(09-08-2022 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's never been more attainable to have a P3 and never simpler either. Simply have an equal split of CFP money between 3 conferences of 24 and you have sufficient revenue increases for all to agree to the moves, as it's the best deal the weakest among them will ever get.

Why 24? It covers the damages of the 9 currently in the P5 who would be left out of the CFP and would sue, and the claims of the next 3 likely to want in.

Agree JR ... and I think three 24-team mega-conferences could work just fine.

The B1G and SEC will always have the financial advantage in no small part due to their massive media rights deals.

But treating Conference #3 as "an equal partner" in terms of playoff revenue, postseason access and administrative clout is good for optics and good for business.

Warren's and Sankey's paths to filling out their conference lineups is made much simpler and smoother if Yormark is ready and waiting to scoop up the Pac and ACC left behinds

(09-07-2022 10:08 PM)CarlSmithCenter Wrote:  If the B1G goes to 20 before the end of this school year, it would only be with UW, Oregon, Stanford and Notre Dame. ND doesn’t need to join, and Stanford would only be an inducement to the Irish. Even if the PAC loses Washington and Oregon, the remaining 8 schools: - Wazzu, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, Zona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado - would have a good case for being able to pull Kansas, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, TCU, and Houston out of the Big XII and then round out a 14 school league with San Diego State. There, the league gets back in SoCal, the PAC gets a national power in basketball in KU, two competent FB/MBB schools in OK State and Texas Tech, and into the Metroplex and Houston. Plus, they can do all that without having to invite Baylor or BYU. The Big XII, having lost 5 schools, can just backfill with USF, Memphis, UTSA, SMU, and Rice or Tulane.

There are 80 million exit fee reasons to laugh at this. That's before you look at what those schools would be paid without UW & Oregon as well... lol.

(09-08-2022 11:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's never been more attainable to have a P3 and never simpler either. Simply have an equal split of CFP money between 3 conferences of 24 and you have sufficient revenue increases for all to agree to the moves, as it's the best deal the weakest among them will ever get.

Why 24? It covers the damages of the 9 currently in the P5 who would be left out of the CFP and would sue, and the claims of the next 3 likely to want in.

Agree JR ... and I think three 24-team mega-conferences could work just fine.

The B1G and SEC will always have the financial advantage in no small part due to their massive media rights deals.

But treating Conference #3 as "an equal partner" in terms of playoff revenue, postseason access and administrative clout is good for optics and good for business.

Warren's and Sankey's paths to filling out their conference lineups is made much simpler and smoother if Yormark is ready and waiting to scoop up the Pac and ACC left behinds

They're currently treating the #3-10 as equals in access to playoffs. What happens there? You don't think they'll be some political pressure to continue the current playoff access?

We've never seen playoff access retract, only expand. This scenario is a no-go.

The Big XII may not take ACC members. The ACC may look to expand and find teams to meet their criteria. The ACC has geography. The ACC can be the hunter.

(09-08-2022 11:50 AM)chess Wrote:  The Big XII may not take ACC members. The ACC may look to expand and find teams to meet their criteria. The ACC has geography. The ACC can be the hunter.

Question for the ACC is if ESPN is willing to make it financially worth it for teams to be added.

The ACC might not have the flexibility to offer enough payout. They figure to be behind the Big 12's payout due to locking in such a bad deal for such a long time.

(09-08-2022 11:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's never been more attainable to have a P3 and never simpler either. Simply have an equal split of CFP money between 3 conferences of 24 and you have sufficient revenue increases for all to agree to the moves, as it's the best deal the weakest among them will ever get.

Why 24? It covers the damages of the 9 currently in the P5 who would be left out of the CFP and would sue, and the claims of the next 3 likely to want in.

Agree JR ... and I think three 24-team mega-conferences could work just fine.

The B1G and SEC will always have the financial advantage in no small part due to their massive media rights deals.

But treating Conference #3 as "an equal partner" in terms of playoff revenue, postseason access and administrative clout is good for optics and good for business.

