Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away


The Tower

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Vertigo said:

If you strictly look at it by draft picks over the last 10 years, the order is:

Florida - 316

Texas - 284

California - 253

Georgia - 208

Ohio - 112

There is a precipitous drop off after Georgia, and another precipitous drop after Ohio. That means that the SEC has a stranglehold on 3 of the top 4 talent producing states, plus Louisiana which produces the highest number of NFL players per capita to go along with the other SEC states. The bigger piece behind the draft numbers is that California produces almost zero elite OLine and DLine talent. Therefore, the SEC has an insurmountable advantage in the trenches with only tOSU and Michigan being able to assemble enough talent nationally to compete, which is why they beat the fuck out of everyone else in the CFP. 

I'd be interested to see how many of Cali's were SoCal.   I'd guess the vast majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gatormarc said:

I think he's suggesting that they could be better able to compete once they join the B10 if they wait.

Yes, there are a ton of flaws with that thought process but there is a distinction.

 

Wilner literally says at the end:

Quote

The best way to join the haves in the 2030s is CFP participation in the 2020s.

He's not talking about competing.  He's talking about gaining entry.

 

He also started off with the following, which I didn't originally post, as I was trying to keep it brief.  

Quote

 

Our view of this issue might not be shared by many, but the Hotline believes strongly that CFP expansion in the 2024 season will be the most significant development in the past 40 years, transforming college football in ways the BCS and four-team playoff never did.

(The only comparison for across-the-sport impact is the Supreme Court decision in 1984 that gave the schools the right to control their TV deals.)

Playoff appearances will be the defining aspect of success and visibility — the fuel behind fundraising and a prime driver of recruiting for the remainder of the decade and beyond.

 

He's focused on the playoffs because he's a cheerleader for the PAC, and he knows that UW/UO aren't getting into the BIG.

Wilner literally says UW/UO would be better off not joining the BIG now so that they can win playoff games to build their brand for the inevitable P2 consolidation.  

That's delusional- if they had invites, the best way to join the P2 is to join when invited.  Then you're in.  Full stop.  

 The argument that waiting is better is just cheerleading for the WAC10, which is what Wilner has spent the last 10 months doing.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

 

Wilner literally says at the end:

He's not talking about competing.  He's talking about gaining entry.

 

He also started off with the following, which I didn't originally post, as I was trying to keep it brief.  

He's focused on the playoffs because he's a cheerleader for the PAC, and he knows that UW/UO aren't getting into the BIG.

Wilner literally says UW/UO would be better off not joining the BIG now so that they can win playoff games to build their brand for the inevitable P2 consolidation.  

That's delusional- if they had invites, the best way to join the P2 is to join when invited.  Then you're in.  Full stop.  

 The argument that waiting is better is just cheerleading for the WAC10, which is what Wilner has spent the last 10 months doing.

I think you are right that they should join the Big Ten regardless of how little they are offered just because they will probably eventually get a full share, but it's not guaranteed.  I do not think the Big Ten is eager to add UW and UO, so let's say the highest they offer them is a 1/3 share for the rest of the TV contracts without the guarantee of a full share when the new agreements are negotiated.  In that scenario, I could see where it may be better for them to stay in the Pac 12 and try to build their brand for the next several years.

Either way, i think this is a theoretical exercise, as I do not think the Big Ten is going to offer them anything anytime soon.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:
Quote

The best way to join the haves in the 2030s is CFP participation in the 2020s.

He's not talking about competing.  He's talking about gaining entry.

OK... I was reading it as the "haves" being Ohio State, Penn State, etc. since he's talking about brand power right in that same statement.

Northwesern is not a "have" if you are talking brand power as he's talking about improving by staying in the PacX

Northwestern is a "have" in that they are in P2 as he's also talking about getting an invitation to the BigY

So both of us appear to be right since he's defined it both ways.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

The Hotline believes strongly that CFP expansion in the 2024 season will be the most significant development in the past 40 years, transforming college football in ways the BCS and four-team playoff never did.

This is the most accurate thing he's ever written and its not really a news flash.   

Texas/USC is the largest college football audience of all time at 35m, but this was a championship. Ohio State and Georgia, to behemoth brands in the sport, drew a 9.8 rating (e.g. 9.8% of all people watching TV at that time slot in the US were watching this game) with 22m people for their semi final this year.  That's an insane amount of viewership.   Big brands, at their best, slugging it out for an entire game.   And they did it with their hands tied on new years eve, which has proven to have about a 20-28% smaller audience than years when that calendar quirk doesn't occur.   That means the game could have been around 28m viewers normally.    

