Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hurtlocker

  1. 3 minutes ago, Magus Ossis said:

    In all seriousness, how long will it be before we see something like a one-off "exhibition" inter-squad spring matchup once the NCAA loses its last vestiges of control over Prestige WorldWide Football?

    before 2030

  2. 2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

    I think one FCS and/or one G6 game per season would be fine, those schools need the money, and even the bluebloods can use a warmup game, especially if they are transitioning between QBs or other important positions. 

    Spring Games!

    • Hook 'Em 1
  3. 29 minutes ago, bullet said:

    New proposal out there:

    https://sports.yahoo.com/while-sec-and-big-ten-leaders-mull-major-changes-a-new-super-league-concept-looms-that-could-radically-alter-college-sports-130031534.html

    "...As SEC and Big Ten leaders prepare to meet Wednesday and Thursday in Nashville for a historic summit of the industry’s two powers, there is an unreported undercurrent driving the discussion: Project Rudy.

    Spearheaded by former Disney executives-turned-investment professionals, Project Rudy is a super league-esque concept — separate and more simplified than the one made public last week — that incorporates football programs of the four power conferences in a 70-team structure. The model preserves the four power conferences, expands the postseason, overhauls scheduling, tiers revenue distribution and, most importantly, infuses as much as $9 billion of private capital cash into the system.

    The architects behind the model work for Smash Capital, a venture capital and private equity firm with offices in Los Angeles and New York. Representatives from Smash Capital declined to comment when reached last week, but their concepts are outlined in a 14-slide presentation obtained by Yahoo Sports.

    Over the last four months, athletic directors at more than 25 power conference programs have seen the presentation, many of them in person during meetings with Smash Capital representatives....

     

    Project Rudy is built on two somewhat simple concepts to increase revenue from television networks and corporate sponsors.

    (1) Arrange more games between power conference programs by eliminating all games against Group of Five and FCS opponents; expanding the playoffs; and pitting blue-blood powers more often against one another.

    (2) Consolidate the media rights of the 70 schools under one agreement, instead of the current structure of five different packages (one for each power league and Notre Dame)...."

    another good quote:

    Quote

    Under the Smash plan, once current conference media deals end in seven to 10 years, a consolidated, centrally negotiated media deal is struck with Smash and the networks, themselves owning equity in the new “league.” The centralized, for-profit “league,” as it is described in the slide deck, keeps 5-12.5% of new revenues after distributing guaranteed payments to schools (no school will see a decrease in its distribution from what it receives or is projected to receive under its current media contracts).

    According to the proposal, school-by-school distributions would skyrocket, cash that presumably would be used to help sustain Olympic sports — something that administrators contend is threatened by the advent of revenue sharing. However, the revenues will be allotted unequally. Project Rudy separates the 70 programs into three tiers.

    - Tier 1: the top 16 schools earn per-school revenue projections from $130 million in Year 4, escalating to $250 million in Year 12 (double the SEC and Big Ten’s current distribution rate).

    - Tier 2: the next 22 schools earn revenue of $60-$110 million (similar to the SEC and Big Ten current rates).

    - Tier 3: the last 32 schools earn projections of $30-$60 million (similar to the Big 12 and ACC rates).

    The model offers a variety of ways to determine how to tier schools: the previous season’s results, perhaps, or an aggregate of results over a stretch of seasons. The model also features a relegation and promotion system to pave a way for schools to move up and down the tiers. However, one proposed model suggests having eight “permanent” members of Tier 1, a move presumably to placate the biggest brands in the sport.

    The slide deck leaves specific tiering and relegation decisions to those operating the “league,” which, according to the slide deck, includes a centralized “commissioner” or “commissioners.”

    The deck describes the model as a win for all sides: schools, fans, networks and, of course, the athletes.

    One page of the deck, in fact, details how the increased revenues will “offset player compensation obligations.” Project Rudy is meant to work within the settlement of the House antitrust lawsuit that the NCAA and power conferences struck with plaintiffs. The settlement, preliminarily approved on Monday, will permit universities to directly share revenue with athletes under a capped amount that is expected to average about $25-28 million annually per school over 10 years.

