Jump to content

Hurtlocker

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2157
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hurtlocker

  1. 5 hours ago, Satchel said:

    I’m curious. What will they spend their more money on that other well resourced schools can’t?

    All the well-resourced will get there, but at some point....players.   

  2. 13 minutes ago, statsman said:

    This must have been fun to write. Ha-ha! Texas has so much money! And OSU beats them!

    The difference is, now that money can be used to pay players. I know some schools already paid players, and reaped success for it. Texas didn’t. 
     
    Have you been following recruiting the last couple of years? The transfer portal?

     Look, don’t worry about it. I’m just talking out my ass. OSU will be fine. Gundy will continue to take those overlooked three stars and develop and scheme them into giant killers. Texas will continue to languish in mediocrity. The results of the last ten years are the die cast of the future. 

    The point is it's never been even between schools.    CFB isn't like the NFL with spending caps and collective bargaining.   The top ten programs have always had a massive advantage over the remaining programs.   At one point they were basically the only programs you ever saw on TV for decades.

    The current situation has new aspects to work with, but it is literally no difference.   The advantage exists.   

    Not sure why you chose Oklahoma State, but let's take that example.   There will be a media difference between Texas and OkSt with the conference changes, but even while they were in the B12 together, Oklahoma State would have had to get paid almost 2.5 B1G shares, per year, to match Texas' revenue.    They can't.   And it really makes no difference if Oklahoma State was in the B1G or the SEC or the NFL.

    On the brand side of things, Texas will always get the premier television window over OkSt, always be known more by recruits, transfers, etc etc.

    None of this is new.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  3. 2 hours ago, bullet said:

    Well I hope that isn't how it is determined.  It should be based on the team, not their conference.  Sometimes there just isn't a strong schedule in a tough conference.  For example, there are a lot of teams that could start 10-0 on Georgia's schedule next year.

    Sat, Sep 2 6:00 PM
    ESPN+.svg
     
    espn-sec-plus@2x.png
    Tickets as low as $57 
    Sat, Sep 9 12:00 PM
     
    espn-sec@2x.png
    Tickets as low as $44 
    Sat, Sep 16 3:30 PM
    CBS
    Tickets as low as $189 
    Sat, Sep 23
    vsUABUAB
    TBD   Tickets as low as $55 
    Sat, Sep 30 TBD   Tickets as low as $142 
    Sat, Oct 7 TBD   Tickets as low as $170 
    Sat, Oct 14 TBD   Tickets as low as $132 
    Sat, Oct 28 3:30 PM
    CBS
    Tickets as low as $199 
    Sat, Nov 4 TBD   Tickets as low as $114 
    Sat, Nov 11
    vsOle Miss22 Ole Miss
    TBD   Tickets as low as $149 
    Sat, Nov 18
    @Tennessee12 Tennessee
    TBD   Tickets as low as $258 
    Sat, Nov 25 TBD   Tickets as low as $102 

    If they have less than a 30 point difference in a game, it should be counted as a loss.

  4. 2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    You’re arguing both sides here.

    Basketball teams with good records miss the NCAA tournament all the time. You say that’s what you want but you’re actually arguing the opposite. Iowa State made the NCAA men’s basketball tournament as a 6 seed with a record of 19-13, meanwhile North Texas missed the tournament with a record of 26-7.

    The SEC and Big Ten will have a far more difficult strength of schedule (like Big 12 basketball did last year) and will be rewarded for it. I doubt you’ll see a 1 loss Big12/ACC team passed over for a 3 loss SEC/B1G team but I damn sure hope a 2 loss non conference champion for the B12/ACC doesn’t get in over a 3 loss SEC/B1G team. That is more in line with how the basketball tournament operates and is likely how this will shake out unless you are trying to get the SEC/B1G to breakaway.

    Eh....you're talking about teams outside the top 25 at this point.   If you want to keep it comparable, you're really only talking the top 3 seed lines in the NCAA Tourney.    The further down the rankings you go the more wacky the positions become.   

    In this case, you're really talking about who is making it in the top 10 as at least one champ won't be in the top ten and another could be low enough to start stealing spots.   Consolidation is going to greatly help the SEC and B1G, but its going to help the B12 too.   To do that, its rarely a 3 loss team regardless of brand.  A 3 loss Washington isn't jumping a 2 loss Utah.   BUT a 3 loss Bama would jump a 3 loss UNC.   Its in those sections where the benefit will occur and those are fractional in the overall top ten.

     

     

  5. 4 hours ago, statsman said:

    Sure, if college football stays like it was in 2022. 
     