TCU, who is not a national brand, and Michigan had an audience of 21.75m and a 10 rating for their semi.   TCU.   

Now, the natty blew for an audience, but that's because the game was over 5 minutes in.   You need to go down to the wire (e.g. Texas/USC) for the colossal ratings to occur.  But the point is that TCU probably drew as big of an audience in one game as they did in all of their games in the regular season.   The exposure jump is gigantic and now it is going to be ramped up higher.

Conference championship games will be higher because the winner gets to play and the loser has to pray.   The first round gives games on campus 10 days later - where there were never games to watch before.   Then we get into this massive window we have now.   November-January will control college football and the teams who get there often will become the new kings of the sport.

Add to this that they are expected to pay out 1.2b yearly and it will be broken up by team count for conferences, with an adder for participation, and playing in the top 12 will become a barometer for the haves and have-nots.

Let's say they pay out with 20% going to some sort of player benefit, be it stipends or increased medical or whatever.   The remaining 80% could be split 25% on participants and 75% on team count for conferences.   That means each team in a conference could make $9m each for doing nothing.    Now the 12 teams, if you paid them the remaining value and factored byes as win, means you have 8 games to pay out.   That means each win could earn you roughly $15m.   Bow out in the first round, $15m.  Get a bye by winning a CCG, you made $30m.   Win the natty, you made $60m - on top of your conference take.

The other way of doing it, which i think they'll likely end up doing, is rolling shares like they use for March Madness.    This way the swings are not so great, and the conferences control the money, not the teams.    In short, there is a baseline payment valued by team in the conference (sorry Pac, you don't get the benefit the B12 used) and then participation shares for who plays, and wins.   There are about 22 shares to be earned per year, depending on how you break it up.   If you get in 3 teams and win it, you could net about 10 shares, or 45% of that year's pot.   Put that on a rolling 3 year average and you can see where the B1G/SEC start to benefit greatly.

This got super long without needing to be because I'm in a meeting I don't need to be in.   But the point is the off season is now going to eclipse the regular season in value.   All that matters now, to remain relevant, is making it into the December games.

Edited by Hurtlocker
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

Wilner has really lost it.  This is comedy gold.

Wilner thinks the best way for UW/UO to get into the P2 is to pass on any P2 invitation they receive now, in order to have playoff success to build up their resume to enable them to....................join the P2 in the 2030's.

😂😂😂

This argument gets even dumber when you realize it relies on the faulty assumption both conferences will only get 1 CFP bid.  He's right about the Pac, but the 16 team B1G will send 3 teams to the playoff most years while an 18 team B1G (adding Oregon and Washington) would get 4 most years.  1/10 = 10%, 3/16 = 18.75%, 4/16 = 25%, 3/18 = 16.67%, 4/18 = 22.2%.  B1G teams will be able to survive a loss or two and still make the CFP.  Pac teams are fucked if they don't win the conference.  It would take something like Oregon and Washington going undefeated except when they play each other plus each of them winning big noncon games for the Pac to get an at large bid.

Then there's the recruiting angle.  If you're in the B1G you can sell multiple prime time games a year against CFP contenders full of future NFLers.  If you're in the Pac you can sell weeknight and 10:30 PM ET games against Washington State and Cal teams full of guys who will go pro in something other than sports.  I'd have a little more respect for Wilner if he just said he wants teams to stay in the Pac to keep his job relevant because there is no other angle that makes sense.

4 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Staying in PAC 10 for 6 more years will only hinder your recruiting, especially without USC there. I think in the 2023 cycle USC and Oregon were the only programs in the entire conference to land a 5 star. 

As a new potential TV deal with majority streaming seems to be their best move for those 6 years, one could draw the conclusion that the talent going to the west will dwindle. Majority of football talent in the US resides in Midwest/Southeast. That is why it would be imperative for Washington/Oregon to move to the Midwest/Southeast because not doing so further isolates them to west coast talent and lack of visibility with regards to TV.

Edit: disregard, didn't read newer replies

Edited by Trojan Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trojan Man said:

This argument gets even dumber when you realize it relies on the faulty assumption both conferences will only get 1 CFP bid.  He's right about the Pac, but the 16 team B1G will send 3 teams to the playoff most years while an 18 team B1G (adding Oregon and Washington) would get 4 most years.  1/10 = 10%, 3/16 = 18.75%, 4/16 = 25%, 3/18 = 16.67%, 4/18 = 22.2%.  B1G teams will be able to survive a loss or two and still make the CFP.  Pac teams are fucked if they don't win the conference.  It would take something like Oregon and Washington going undefeated except when they play each other plus each of them winning big noncon games for the Pac to get an at large bid.