    Perhaps not coincidental, Project Rudy, over the 12-year model, projects for each school an annual average revenue increase of $25 million.

     

  4. 21 minutes ago, bullet said:

    New proposal out there:

    https://sports.yahoo.com/while-sec-and-big-ten-leaders-mull-major-changes-a-new-super-league-concept-looms-that-could-radically-alter-college-sports-130031534.html

    "...As SEC and Big Ten leaders prepare to meet Wednesday and Thursday in Nashville for a historic summit of the industry’s two powers, there is an unreported undercurrent driving the discussion: Project Rudy.

    Spearheaded by former Disney executives-turned-investment professionals, Project Rudy is a super league-esque concept — separate and more simplified than the one made public last week — that incorporates football programs of the four power conferences in a 70-team structure. The model preserves the four power conferences, expands the postseason, overhauls scheduling, tiers revenue distribution and, most importantly, infuses as much as $9 billion of private capital cash into the system.

    The architects behind the model work for Smash Capital, a venture capital and private equity firm with offices in Los Angeles and New York. Representatives from Smash Capital declined to comment when reached last week, but their concepts are outlined in a 14-slide presentation obtained by Yahoo Sports.

    Over the last four months, athletic directors at more than 25 power conference programs have seen the presentation, many of them in person during meetings with Smash Capital representatives....

     

    Project Rudy is built on two somewhat simple concepts to increase revenue from television networks and corporate sponsors.

    (1) Arrange more games between power conference programs by eliminating all games against Group of Five and FCS opponents; expanding the playoffs; and pitting blue-blood powers more often against one another.

    (2) Consolidate the media rights of the 70 schools under one agreement, instead of the current structure of five different packages (one for each power league and Notre Dame)...."

    So all I was missing a decade ago was billions of dollars to infuse into the system.   Goddamnit.

    • Haha 3
  5. On 9/27/2024 at 1:56 PM, TKthunder2 said:

    I don’t disagree with the analysis but I feel like including conference championship games and post season bowl/playoff games skews the data even more significantly toward those having good seasons. I assume your just referencing the top 25 chart on sportmediawatch, but the post season significantly skews our success criteria.

    Oregon/Washington drew 7 million and was the most watched game of the week during the regular season. Auburn was the number 2 game of the week twice last year against UGA and Bama drawing more than 6 million each time. All of these examples were overall top 15 games out of the 13 week regular cfb seasons.

    For the Auburn example you could counter that they only draw because they played Bama/UGA and but Kentucky DID NOT draw 7 million playing those same teams. This to make shows there is a clear distinction from Auburn and Kentucky which is why I separate them into a different tiers based out their outcome driven values.

    I typically consider 5 million+ viewers to be a major indicator of your program/year. Only 32 games pulled 5 million+ last year. Sure their are a few outliers like TCU, Colorado St, Duke, Maryland, and Georgia Tech where the Colorado or a power program is carrying most of the load, but in general those games are between teams in the top tier or one clearly in the elite of your second tier.

    I don't disagree and that's why I highlighted those games as being skewed, but I didn't feel like doing an entire season review either.    It allowed a quicker breakdown to show where big numbers are pulled.   The top 25 is 7m+, you're not going to see a ton of different names going to 5m and, to your point, its only 7 more games.   

  6. 7 minutes ago, satyanash said:

    Doubts? They have zero quality wins and lost their last two games against unranked teams, then got handed W's by crooked officiating crews. Miami should not be ranked ahead of any other undefeated squads. 

    it is crazy how those ACC refs have gone out of their way to protect them.   I'm waiting for them to introduce a new rule in the final minute in one of the next games.

  7. 14 hours ago, bullet said:

    Wyoming, and in 2025 Delaware, are the only states with FBS programs who have less than 1.4 million people.  Hawaii, #40 has 1.4 million.  WV, #39 has 1.8 million.