Warren's and Sankey's paths to filling out their conference lineups is made much simpler and smoother if Yormark is ready and waiting to scoop up the Pac and ACC left behinds

They're currently treating the #3-10 as equals in access to playoffs. What happens there? You don't think they'll be some political pressure to continue the current playoff access?

We've never seen playoff access retract, only expand. This scenario is a no-go.

I'll tell you what a no go is! A no go is an NIL world with pay for play where G5's, subsidized by their state's taxpayers at a rate of at least 25% for athletics alone, suddenly decide to accept the overhead of the pay for play world and those same taxpayers get stuck with a subsidy jump of 75% or higher! That's what is going to be your no go! When the P5 stood at 65 schools aside from B.Y.U. which was the only then G5 with less than a 25% subsidy, there were only half a dozen G5's which showed the capability of making a step-up w/o having to raise subsidy levels and Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston were among them.

So Esayem, if we move to pay for play everyone who can afford it will be included. The only thing cutting anyone out of a playoff slot shot will be their own ability to afford to play at the pay for play level, and nobody has plotted to achieve that since it will be the result of SCOTUS rulings.

In short, the new division line, in what will be a breakaway, will simply be the ability to afford to compete without placing the bill upon the citizens of the state. In a for profit pay for play world if you don't earn enough to be able to compete, you won't be playing at that level. And that is natural attrition.

(09-08-2022 08:15 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, they can invite Boise State and SDSU.

Your Bulls will get in before Boise.

UCF and USF means twice as many trips to Florida each season ... and not podunk NoFlo towns like Gainesville and Tallahassee, either

Helps Conference #3 with recruiting for sure.

I hope so.

(09-08-2022 08:25 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Not unlikely that Yormark knows Warren's plans for additional B1G poaching on its western flank.

Probably not a coincidence that Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington have by and large been left out of Big XII expansion speculation from media sources who've talked with Yormark.

I wonder how Yormark would know that? I don't believe Warren would share it with him and I am not sure there would be any other way to know.

(09-08-2022 10:14 AM)YNot Wrote:  Yormark learned from both Napolean and the Nazis, you conquer the West before you invade the East.

Yormark knows that the ACC is locked down and he will be cleaning up in the SEC's and Big Ten's wake. He also sees that the Big 12 already has three Eastern time zone schools. With just two more Pacific/Mountain time zone schools, the Big 12 would be able to offer its media partners a solid weekly schedule from noon to midnight plus a couple of weeknight games. From there, the Big 12 can be more selective to build the conference with the most attractive available brands - in either direction.

FRIDAY:
ESPN: Kansas State at UCF

SATURDAY
NOON
- ESPN2: TCU at Cincinnati
AFTERNOON
- FS1: Houston at Texas Tech
EVENING:
- ESPN2: Arizona State at Oklahoma State
LATE NIGHT:
- ESPN: Baylor at BYU
- FS1: Iowa State at Arizona

ESPN+ Kansas at West Virginia

Well, about the bolded, IIRC the Nazis failed to do that, as the British were still fighting in the west. They tried to knock them out and failed, then foolishly invaded the USSR without having done so.

Napoleon, similarly had failed to knock the British out when he invaded Russia.

IIRC, both Russian campaigns ended disastrously for the Nazis and for Napoleon.

FWIW, I think the nB12 got unlucky with PAC/B1G timing. They would be stronger had USC and UCLA announced leaving for the B1G at the same time that TX and OU announced for the SEC, because in that case, I don't think they invite Cincy or UCF. Possibly/probably BYU and/or Houston, but they would IMO want to reserve those other spots for PAC schools.

They can't say that, of course, but that is what I believe.

(09-08-2022 11:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  They're currently treating the #3-10 as equals in access to playoffs. What happens there? You don't think they'll be some political pressure to continue the current playoff access?

I don't think the playoff will stay at 12 for very long: There will be P2/3 teams at 9-3 or perhaps even 10-2 on the fringe of the Top 12 getting left out while a mid-major team barely in the Top 25 gets a spot. That won't fly for long.