For the B1G I had the math break out to be more like:

  • 16 = 2.5 teams per year
  • 18 = 2.9
  • 20 = 3.2

It diminishes a bit, because there is still only 6 spots to fill, grabbing half of them requires that either something else goes horribly wrong with everyone else, or someone else isn't at the table any longer.  Also, if the B12 goes up to 16 they'll have less losses too, which will improve someone's chances.   Its messy math and won't every follow through year over year.   

If I were the Big Ten, I'd stay at 16 until ND raises its hand.

If I were Oregon and Washington, I'd be negotiating to be the big dogs of the B12, with two friends.

If I'm the Big 12, i just want one to start it, but I want Oregon, Arizona, Washington, Colorado, in that order.

Edited by Hurtlocker
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per Ross Dellenger, this what could have been 2022 bracket was handed out by the CFB Playoff Committee to media

 

Image

 

So lets put teams with their new conference:

 

BIG - 4(Michigan, Ohio St, USC, Penn St)

SEC - 3(Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee)

Big 12 - 2(TCU, Kansas St)

ACC - 1(Clemson)

PAC - 1(Utah)

G5 - Tulane

 

 

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

For the B1G I had the math break out to be more like:

  • 16 = 2.5 teams per year
  • 18 = 2.9
  • 20 = 3.2

It diminishes a bit, because there is still only 6 spots to fill, grabbing half of them requires that either something else goes horribly wrong with everyone else, or someone else isn't at the table any longer.  Also, if the B12 goes up to 16 they'll have less losses too, which will improve someone's chances.   Its messy math and won't every follow through year over year.   

If I were the Big Ten, I'd stay at 16 until ND raises its hand.

If I were Oregon and Washington, I'd be negotiating to be the big dogs of the B12, with two friends.

If I'm the Big 12, i just want one to start it, but I want Oregon, Arizona, Washington, Colorado, in that order.

Right, I saw your math post.  It was sound but I think you underestimated how much the B1G and SEC will dominate at large bid discussion.  Of course there will always be some year to year variance but the B1G and SEC are getting 3 bids (1 champ + 2 at large) most years with 4 bid years more common than 2 bid years.  That will leave the ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12 fighting over the last 2 at large bids.  The 14 team versions of the B1G and the SEC have already had years where they individually get half the bids in a 4 bid playoff, so getting 25-33% of the bids in a 12 team playoff after they expand to 16 teams isn't out of reach.  The biggest brands outside the P2 have to go on runs to keep the B1G and SEC from owning the at large conversation.  Teams like Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and Utah could put a serious dent in the at large pool if some of them can sustain prosperity.  10-2 Notre Dame and 10-2 Oregon might get at large bids over 10-2 Auburn and 10-2 Wisconsin.  10-2 Arizona State and 10-2 Pitt are probably not beating 10-2 Auburn and 10-2 Wisconsin for at large bids.

When it comes to realignment I don't know if the university presidents see it this way.  The commissioners certainly do.  You're spot on with the B1G and Big 12 strategies.  It seems so obvious that those Pac 12 schools should join the Big 12, but there is a lot of academic snobbery and coastal arrogance they'll have to swallow to join the Big 12.  The two friends part could cause issues as well because Arizona and Colorado may not be the friends they prefer to bring.  Abandoning Oregon State and Washington State for the B1G is one thing, but it might be harder to pull that off politically for a move to the Big 12.  If they insist on bringing their little brothers to the Big 12 that should be a non-starter for the Big 12 unless Oregon and Washington either sign a rock solid longterm GOR or there is a clause stating Beav/Coug membership can be revoked if Oregon and Washington leave the conference.  Getting stuck with Oregon State and Washington State in exchange for 5-10 years of having Oregon and Washington would be a terrible outcome for the Big 12.

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Per Ross Dellenger, this what could have been 2022 bracket was handed out by the CFB Playoff Committee to media

 

Image

 

So lets put teams with their new conference:

 

BIG - 4(Michigan, Ohio St, USC, Penn St)

SEC - 3(Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee)

Big 12 - 2(TCU, Kansas St)

ACC - 1(Clemson)

PAC - 1(Utah)

G5 - Tulane

 

 

Goes to show the importance of winning your conference, which I like despite costing my team big time in this scenario.  USC's CCG loss drops them from a bye week to a trip to Alabama in the first round.  Kansas State isn't in without winning the Big 12 and Utah probably isn't in without winning the Pac 12.  I hope they provide some flexibility to alter seeds by 1 spot to avoid first round rematches, like Penn State/Ohio State.  Swap seeds for either Penn State and Tulane or Ohio State and TCU.  Also it's really dumb the top 4 seeds don't get a home game while 5-8 get a home game.  I expect that to change when the teams that always get a top 4 seed point out how shitty it is to punish them for being too good.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, USC Traveler said:

 

Wilner literally says UW/UO would be better off not joining the BIG now so that they can win playoff games to build their brand for the inevitable P2 consolidation.  

