022 11:35 PM)Poster Wrote:  The MAC would kill to have an autobid to a 16 team playoff, even though their champion would usually lose the first round game by at least 31 points. Trust me-minor basketball conferences are thrilled to have their champion get a #16 seed and lose to a #1 seed.


And I’m not sure that the power conferences would be opposed to the auto bids. It is a reward for being the #1 seed-you play a MAC team that’s possibly not really even a top 50 team rather than playing the actual 16th best team in the nation.

As a MAC maximalist I know that half the time the winner of the MACC comes out of nowhere from where it was ranked in mid October (4-4 record) to finish 8-5.

8+8 would keep those 31 point beat downs to a minimum if for the MAC to gain entry they would need a 10+ win champ. Also a double bye system at 16 would help if being the #16 team meant you had to play the #9 team in a bowl instead of #1 on the road.

6+6 could also be fairly workable if the PAC dissolves but that would mean a larger B1G, XII, MWC all wanting more playoff access.

You know what? I'd like to see some real fireworks. Split the CFP money directly with the schools that make it. That would be fun to watch. Take the conferences out of the CFP money pot.

(07-29-2022 10:33 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 09:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 07:26 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The elephant in the room with regard to CFP expansion is how the payouts are going to work.

In a 16 team playoff with 10 autobids the most simplified way to do it is to give each conference a participating share (e.g. 50 million) and then additional shares if your conference appears in subsequent rounds.

Round 1 (all 16 participants receive $50 mil)
Round 2 (all 8 participants receive $50 mil)

And so forth as each round moves on....

In the case of the PAC they may only have a 50% chance on average of moving on to the second round meaning $50 mil one year and $100 the next for an average of $75 million per year and right now the PAC is making $70 million a year it would be that lucrative.

In an 8+8 scenario where each conference makes a guaranteed $50 million then another $50 per year that would suit the PAC a lot better because there is a 99.5% their champ would be in at least the Top 8 so for basically every season the PAC would be making $100 million and $150 million in half the seasons. An average of about $125 million per playoff.

With a conference like a MAC they could trade a guaranteed spot every year in the playoff with a 5% chance of winning for a guaranteed $50 million every year plus a 20% chance of earning an addition $50 million per year ($60 mil per year average) not as a significant of a difference as for a P5 conference but still more. Also it avoids the embarrassment of a 8-5 MAC Champion from getting rolled over by 4 TD's in a first round game.

I don't see any scenario where the B1G is going to agree to the same guaranteed payout as the MAC, nor is it going to give the MAC a guaranteed spot in the playoffs.

In the current CFP, the B1G is guaranteed about $60 million. The MAC is guaranteed about $12 million.

I would expect to see the same ratio, about 5x more for the B1G compared to the MAC, in any future expanded playoff scenario. Maybe even a higher multiplier, because the B1G is even more powerful now, it's part of a P2 now not a P5.

Once those basic splits are established, then there might be money for advancing in the playoffs. But really, the last thing the power conferences want is a system that is like the NCAA tournament, where the bulk of the money varies based on number of teams in and then advancing. They want guaranteed huge checks whether their conference is having a great year or not in the playoffs.

I expect the Power leagues to want a system whereby it makes at least 5x as much money from the playoffs as the MAC, even if by some miracle in a given year they do not have a team in the playoffs and the MAC does.

If the CFP wants to appear fair as they all talk about they could give everyone a base share like I'm talking about then provide the money tilt toward the P2 on the back end. This is how its done in NCAA basketball with units.

B1G ends up with 8 total CFP appearances times 50 million for a total take home of $400 million while the MAC collects 50 million for a no show. That is still 8x what the MAC will earn under a "fair" system.

They could also go with a base share AND an additional share ranked 1-10 based on conference performance. The G5 already does this on a 1-5 basis. This of course would also tilt toward P2 and away from G5.

But I don't think its going to have anything to do with the P2 needed to have average earnings ahead of this or that conference which are unmerited like the way its set up now. I see a straight merit formula with a decent base guarantee which is a 3x to a 4x more than what a G5 conference is earning now.

About the bolded, I just don't think the P2 have any desire to appear fair in a monetary sense. They will want the lion's share of the money regardless of merit, they will not want to replicate the NCAA formula.

Where the MAC will see a big benefit from say a new 6+6 system (if that is the system adopted) is (a) they will now have a chance to make the playoffs by beating out the other G-level leagues for the sixth spot, and (b) as JB says above, if the total payout is 3x more for the new system than it makes sense that the MAC will get 3x more than it is getting under the CFP.

That's basically what I expect dollar-wise from the new system - whatever a conference is getting right now from the CFP, then if the new system is worth 3x more, then that conference's payout will go up 3x more. If the MAC is currently getting $15m, that goes to $45m. if the B1G is currently getting $80m (when you factor in the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl, which as Bullet says above will have to be accounted for too), then that goes to $240m for the B1G.

If there is significant variance from that, it will come from within the former P5. That is, it very well could be that the SEC and B1G shares go up, and the ACC, nPAC and nB12 shares go down. So maybe rather than each P5 getting 15% of the total pot as they roughly get now, maybe the B1G and SEC get 20% each and the ACC, nPAC and nB12 drop down to 12% each. But that won't likely IMO affect the G5.

There also might be a little more variable payout because there will be an extra round of the playoffs, but not a lot, as I do think the power leagues want the great bulk of the money to be guaranteed, as it is in the CFP.

But we shall see. I've been wrong before.