A likelier format going forward might be:

• 24 teams (8 byes)
  

• SEC, B1G and Conference #3 have both semifinals and flex scheduling the week before the CCG which would help sort out any playoff berths beyond the Top 4 teams in the conference
  

• G5 conferences would have two rounds of playoffs amongst themselves for an auto bid and to help sort out any potential at-large candidates
  

Would need some tweaks for sure, but such a format would open up access for more Power Conference schools while not locking out lower-budget G-5 programs

(09-08-2022 12:17 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 10:14 AM)YNot Wrote:  Yormark learned from both Napolean and the Nazis, you conquer the West before you invade the East.

...

Well, about the bolded, IIRC the Nazis failed to do that, as the British were still fighting in the west. They tried to knock them out and failed, then foolishly invaded the USSR without having done so.

Napoleon, similarly had failed to knock the British out when he invaded Russia.

IIRC, both Russian campaigns ended disastrously for the Nazis and for Napoleon.

Aren't those take-aways exactly what the statement is referring to ... both made the same mistake of striking out to the East before getting their main threat to their West sorted out.

Not "learn the lesson" as in "copy what they did" ... "learn the lesson" as in "learn from their mistakes"

(09-08-2022 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 08:25 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Not unlikely that Yormark knows Warren's plans for additional B1G poaching on its western flank.

Probably not a coincidence that Cal, Oregon, Stanford and Washington have by and large been left out of Big XII expansion speculation from media sources who've talked with Yormark.

I wonder how Yormark would know that? I don't believe Warren would share it with him and I am not sure there would be any other way to know.

He could know that it's a possibility by talking to people in the PAC-10 who are talking to other people in the PAC-10 who are talking to the Big Ten about joining the Big Ten.

He also could infer which schools are not looking for a Big12 Plan B from which schools refused to return his calls, or returned his calls with a brush off (perhaps more polite, from the ones where the Big12 may be Plan C or Plan D, perhaps more abrupt from those that are no-way, no-how going to the Big12).

Given the levels of indirection, he wouldn't know where the Big Ten thinking is at a specific point in time about whether it is leaning toward 0, 2 or 4 of the PN4, but he ought to have a reasonable idea which schools either have the Big Ten is talking to them, or else they are not interested in any scenario.

(09-08-2022 12:18 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  They're currently treating the #3-10 as equals in access to playoffs. What happens there? You don't think they'll be some political pressure to continue the current playoff access?

I don't think the playoff will stay at 12 for very long: There will be P2/3 teams at 9-3 or perhaps even 10-2 on the fringe of the Top 12 getting left out while a mid-major team barely in the Top 25 gets a spot. That won't fly for long.

A likelier format going forward might be:

• 24 teams (8 byes)
  

• SEC, B1G and Conference #3 have both semifinals and flex scheduling the week before the CCG which would help sort out any playoff berths beyond the Top 4 teams in the conference
  

• G5 conferences would have two rounds of playoffs amongst themselves for an auto bid and to help sort out any potential at-large candidates
  

Would need some tweaks for sure, but such a format would open up access for more Power Conference schools while not locking out lower-budget G-5 programs

I don't see it going beyond 16. Too many games, not enough weekends. The alternative would be to shorten the regular season. But that is money the schools themselves control. The schools with 80-100k stadiums aren't going to give up that home date, so that more schools with smaller stadiums will get in the playoffs.

(09-08-2022 12:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 12:18 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  They're currently treating the #3-10 as equals in access to playoffs. What happens there? You don't think they'll be some political pressure to continue the current playoff access?

I don't think the playoff will stay at 12 for very long: There will be P2/3 teams at 9-3 or perhaps even 10-2 on the fringe of the Top 12 getting left out while a mid-major team barely in the Top 25 gets a spot. That won't fly for long.