    Montana is #43 with 1.1 million.  And Montana and the Dakotas have their states split between major schools, unlike HI, WV, DE and WY.  Montana, Idaho, NDSU, SDSU, UND and USD are all very small for FBS with around 12k students or less.  Montana St. has 17k, but that still is smaller than typical for FBS.  I don't think it makes sense to maybe be a Wyoming in FBS instead of one of the tops in FCS.

    Only real difference though is Wyoming is mostly flow over from Denver, Delaware from Jersey and Philly, and WVU from DC/Pitt.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 20 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    I think the SBC is clearly #3 in the current G5 landscape, and is probably better at football than the new MWC is going to be.

    It's really a pretty damn entertaining league with some invested fanbases and good players.  It seems like a pretty solid model for G5 football at this stage.

    They'd actually be my #1 G5 from a talent standpoint, if they didn't have so many good teams that they beat each other up.   JMU, App State, Marshall, Louisianna, Coastal and GS are ballers

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 9 hours ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

    Think this would likely be a nonstarter for most if not all of the G5/6 leagues, they don't have much but that 1 access spot (or just the possibility of access to the "Big Boy" playoff) is something they will not want to ever lose if they can possibly help it.  Feel like they would all try and fight that out in court and make it as painful as possible for the P4 to pull the plug on that. Sure it's likely guaranteed to be a 12 seed going up against a 5 but the exposure that 12 seed gets, and the low chance of one of them eventually ambushing a 5 seed is worth way more than any "kill fee".

    A G5/6 playoff of the "best of the rest" outside of the one chosen champion to who gets sent to trial by combat in the "Big Boy" playoff would be interesting and I personally would be all for it, think you have the right idea of running it week ahead and between games of the other playoff but feel like you would run into some of the same issues that currently exist with bowls a-la opt outs since it's not the "real" playoff and don't know how you can work that out and whoever is going to pony up the money to support a G5/6 playoff won't be very enthusiastic towards that.

    Yeah I think the only way it works is if the CFB does it in conjunction with the current format, giving the G5 a bigger market for more teams or a bigger pay out, as in your kill fee PLUS whatever the TV brings for this secondary.  Its worth it to get one more P4 into the 12 and its worth it to keep the antitrust wolves at bay.   And for us junkies, now we get 2 x 12 playoffs instead of one.

  10. 1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

    Even better, get their small slice of revenue from the big boy playoff in return for not having a team in the big playoff, sort of like a kill fee in return for not suing over access.

    Then run an 8 team G6 playoff around the edges of the big playoff- start a week earlier, play their championship during the week between the semifinals and the title game for the big playoff.  Play the semis on Tuesday and Wednesday nights if needed to make it work.  Every G6 conference champ plus two at large.  Would be a fun format, with teams that are reasonably evenly matched.

    ha I think we just posted the same idea at the same time, you beat me.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  11. 22 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    I think they should just declare a G5 regular season champion that is selected to play in the CFP, and the rest play in a G5 playoff tournament. Let two teams declare themselves national champions it don’t hurt nobody. This would be better TV than watching the top ranked MAC team gets spanked by a 7-5 Big Ten team in the Little Cesar’s Pizza Bowl.

    Or just take a G5 part of the money they're going to pay out anyway, cut it out and put it into a seed for a second tournament that can start the beginning of December.   Add in some new TV revenues to that seed money and the G5 tourney is its own post season fun warming up the CFB fun.

    I'm sure no one could figure out how to market the everlivingshit out of that.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  12. 2 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

    My guesses:

    PAC adds Texas State for 8. Texas State fits their footprint and sounds like a big boy school to those who don’t know better, I’m guessing they offer them a lesser cut than those of the MWC like the ACC did with Stanford/Cal. TX St is awkward in either conference geographically speaking, but would rather take the money and join the Western schools than be paired with the more regional/directional universities of the Sun Belt. This would immediately change their external perception and put them in the conversation for the best of the G5 Texas schools along with UTSA.