    If the SEC and B10 SP2 conferences have a lot more money to pay in NIL, a lot more TV exposure, and are known as the path to the NFL, a gap will open up between the SP2 and the P2/3 greater than the current gap between the B12 and the AAC. 

    You make that sound like its even now.   Texas makes more on football than most schools make for their entire athletics department.   

  6. 1 hour ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

    Everyone who isn't in one of the prestige world wide conferences is going to be better off with this expanded CFP and collapse of the PAC and merger of its remnants into existing conferences. Heck even my lowly Texas State Bobcats have a shot, they put it together and win the Sunbelt sometime after expansion and they have a decent chance of snagging that 6th (maybe even 5th if AAC and MWC champs have crappy years) auto bid.

    ...which is why I really don't think the 6 autobids will last very long, will get cut down to 5 or 4 pretty soon. But for a few brief glorious years, everyone has a legitimately achievalbe goal of "win the conference, make it to the playoff" 

    It will end up at five very soon.   

    Wasn't your point, but previous points that the ACC or B12 won't basically get 2 in a year are terrible maths.   

  7. 6 hours ago, Herpa Derpa said:

    Not a flagship. UA, ASU and NAU are all under one BOR since 1945. 100 or so pages back should have told ya.

    Most state schools are under one BoR, his original point was about Iowa and Iowa State and the State of Iowa has one BoR last I checked. 

     

    2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    I wonder if there’s an internet belief that the Big 12 will go to 10 conference games to provide inventory?

    There’s a lot of talk in Iowa of both the Big 10 and Big 12 going to 10 conference games and the CyHawk game dying as a result.

    80-90 games is a lot of inventory, twice as much as the contract the B12 just extended.   I can't imagine they do this on the current contract without a price jump.  Expansion alone is going to drive a ton to streaming, as you're already seeing with B1G teams not named USC/OSU/Mich/Pedo and the B12 could probably add a conference network at this point.

  8. 43 minutes ago, Hagbard Celine said:

    i may be forgetting someone....  with the exception of penn state, ohio state and louisiana state, the public state flagship football program is a school named after the state that does not have the word "state" in the name of the school.

    the really strong cardinals are every bit the equal of your state flagship...  but you're still not the state flagship

    0b1efb905122bdfae88874ce16db4c33.png

    Seems New Mexico State too!   Makes more sense in university systems, like Cal, Texas, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or North Carolina, but big, first, and public are the primary.   Surprised Arizona didn't make this list.

  9. 51 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

    Yeah, I think they'll keep the number at one more than the number of power conferences even in the next contract cycle.  That avoids any backlash and it creates some potentially good TV opportunities for the playoff itself. 

    I am in the camp that believes the CFP will try to make that opening round into an equivalent of the first weekend of the NCAA tourney and to do that, you need at least the possibility of a Cinderella team.  It'll be a huge gambling event.  Last year's opening round games would have been:

    5 TCU v 12 Tulane
    6 tOSU v 11 Penn St
    7 Bama v 10 SC
    8 Tenn v 9 K-State

    That would have set up 1 UGA vs Tenn/KSU; 2 Mich vs. Bama/SC; 3 Clem vs. tOSU/PSU; and 4 Utah vs. TCU/Tulane

    Out of the first 8 games, most of them are potentially pretty good on paper and there's a plausible path for the G5 school to become a huge media story and reach the semi-final.  If that happens occasionally, it'll spur bottom-up investment from other G5 programs who want to replicate that type of exposure for themselves.     

    Yeah especially with Tulane shocking USC

    • Haha 1
  10. 8 minutes ago, bullet said:

    You made the stupid claim even for Surly that nobody in the Big 10 was as bad as Baylor.  Well at least two schools were.  I never said everyone was as bad as Baylor.  Just that other schools had problems and two schools in the pristine Big 10, yes, were absolutely as bad as Baylor.  And after Sandusky, Penn St. hired the guy who tried to cover up a rape by football players at Vanderbilt.  PSU is totally tone deaf.

    Don't forget this one:   Ohio State Doc Abuses Wrestlers

  11. 6 minutes ago, bullet said:

    I like getting the committee out of it as much as possible.  That's why we need guaranteed slots for at least 5 and maybe 6 conference champs.

    I agree.   They've had some strange ones.   I say we just turn it all over to our future AI overlords now and be done with it.