A likelier format going forward might be:

• 24 teams (8 byes)
  

• SEC, B1G and Conference #3 have both semifinals and flex scheduling the week before the CCG which would help sort out any playoff berths beyond the Top 4 teams in the conference
  

• G5 conferences would have two rounds of playoffs amongst themselves for an auto bid and to help sort out any potential at-large candidates
  

Would need some tweaks for sure, but such a format would open up access for more Power Conference schools while not locking out lower-budget G-5 programs

I don't see it going beyond 16. Too many games, not enough weekends. The alternative would be to shorten the regular season. But that is money the schools themselves control. The schools with 80-100k stadiums aren't going to give up that home date, so that more schools with smaller stadiums will get in the playoffs.

I think we eventually get to 16.

(09-08-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's never been more attainable to have a P3 and never simpler either. Simply have an equal split of CFP money between 3 conferences of 24 and you have sufficient revenue increases for all to agree to the moves, as it's the best deal the weakest among them will ever get.

Why 24? It covers the damages of the 9 currently in the P5 who would be left out of the CFP and would sue, and the claims of the next 3 likely to want in.

Agree JR ... and I think three 24-team mega-conferences could work just fine.

The B1G and SEC will always have the financial advantage in no small part due to their massive media rights deals.

But treating Conference #3 as "an equal partner" in terms of playoff revenue, postseason access and administrative clout is good for optics and good for business.

Warren's and Sankey's paths to filling out their conference lineups is made much simpler and smoother if Yormark is ready and waiting to scoop up the Pac and ACC left behinds

They're currently treating the #3-10 as equals in access to playoffs. What happens there? You don't think they'll be some political pressure to continue the current playoff access?

We've never seen playoff access retract, only expand. This scenario is a no-go.

I'll tell you what a no go is! A no go is an NIL world with pay for play where G5's, subsidized by their state's taxpayers at a rate of at least 25% for athletics alone, suddenly decide to accept the overhead of the pay for play world and those same taxpayers get stuck with a subsidy jump of 75% or higher! That's what is going to be your no go! When the P5 stood at 65 schools aside from B.Y.U. which was the only then G5 with less than a 25% subsidy, there were only half a dozen G5's which showed the capability of making a step-up w/o having to raise subsidy levels and Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston were among them.

So Esayem, if we move to pay for play everyone who can afford it will be included. The only thing cutting anyone out of a playoff slot shot will be their own ability to afford to play at the pay for play level, and nobody has plotted to achieve that since it will be the result of SCOTUS rulings.

In short, the new division line, in what will be a breakaway, will simply be the ability to afford to compete without placing the bill upon the citizens of the state. In a for profit pay for play world if you don't earn enough to be able to compete, you won't be playing at that level. And that is natural attrition.

I can definitely see salary caps/unions at the college level. I mean have you been on campus lately? Only the professors are exempt from having their salaries scrutinized it seems.

Anything outside of that will be NIL, which is not on the school's shoulders.

(09-08-2022 12:43 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's never been more attainable to have a P3 and never simpler either. Simply have an equal split of CFP money between 3 conferences of 24 and you have sufficient revenue increases for all to agree to the moves, as it's the best deal the weakest among them will ever get.

Why 24? It covers the damages of the 9 currently in the P5 who would be left out of the CFP and would sue, and the claims of the next 3 likely to want in.

Agree JR ... and I think three 24-team mega-conferences could work just fine.

The B1G and SEC will always have the financial advantage in no small part due to their massive media rights deals.

But treating Conference #3 as "an equal partner" in terms of playoff revenue, postseason access and administrative clout is good for optics and good for business.

Warren's and Sankey's paths to filling out their conference lineups is made much simpler and smoother if Yormark is ready and waiting to scoop up the Pac and ACC left behinds

They're currently treating the #3-10 as equals in access to playoffs. What happens there? You don't think they'll be some political pressure to continue the current playoff access?

We've never seen playoff access retract, only expand. This scenario is a no-go.

I'll tell you what a no go is! A no go is an NIL world with pay for play where G5's, subsidized by their state's taxpayers at a rate of at least 25% for athletics alone, suddenly decide to accept the overhead of the pay for play world and those same taxpayers get stuck with a subsidy jump of 75% or higher! That's what is going to be your no go! When the P5 stood at 65 schools aside from B.Y.U. which was the only then G5 with less than a 25% subsidy, there were only half a dozen G5's which showed the capability of making a step-up w/o having to raise subsidy levels and Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston were among them.