    MWC doesn’t have a lot of leg to stand on here. They have money but they just gave away a good chuck of it to keep AFA/UNLV. I think cooler heads will prevail and they’ll come to their senses and do the sensible thing and just take UTEP and NMSU for 8+Hawaii fb while keeping watch for Western FCS upgrades like SacSt, Utah Tech, and Southern Utah, while trying to see if they can land any combo of the Montana/Dakota schools.

    CUSA holds at 10 but keeps watching for Eastern FCS upgrades (like Eastern Kentucky).

    Sun Belt doesn’t need any more teams, they just continue forward with unbalanced divisions of 13 for the time being, but I think they might start talking about bringing MTSU and WKU back into the fold along with Missouri State. That would get them to 16 and cover every Southern-ish state East of Texas other than Florida. Still I don’t see them wanting to move right away unless their TV deal requires a certain number of members. They’ll likely hold for now and watch how everything else shakes out and see if there is any stronger candidates emerge.

    MAC and AAC hold pat.

    It would kind of shock me if NIU did take a jump because the MAC is so confined and does what it does very well.  But if they did, the MAC could just backfill with many other universities around the midwest that are successful, but don't make that FCS leap yet like the Salukis or UNI, etc.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. 19 minutes ago, pops said:

    I believe it was the AAC commissioner who was trying to do exactly that and got zero traction among other commissioners. 

    The landscape changed so quickly that most of these commissioners and presidents have no clue what is going on or where they are going to end up. 

    Utah state got in the pac. Yay. They will not be in the same division of college football as Texas and Alabama and Ohio state in 10 years. The sooner all these schools realize that and figure out how to maximize their revenues going forward, the better. 

    But instead we get these insane options like Texas state or UConn football to the pac. Or the two best maaction schools to the mwc. Stop it. Rebuild regional conferences that maximize rivalries and minimize travel costs for all your sports and create a meaningful playoff. 

    I've been to a potato bowl. I've also been to an fcs playoff game at Montana. It isn't hard to figure out which one was eleventy billion times better. 

    Truth.   Love me some Sun Belt and MAC, the SEC stayed nice and tight.   For like like a decade the B12 looked odd with WVU, but now even they look geographically tight compared to the ACC, B1G or even some of these G5s tendriling (made that up) out.

     

  14. 8 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    Yeah, I respect your takes on here, so we can just agree to disagree.

    I doubt see any way shape or form Houston and Cincy are in the same category as Auburn or Oregon. I can buy Okie St and Utah when ranked are about equal to those teams when unranked.

    I think you clearly have 3rd (Washington State) and 4th tiers (Sam Houston)

     

    I agree ESPN is close but the numbers prove out that it is a step below the OTA channels. It’s the clear tier 2 but to your point there isn’t a close third.

    Third is ESPN2, FS1, and now the CW apparently.

    Fourth tier would be conference networks, ESPNU, and now apparently truTV.

    Not sure how to count streaming since it’s not well tracked or reported.

    Well Washington State and Sam Houston are not P4 anymore and I'd conceed to you that Houston and Cinci have more to earn than Oregon and Auburn have to lose.   However, the original point someone made was that if you're not in the top 12 or 14 I think we mapped out, you're basically still just the B12 or ACC, just in a different blazer.    And, media wise, that does tend to play out.   We could argue attendance and stadiums and sure, there are clear differences regionally on who cares about their sport.   It's obvious that some programs fill their stadiums and some don't.   And its obvious that some fill them to 50-60 and some fill them to 70-80.  That isn't really where I was getting at with this though, which is, after the giant brands that always bring big numbers, what's left?

    What's left tends to be defined by fan passion, record, and who you play.   The knock against the Big 12 was they only drew big when they played Texas and Oklahoma, but, at the same time, their flagship slots were always filled by Texas and Oklahoma, so where was the data supposed to come from?    The same argument holds true with any conference though.   Auburn draws like shit, unless it plays someone big.    Does the stadium rock.   Fuck ya.   But if Auburn was bigger than B12/ACC caliber, that Arkansas game would have hit much higher than 2m.  Florida, who can't win a fight against a box full of kittens, drew 2.6m against Mississippi State on ESPN.