  12. 42 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

    "If you relegate schools like the bulk of the Big 12 schools, their fans will just lose interest in college football"  vs "Every I8 fan should be completely fine with this arrangement"

    Right now the BIG 12 has one auto birth. The remaining 6 at large could easily go to the BIG 10 and SEC just like when Ohio State jumped TCU. It is a fact that the brand name schools will probably jump non-brand name schools. To me that is relegating the bulk of BIG 12 schools. So I did not understand how you guys were fine with the arrangement. Had the BIG 12 remained schools other than the champions that finished ahead of Texas and Oklahoma could have claim multiple wins against brand name programs to reach the playoffs.

    It may be possible that the BIG 12 will get two teams in but as elite recruits start to all flow to the Power 2 then I see it as improbable.

    Looking at past results, it is far more likely that the ACC and B12 will get 2 in out of 12 per year, than the SEC/B1G will get 4.   It will always vary but the most likely blend every year is:

    • B1G/SEC = 6 bids
    • ACC/B12 = 4 bids
    • G5 = 1 bid
    • ND or a random 3-4 loss from the B1G/SEC

     

  13. 2 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

    There is quite a bit of variance in the amount of the fees - UNC's is $279; UVA's is $742; and JMU's is $2,362.  I think students voluntarily paying for tickets or passes is different than just taking it out of everyone's tuition.

    Its drastically different.   It's not a volunteer fee, but it's also not institutional support.

  14. 1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

    I don't understand why you think there's a disconnect there. He said schools like his just want a seat at the table and now they have one so they should be good with that. 

    Next post quoted says if they didn't have a seat at the table they'd stop watching college football as much if not at all. What's the disconnect? 

    Seat at the table = content fans who watch college football

    No more seat at the table = upset fans who don't watch college football

    And in both posts he says that their anger is envy of other lower revenue schools who don't have to worry, not anger at the blue bloods.

    Words, right?

    • Haha 1
  15. 7 minutes ago, HookEm said:

    It baffles me that anyone would take NC State over Miami honestly.  Miami is better at just about everything that matters including academics.   A lot more people would tune in to see Texas Tech vs. Miami than TT vs. NC State.  And the icing on the cake is that you can recruit South Florida, probably the most dense area for NFL caliber talent in the whole country.

    Yeah, you wouldn't.   You'd take Miami first.   For those who get stuck in the car and listen to sports radio, they had a conversation on today and one of the national writers, i think from Yahoo, but I came in late, listed what would happen if the ACC fractured.

    The basic order was ND was first by an extremely wide margin.   They're number one on everyone's list if they ever join a conference.   After that though the top two were UNC/UVA.    The reasoning given, and they quoted conference and media contact conversations, was location in two rapidly growing states on the east coast and the combined weight of the university brand being far and away greater than the athletic department's brand.   

    After that it was FSU and then a knife fight between if it would be Clemson or Miami.   Next tiering was VTech, though they're picking a rough time to be bad at everything, then everyone else in the order we'd probably pick them in.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 11 minutes ago, bullet said:

    JMU and ODU have massive student fees.  JMU is $45 million.  ODU is $31 million.  WSU has 1.28 million in student fees along with $14 million in institutional support.

    Yeah, student fees are kind of an accounting trick.   Some schools make kids pay for tickets; some sell them in advance.  Some provide some games for some sports, some provide all.   In Virginia, the state schools all have student tickets as a fee and then there are variations on how much it covers.   JMU's is high, but students get free admission to all sporting events.  It's not quite educational support, in that the school is paying to make the department in the red, but it's clearly a captive audience sale that not all account for in the same way.   UVA and VTech have student fees in the tens of millions too.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  17. 19 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    And then there's Houston... It looks like the *only* reason you'd ever want them is just for the market. Props to UTSA and Texas State for almost reaching Houston revenue levels though.

    Another surprise was how far down Okie Lite is, especially compared to Tech and Iowa State.

    Yeah there are some anomalies.    If you look at the top 50 programs by revenue things get a bit more even:

    • $200M+ Club: Ohio State, Texas, Bama, Michigan, Geogia
    • >$175m: LSU, A&M, Florida, Penn State, Oklahoma
    • >$150m: Auburn, Mich St, Indiana, UVA, FSU, UK, Clemson, Tennessee, Oregon, Arkansas, Iowa
    • >$125m: Louisville, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, South Carolina, Missouri, Minnesota, Ole Miss  (Pretty sure TCU/Baylor/USC fall in this camp)
    • >$100m: Zona, UNC, ASU, Cal, Kansas, Utah, Purdue, VTech, ISU, MSU, Tech, Rutgers, Maryland, GTech, WVU, OkSt, UCLA, NCState, Kansas State (I think BYU falls here)

    I'd expect you'll see UCF, Colorado, Cinci and Houston join the $100m ranks in the next two years.   This list also has a lot of fluctuation on it depending on who gets a good booster run in any given year.   Like you mentioned with UVA's $50m donation, last year they had $105m.   Two years ago Oregon was #1 with over $200m, now they're back to normal.