So Esayem, if we move to pay for play everyone who can afford it will be included. The only thing cutting anyone out of a playoff slot shot will be their own ability to afford to play at the pay for play level, and nobody has plotted to achieve that since it will be the result of SCOTUS rulings.

In short, the new division line, in what will be a breakaway, will simply be the ability to afford to compete without placing the bill upon the citizens of the state. In a for profit pay for play world if you don't earn enough to be able to compete, you won't be playing at that level. And that is natural attrition.

I can definitely see salary caps/unions at the college level. I mean have you been on campus lately? Only the professors are exempt from having their salaries scrutinized it seems.

Anything outside of that will be NIL, which is not on the school's shoulders.

COLA's are bad for everyone, not just fat kids with acne!

(09-08-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's never been more attainable to have a P3 and never simpler either. Simply have an equal split of CFP money between 3 conferences of 24 and you have sufficient revenue increases for all to agree to the moves, as it's the best deal the weakest among them will ever get.

Why 24? It covers the damages of the 9 currently in the P5 who would be left out of the CFP and would sue, and the claims of the next 3 likely to want in.

Agree JR ... and I think three 24-team mega-conferences could work just fine.

The B1G and SEC will always have the financial advantage in no small part due to their massive media rights deals.

But treating Conference #3 as "an equal partner" in terms of playoff revenue, postseason access and administrative clout is good for optics and good for business.

Warren's and Sankey's paths to filling out their conference lineups is made much simpler and smoother if Yormark is ready and waiting to scoop up the Pac and ACC left behinds

They're currently treating the #3-10 as equals in access to playoffs. What happens there? You don't think they'll be some political pressure to continue the current playoff access?

We've never seen playoff access retract, only expand. This scenario is a no-go.

I'll tell you what a no go is! A no go is an NIL world with pay for play where G5's, subsidized by their state's taxpayers at a rate of at least 25% for athletics alone, suddenly decide to accept the overhead of the pay for play world and those same taxpayers get stuck with a subsidy jump of 75% or higher! That's what is going to be your no go! When the P5 stood at 65 schools aside from B.Y.U. which was the only then G5 with less than a 25% subsidy, there were only half a dozen G5's which showed the capability of making a step-up w/o having to raise subsidy levels and Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston were among them.

So Esayem, if we move to pay for play everyone who can afford it will be included. The only thing cutting anyone out of a playoff slot shot will be their own ability to afford to play at the pay for play level, and nobody has plotted to achieve that since it will be the result of SCOTUS rulings.

In short, the new division line, in what will be a breakaway, will simply be the ability to afford to compete without placing the bill upon the citizens of the state. In a for profit pay for play world if you don't earn enough to be able to compete, you won't be playing at that level. And that is natural attrition.

Your logic is logical. Let's see if the math maths. Let's be conservative and say that the CFP contract is for $1.8B per year, and let's be optimistic for the G5 and have pretty much the same revenue split as now, which gives the G5s about 1/6 of the pie. That's $300M a year, split 60 ways is $20M per school. USe half of that money to reduce the subsidies, half to pay the players is $10M, spread among 100 scholarship players and walk ons that's an average of $100,000 per player. roster cap at 80 and you're looking at $125,000 per player.

JRSEC, you're right that the new playoff money enables things that were not possible before. But it's not certain what they're going to spend the money on.

You have a valid point about it not making any sense for the states and the tuition-paying students to pay for FBS programs that nobody is willing to voluntarily pay money to fund or to watch on TV (at least not enought to pay their bills.) But we have that now, and nobody seems to care.

It's possible that the CFP ends up paying for every FBS player to get a salary. Possible that it pays for every P5 player to get a bigger salary. Or possible that the Tier One schools pay HUGE salaries, the ACC PAC and Big 12 pay lesser salaries and the G5's pay pittances.

It's a fluid situation, and the endgame is not certain.