That's delusional- if they had invites, the best way to join the P2 is to join when invited.  Then you're in.  Full stop.  

 The argument that waiting is better is just cheerleading for the WAC10, which is what Wilner has spent the last 10 months doing.

It's fair to assume that when he's saying "Big Ten" he really means "Big 12."  He thinks UW/UO have a better shot of eventually getting a Big Ten invite by staying in the PAC, not leaving if/when the 4C leave. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Right, I saw your math post.  It was sound but I think you underestimated how much the B1G and SEC will dominate at large bid discussion.  Of course there will always be some year to year variance but the B1G and SEC are getting 3 bids (1 champ + 2 at large) most years with 4 bid years more common than 2 bid years.  That will leave the ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12 fighting over the last 2 at large bids.  The 14 team versions of the B1G and the SEC have already had years where they individually get half the bids in a 4 bid playoff, so getting 25-33% of the bids in a 12 team playoff after they expand to 16 teams isn't out of reach.  The biggest brands outside the P2 have to go on runs to keep the B1G and SEC from owning the at large conversation.  Teams like Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and Utah could put a serious dent in the at large pool if some of them can sustain prosperity.  10-2 Notre Dame and 10-2 Oregon might get at large bids over 10-2 Auburn and 10-2 Wisconsin.  10-2 Arizona State and 10-2 Pitt are probably not beating 10-2 Auburn and 10-2 Wisconsin for at large bids.

When it comes to realignment I don't know if the university presidents see it this way.  The commissioners certainly do.  You're spot on with the B1G and Big 12 strategies.  It seems so obvious that those Pac 12 schools should join the Big 12, but there is a lot of academic snobbery and coastal arrogance they'll have to swallow to join the Big 12.  The two friends part could cause issues as well because Arizona and Colorado may not be the friends they prefer to bring.  Abandoning Oregon State and Washington State for the B1G is one thing, but it might be harder to pull that off politically for a move to the Big 12.  If they insist on bringing their little brothers to the Big 12 that should be a non-starter for the Big 12 unless Oregon and Washington either sign a rock solid longterm GOR or there is a clause stating Beav/Coug membership can be revoked if Oregon and Washington leave the conference.  Getting stuck with Oregon State and Washington State in exchange for 5-10 years of having Oregon and Washington would be a terrible outcome for the Big 12.

Goes to show the importance of winning your conference, which I like despite costing my team big time in this scenario.  USC's CCG loss drops them from a bye week to a trip to Alabama in the first round.  Kansas State isn't in without winning the Big 12 and Utah probably isn't in without winning the Pac 12.  I hope they provide some flexibility to alter seeds by 1 spot to avoid first round rematches, like Penn State/Ohio State.  Swap seeds for either Penn State and Tulane or Ohio State and TCU.  Also it's really dumb the top 4 seeds don't get a home game while 5-8 get a home game.  I expect that to change when the teams that always get a top 4 seed point out how shitty it is to punish them for being too good.

I think when they have to seed and etc from 5-12 they'll show more thought into those picks. Gotta remember this was pulled from rankings that only had to have top 4 basically. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

I think you are right that they should join the Big Ten regardless of how little they are offered just because they will probably eventually get a full share, but it's not guaranteed.  I do not think the Big Ten is eager to add UW and UO, so let's say the highest they offer them is a 1/3 share for the rest of the TV contracts without the guarantee of a full share when the new agreements are negotiated.  In that scenario, I could see where it may be better for them to stay in the Pac 12 and try to build their brand for the next several years.

Either way, i think this is a theoretical exercise, as I do not think the Big Ten is going to offer them anything anytime soon.

Agreed.  I don't think either is getting into the BIG.

I was just amazed at the gymnastics Wilner was doing to spin that as a positive for those schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Most damning quote in that article: "Consultants tell us FSU is paid 7%, but worth 15% of the ACC's contract"

  • ACC's contract  = $240m/year
  • FSU's estimated value per year = $33.6m

No offense to our favorite Nole, but it seems we've been overestimating the brand power of FSU.