    Looking at the top 25 games of last year, Auburn appeared once.    The Iron Bowl.    Oregon appeared twice, their top game was against Colorado in the regular season (so who pulled that interest, Nike or Prime?) and the second game was the Pac12 champ game against Washington, which is kind of free money.    Colorado appeared five times for fuck all knows why reasons, against Oregon, Colorado State, Nebraska, TCU, and USC, so it could be argued Colorado was the top media dog in the Duck's match up that elevated the numbers.

    Last year representation in top 25 games, (this includes post season - all games over 7m):

    • Six: Alabama
    • Five:  Michigan, Colorado
    • Four: Ohio State, Texas
    • Demarcation line
    • Three: Penn State (Ohio State, Michigan and the Peach Bowl against Ole Miss), Washington (all were in the post season)
    • Two: Oregon (Colorado and the Pac12 Champ game), FSU (both were against SEC foes), LSU, Georgia  (Both of Georgia and LSU's big games were against FSU and Alabama)
    • One: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Missouri, Nebraska, USC, Colorado State, Iowa, Auburn, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Ole Miss (all of these games were against someone above them in this list)
    • Hook 'Em 2
  15. 1 minute ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

    Texas State riding the sinking ship that was WAC football in our 1st FBS season in 2012 and then getting thrown the ultimate life ring by Uncle Karl Benson, Sunbelt Commissioner (who may or may not have sunk the WAC ship the year before as WAC commissioner) and joining the Sunbelt in 2013 to save Texas State from likely CUSA purgatory next to Louisiana Tech and WKU to a decade of wandering the football wilderness to today, year of our lord 2024, being courted by the PAC, MWC and maybe to a lesser extent the AAC, and possibly holding the fate of the PAC and/or MWC in our hands is just as everybody expected CFB realignment to play out, right?

    Totally had that on my card, it was lost in the shaggy move though, damnit!

    • Haha 3
  16. 25 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    I mean, I wish the entire sport would do this, but right now it would really make a ton of sense for the G5 to get together and sell their media rights as a package like the NFL.  Pair off into geographically logical divisions (which would allow ALL sports to follow suit), and create some kind of season format where the G5 winner/best team plays in the 12 team playoff (you would still have early games against the larger schools).

    They seem to be utterly cannibalizing each other at this point for absolutely no gain at all, and I don't think it's creating a more interesting product, whereas I think we are seeing (at least while the novelty of the new matchups is there) an even more compelling product in not just the Big 10 and SEC, but definitely in the Big 12 and possibly in the ACC too.  But that's more a result of consolidation with (so far) very little shedding of schools in the aggregate.  The G5 is splintering into smaller factions, which seems dilutive to me.

    This is where I see PE getting involved at some point, though I think they want to do this at the greater level before the lower level, mostly because the broadcasters are guaranteeing slots to the higher level, much like the NFL.    The G5 doesn't have as many guaranteed slots currently.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 6 hours ago, statsman said:

    Great analysis, and it’s too bad the B12 didn’t figure this out years ago. 
     
    KSU was the single worst program in America, the one that Mississippi State looked down on. Snyder got there and adopted a strategy of playing nothing but patsies in non-conference. He treated the games like the NFL pre-season (he wanted to polish his team’s proficiencies), but the games counted, so he wanted wins. 
     
    In unequal revenue sharing, this wasn’t so bad. TV didn’t want those crappy games and his program didn’t profit financially from them. 
     
    Then, every little program in the Big XII adopted that practice, AND they had equal revenue sharing. 
     
    Yes, the B12 needs to be like the divorced spouse that addresses all the issues their ex had been bitching about and try better the next time. 

    The B12 isn't the only conference that schedules bitches.   Texas has always scheduled well with 10+ P5 games on the schedule, many other B12 teams did this too.   There are some SEC and ACC programs who still don't get to 10 per year.    I think Miami has 9 and may play one ranked team all year.   Quick spot check...NCState is 9, Auburn is 9, arkansas is 9, etc.

    Everyone tries to game the system and get their advantage.   Its who wins the press tour about it.

×
×
  • Create New...