(09-08-2022 12:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 10:56 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's never been more attainable to have a P3 and never simpler either. Simply have an equal split of CFP money between 3 conferences of 24 and you have sufficient revenue increases for all to agree to the moves, as it's the best deal the weakest among them will ever get.

Why 24? It covers the damages of the 9 currently in the P5 who would be left out of the CFP and would sue, and the claims of the next 3 likely to want in.

Agree JR ... and I think three 24-team mega-conferences could work just fine.

The B1G and SEC will always have the financial advantage in no small part due to their massive media rights deals.

But treating Conference #3 as "an equal partner" in terms of playoff revenue, postseason access and administrative clout is good for optics and good for business.

Warren's and Sankey's paths to filling out their conference lineups is made much simpler and smoother if Yormark is ready and waiting to scoop up the Pac and ACC left behinds

They're currently treating the #3-10 as equals in access to playoffs. What happens there? You don't think they'll be some political pressure to continue the current playoff access?

We've never seen playoff access retract, only expand. This scenario is a no-go.

I'll tell you what a no go is! A no go is an NIL world with pay for play where G5's, subsidized by their state's taxpayers at a rate of at least 25% for athletics alone, suddenly decide to accept the overhead of the pay for play world and those same taxpayers get stuck with a subsidy jump of 75% or higher! That's what is going to be your no go! When the P5 stood at 65 schools aside from B.Y.U. which was the only then G5 with less than a 25% subsidy, there were only half a dozen G5's which showed the capability of making a step-up w/o having to raise subsidy levels and Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston were among them.

So Esayem, if we move to pay for play everyone who can afford it will be included. The only thing cutting anyone out of a playoff slot shot will be their own ability to afford to play at the pay for play level, and nobody has plotted to achieve that since it will be the result of SCOTUS rulings.

In short, the new division line, in what will be a breakaway, will simply be the ability to afford to compete without placing the bill upon the citizens of the state. In a for profit pay for play world if you don't earn enough to be able to compete, you won't be playing at that level. And that is natural attrition.

Your logic is logical. Let's see if the math maths. Let's be conservative and say that the CFP contract is for $1.8B per year, and let's be optimistic for the G5 and have pretty much the same revenue split as now, which gives the G5s about 1/6 of the pie. That's $300M a year, split 60 ways is $20M per school. USe half of that money to reduce the subsidies, half to pay the players is $10M, spread among 100 scholarship players and walk ons that's an average of $100,000 per player. roster cap at 80 and you're looking at $125,000 per player.

JRSEC, you're right that the new playoff money enables things that were not possible before. But it's not certain what they're going to spend the money on.

You have a valid point about it not making any sense for the states and the tuition-paying students to pay for FBS programs that nobody is willing to voluntarily pay money to fund or to watch on TV (at least not enought to pay their bills.) But we have that now, and nobody seems to care.

It's possible that the CFP ends up paying for every FBS player to get a salary. Possible that it pays for every P5 player to get a bigger salary. Or possible that the Tier One schools pay HUGE salaries, the ACC PAC and Big 12 pay lesser salaries and the G5's pay pittances.

It's a fluid situation, and the endgame is not certain.

I think its pretty clear the A5 want to raise the spending needed to compete to force schools to self-select out of Division I and FBS. At least to stop the race into FBS.

(09-08-2022 01:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think its pretty clear the A5 want to raise the spending needed to compete to force schools to self-select out of Division I and FBS. At least to stop the race into FBS.

What is their incentive to "stop the race into FBS"?

Because the "race into FBS" leaves their revenues almost entirely untouched? The Go5 get about the same CFP revenue share split between however many schools decide they would rather be in the Go5 tier 2 than the FCS tier 3. And P5 media money is not affected by the number of Go5 schools.

Or because the "race into FBS" reduces the cost pressure on Go5 buy games?

Is it the no change to their revenues they are objecting to, or the reduction to their costs?

Seriously, if the "race into FBS" was a serious priority, they would have fought for more stringent controls on that process. Instead, what they fought for was Autonomy.