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. 7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

    Interesting ranking of schools by athletics revenue. Quite a number of surprises. The author does note that some of them might not be typical for a given year (e.g., Virginia got a one-time $40 million donation). He says they're normally in the UNC range. Louisville appears to be overlooked in a lot of conference realignment preferences if their listed revenue figures are like that every year, but Old Dominion and James Madison are the real surprises.

    It'd be really interesting to see a multi-year average for all the athletics departments.

     

    That's an interesting way of looking at it.   Sometimes school funds are there to support a lot of non-revenue sports, just two ways of tackling Title IX.   You can either offer the exact same amount of opportunities, which means cutting mens sports not named football and adding more womens, or you can offer all of the sports possible and don't need to balance the scales.

    Though, sometimes its because sports gets you on tv and you need to be on tv, so spend the cash.

    Both JMU and Old Dominion are exploding in growth because UVA and VTech just can't grow as fast as the state is.   UVA is still 22k students, while if they were like other land grant schools, they'd be 50-60k easy.   What I didn't expect to see though is JMU with nearly twice the revenue as Washington State.   Yeeeooch. 

  19. 11 hours ago, statsman said:

    I don’t get the argument that the top league heads to include 64 teams in order to not lose fan viewership. 
     
    In the UK, there is a Premiere League and lesser leagues, based on attendance, win % and revenue. People still watch their teams, even if relegated. 
     
    In Texas HS, there are different divisions based on student body size. People still watch the games. 
     
    Are you arguing that if ISU, OSU and BYU were in a lower division than the SEC and B1G 10, their fans would stop attending and tuning in?

    I think they would.   The issue I hear often from the ISU/OSU/BYU crowd isn't that they wouldn't support their team, its that they are against silver spoons.  So, if there is a path to promotion and relegation that they could achieve, set it up.  But Vandy shouldn't get a free meal over them due to luck and happenstance.

    If there isn't a way for that to happen, then that's when the number swells.

    I don't mind 64 teams too much, if, and only if, every single game on every one of those 64 teams is against each other.   Having a quarter to a third of the schedule against teams a tier or three below is a bigger problem in my mind, like A&M vs Abeline Christian, than if Ohio State plays Rutgers.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  20. 11 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

    But it's interesting that their premier slot is a no go for home games at the 4 schools they just brought in. They're not really going to kick off at 9am are they?

    My guess, at the money Fox spent, is that those are T2 pick ups.    Noon/3/Prime will be for USC/OSU/Michigan/Penn State and, to a lesser degree, Nebraska or Wisconsin games.    Now if OSU plays the Ducks, then that will bump to T1, but the Ducks/Iowa or Washington/Purdue will be on FS1 during the day and Oregon/UCLA will be a prime time FS1..

    • Hook 'Em 1
  21. 1 hour ago, Wade said:

    Yeah, but something is making Disney uncomfortable.  I don't follow this stuff closely, but I'm guessing Disney's finance department is forecasting icebergs ahead.  Why else would Iger be talking about a strategic partner, and ESPN refusing to compensate SEC for an extra conference game?

    Seems like there's blood in the water, and Fox is all over it.

    Definitely.   Remember there is a major difference here.   ESPN bought the use of the rights to the SEC and ACC until the mid 2030s, but Fox literally owns the rights to the Big Ten.

    All of the Big Ten's rights are owned by the Big Ten Network.    That agreement goes out for a while, its why teams have to buy in, etc etc.   The Big Ten Network then made deals for the T1/2 rights.   But, during the pandemic when schools needed an infusion of funds, Fox bought an additional 10% of B1G, taking them into controlling interest.   This is why Fox sat in the negotiations and why they gobbled up the west coast of what they wanted.   

    This is a different fight than we've seen before, like Fox is using the Mouse pulling back as an opportunity to take space.   We always knew they were not giving CFB the attention they could have for years, with limited marketing.   But once they decided to hit hard, Fox Noon became the premier slot, and their LA studios got some hometown love.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  22. 2 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

    Should they add Oregon State and Wazzou, I think they’re a lock for the 5th auto bid. An undefeated AAC champion might challenge that, but that’s a pretty rare occurrence. 

    My money is on the Sun Belt

×
×
  • Create New...