(07-29-2022 11:24 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  If I had to be a betting man right now on the new format this what I'd give as probabilities.

50% (6+6 is approved)
35% (16 team playoff some format)
15% Something completely else.

Everyone but the SEC feels there has to be some measure of automatic qualifier for conference champions. I just don't see a straight 8/12/16 having anymore legs than a P2 only playoff which might make sense down the road but not yet.

I basically agree with this, as I think 6+6 is still most likely to be the result, but it won't be a shocker if something else, like 6+10, is adopted either.

As for AQ, I think Warren's recent comments have pretty much settled that - the comments where he basically capitulates to the SEC on the notion of AQ spots for specific conferences. IIRC the SEC has never opposed "AQ" per-se, their commissioner helped craft a system that had AQs for the top six champs. They are just against AQs for any specified leagues, like P5 AQs. Which Warren, heretofore the big advocate of, has just apparently given way on.

So IMO, it is overwhelmingly likely that there will (a) not be a "straight" formula with no AQs at all, (b) not be specified AQs for any designated conferences. IMO it is extremely likely that there will be AQs for the "top six" or "top whatever" champs. Even if the SEC and B1G don't want any AQs at all, that is the only way to get a "G" team in to the playoffs guaranteed, and the public and press does IMO expect that kind of access. That's why it was included in the Working Group proposal.

(07-30-2022 07:17 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-29-2022 10:33 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  If the CFP wants to appear fair .......


But I don't think its going to have anything to do with the P2 needed to have average earnings ahead of this or that conference which are unmerited like the way its set up now. I see a straight merit formula with a decent base guarantee which is a 3x to a 4x more than what a G5 conference is earning now.

About the bolded, I just don't think the P2 have any desire to appear fair in a monetary sense. They will want the lion's share of the money regardless of merit, they will not want to replicate the NCAA formula.

Agreed. They will carefully choose a facially neutral formula calculated and nearly-guaranteed to engineer a 25/25/10/10/10/15 split more or less, with the G5 splitting 15-20%. The PAC, ACC and Big 12 will get more than they're getting now, but they will get a smaller share of the pie.

And, since administrators like predictability in their budgeting, the system will be engineered to not have big year-to-year swings based on performance. Metrics like overall conference Sagarin rating will be more important than whether the ACC puts 1 or 2 teams in the 12 team playoff.

Quote:Where the MAC will see a big benefit from say a new 6+6 system (if that is the system adopted) is (a) they will now have a chance to make the playoffs by beating out the other G-level leagues for the sixth spot, and (b) as JB says above, if the total payout is 3x more for the new system than it makes sense that the MAC will get 3x more than it is getting under the CFP.

And the MAC's chances of getting the 6th conference champ spot (if that is the system when it's all said and done) are also improved by the comparative crippling of the Aresco League.

Quote:That's basically what I expect dollar-wise from the new system - whatever a conference is getting right now from the CFP, then if the new system is worth 3x more, then that conference's payout will go up 3x more. If the MAC is currently getting $15m, that goes to $45m. if the B1G is currently getting $80m (when you factor in the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl, which as Bullet says above will have to be accounted for too), then that goes to $240m for the B1G.

I don't know, I expect money to shift from the lower P5's to the upper P5s.

Quote:If there is significant variance from that, it will come from within the former P5. That is, it very well could be that the SEC and B1G shares go up, and the ACC, nPAC and nB12 shares go down. So maybe rather than each P5 getting 15% of the total pot as they roughly get now, maybe the B1G and SEC get 20% each and the ACC, nPAC and nB12 drop down to 12% each. But that won't likely IMO affect the G5.

There also might be a little more variable payout because there will be an extra round of the playoffs, but not a lot, as I do think the power leagues want the great bulk of the money to be guaranteed, as it is in the CFP.

But we shall see. I've been wrong before.

Hmmm. If the Big Ten and SEC are the only relevant players in the game....

The Big Ten wants the Rose Bowl. Let's say they get it--permanent QF, "dibs" on the Big Ten champion.

What concession does the SEC get? The Sugar Bowl isn't comparable--the Sugar Bowl has no romance, no magic. Nobody in the SEC as far as I can tell cares if the SEC champ goes to New Orleans or JerryWorld or Miami or Atlanta, beyond preferring Bourbon Street over steakhouses or maybe a little bit of Atlanta fatigue after the CCG.

So what concession can the SEC get? Money. Especially since the SEC isn't crazy about reserving 6 autobids for conference champs and sending an SEC #11 or #12 to the Citrus Bowl instead of the playoffs.

But Kliavkoff says that the revenue formula is taken care of, which most likely means continuity adjusted for the Contract Bowl revisions. We'll see.

So each game will generate $100,000,000 in revenue on average?

At most I could see $5M-$10M per game. The P5 will be able to choke up on the bat by getting additional money from their bowl contracts, the way they always have.

8+8 should keep most conferences in the playoff hunt until Thanksgiving. All the intrigue with only 60% of the G5 teams.

(07-30-2022 07:47 AM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  So each game will generate $100,000,000 in revenue on average?

IF an 11-game playoff (6+6 would have 4 first-round, 4 quarterfinals, 2 semifinals, 1 national championship game) is supposed to bring in $1B, that's the theory.

Me, I'm skeptical of the marginal value as you add games to the system. But I'm just a very skeptical person.

And even I have to concede that, even if games #8-11 are only worth $50M each, they're replacing / displacing / coopting bowl games that are probably worth significantly less than that.