(09-08-2022 01:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 12:47 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:29 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 11:17 AM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  Agree JR ... and I think three 24-team mega-conferences could work just fine.

The B1G and SEC will always have the financial advantage in no small part due to their massive media rights deals.

But treating Conference #3 as "an equal partner" in terms of playoff revenue, postseason access and administrative clout is good for optics and good for business.

Warren's and Sankey's paths to filling out their conference lineups is made much simpler and smoother if Yormark is ready and waiting to scoop up the Pac and ACC left behinds

They're currently treating the #3-10 as equals in access to playoffs. What happens there? You don't think they'll be some political pressure to continue the current playoff access?

We've never seen playoff access retract, only expand. This scenario is a no-go.

I'll tell you what a no go is! A no go is an NIL world with pay for play where G5's, subsidized by their state's taxpayers at a rate of at least 25% for athletics alone, suddenly decide to accept the overhead of the pay for play world and those same taxpayers get stuck with a subsidy jump of 75% or higher! That's what is going to be your no go! When the P5 stood at 65 schools aside from B.Y.U. which was the only then G5 with less than a 25% subsidy, there were only half a dozen G5's which showed the capability of making a step-up w/o having to raise subsidy levels and Cincinnati, UCF, and Houston were among them.

So Esayem, if we move to pay for play everyone who can afford it will be included. The only thing cutting anyone out of a playoff slot shot will be their own ability to afford to play at the pay for play level, and nobody has plotted to achieve that since it will be the result of SCOTUS rulings.

In short, the new division line, in what will be a breakaway, will simply be the ability to afford to compete without placing the bill upon the citizens of the state. In a for profit pay for play world if you don't earn enough to be able to compete, you won't be playing at that level. And that is natural attrition.

Your logic is logical. Let's see if the math maths. Let's be conservative and say that the CFP contract is for $1.8B per year, and let's be optimistic for the G5 and have pretty much the same revenue split as now, which gives the G5s about 1/6 of the pie. That's $300M a year, split 60 ways is $20M per school. USe half of that money to reduce the subsidies, half to pay the players is $10M, spread among 100 scholarship players and walk ons that's an average of $100,000 per player. roster cap at 80 and you're looking at $125,000 per player.

JRSEC, you're right that the new playoff money enables things that were not possible before. But it's not certain what they're going to spend the money on.

You have a valid point about it not making any sense for the states and the tuition-paying students to pay for FBS programs that nobody is willing to voluntarily pay money to fund or to watch on TV (at least not enought to pay their bills.) But we have that now, and nobody seems to care.

It's possible that the CFP ends up paying for every FBS player to get a salary. Possible that it pays for every P5 player to get a bigger salary. Or possible that the Tier One schools pay HUGE salaries, the ACC PAC and Big 12 pay lesser salaries and the G5's pay pittances.

It's a fluid situation, and the endgame is not certain.

I think its pretty clear the A5 want to raise the spending needed to compete to force schools to self-select out of Division I and FBS. At least to stop the race into FBS.

IDK ... looks to me like the SEC and B1G are doing their best to run away from the M3 financially.

(09-08-2022 01:14 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-08-2022 01:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  I think its pretty clear the A5 want to raise the spending needed to compete to force schools to self-select out of Division I and FBS. At least to stop the race into FBS.

What is their incentive to "stop the race into FBS"?

Because the "race into FBS" leaves their revenues almost entirely untouched? The Go5 get about the same CFP revenue share split between however many schools decide they would rather be in the Go5 tier 2 than the FCS tier 3. And P5 media money is not affected by the number of Go5 schools.

Or because the "race into FBS" reduces the cost pressure on Go5 buy games?

Is it the no change to their revenues they are objecting to, or the reduction to their costs?

Seriously, if the "race into FBS" was a serious priority, they would have fought for more stringent controls on that process. Instead, what they fought for was Autonomy.

They tried minimum attendance but couldn't force it. They tried conference requirements, but Liberty got in anyways. I think they haven't found a method, so they are just going to spend them to oblivion.