I think the Noles and Clemson get out of the GOR by saying they’re being  irreparably harmed by making so much less than other conferences 

Edited by Gidnik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gidnik said:

I think the Noles and Clemson get out of the GOR by saying they’re being  irreparably harmed by making so much less than other conferences 

"We're being irreparably harmed by a stupid, extremely long contract we signed of our own free will so it should be nullified"

Damn, if only my Angels realized they could have used this on Pujols...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gidnik said:

I think the Noles and Clemson get out of the GOR by saying they’re being  irreparably harmed by making so much less than other conferences 

I think they COULD get out of it because a GOR has never been challenged by a state entity. Hard to have the state enforce an agreement against itself, and who knows what will happen at the federal level as states do have autonomy.

But ultimately, I think ESPN won’t want to encourage them the test the limits of the GOR and that they have a vested interest in keeping the ACC alive (even without its top schools the East Coast league still has value and expansion options).

I’d wager that ESPN will give the ACC just enough additional dollars to be allocated to FSU/Clemson/UNC/Miami to keep them competitive by re-working their deal for more conference games and better OOC matchups with ESPN owned properties (SEC, B12, AAC, MAC, SBC) and less Big Ten, MWC, CUSA and FCS teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Trojan Man said:

"We're being irreparably harmed by a stupid, extremely long contract we signed of our own free will so it should be nullified"

Damn, if only my Angels realized they could have used this on Pujols...

Private agreements with Public entities are very different than deals between two Private parties. The State and Fed fuck over private contractors quite regularly.

The entity of the ACC may be fucked, but the Public schools like FSU/Clemson might be able to break their GOR if motivated enough especially with a motivated state legislature and governor behind them passing targeted laws to help their cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Private agreements with Public entities are very different than deals between two Private parties. The State and Fed fuck over private contractors quite regularly.

The entity of the ACC may be fucked, but the Public schools like FSU/Clemson might be able to break their GOR if motivated enough especially with a motivated state legislature and governor behind them passing targeted laws to help their cause.

Could public schools make this same argument to tear up a shitty coaching contract they regret?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Thanks, I thought Leach and Beard were just fired with cause over off field problems (which was a joke in Leach's case) but that makes the ACC drama a lot more interesting if it was with a mechanic schools could use to void their GOR.  However, if the GOR is struck down too soon you have to wonder if the networks will have the desire or even the money to start paying 4-8 ACC teams B1G/SEC rates since they're all economically struggling right now.  I think they'd like to have a few years seeing how their 16 team conferences financially perform before deciding to hand out more golden tickets.  It's one thing to get Maryland and Rutgers on half shares for their first few years but I don't see Florida State and Clemson going for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the schools signed up with another conference, that conference’s broadcast partners could not broadcast the games because the schools couldn’t grant them the rights. If they did the new conference network partners could get sued by the other networks who are parties to the grant of rights. That is what makes them effective. But since the sec and ACC are both heavily partnered with Espn, that could change the dynamic. Kind of like how UT/OU could have left earlier without as much grief but fox was a roadblock that finally got worked out.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 'stache said:

If the schools signed up with another conference, that conference’s broadcast partners could not broadcast the games because the schools couldn’t grant them the rights. If they did the new conference network partners could get sued by the other networks who are parties to the grant of rights. That is what makes them effective. But since the sec and ACC are both heavily partnered with Espn, that could change the dynamic. Kind of like how UT/OU could have left earlier without as much grief but fox was a roadblock that finally got worked out.

With CBS out of the equation you are completely correct with regards to SEC/ACC and ESPN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

Right, I saw your math post.  It was sound but I think you underestimated how much the B1G and SEC will dominate at large bid discussion.  Of course there will always be some year to year variance but the B1G and SEC are getting 3 bids (1 champ + 2 at large) most years with 4 bid years more common than 2 bid years.  That will leave the ACC, Big 12 and Pac 12 fighting over the last 2 at large bids.  The 14 team versions of the B1G and the SEC have already had years where they individually get half the bids in a 4 bid playoff, so getting 25-33% of the bids in a 12 team playoff after they expand to 16 teams isn't out of reach.  The biggest brands outside the P2 have to go on runs to keep the B1G and SEC from owning the at large conversation.  Teams like Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Notre Dame, Oregon, Washington and Utah could put a serious dent in the at large pool if some of them can sustain prosperity.  10-2 Notre Dame and 10-2 Oregon might get at large bids over 10-2 Auburn and 10-2 Wisconsin.  10-2 Arizona State and 10-2 Pitt are probably not beating 10-2 Auburn and 10-2 Wisconsin for at large bids.

When it comes to realignment I don't know if the university presidents see it this way.  The commissioners certainly do.  You're spot on with the B1G and Big 12 strategies.  It seems so obvious that those Pac 12 schools should join the Big 12, but there is a lot of academic snobbery and coastal arrogance they'll have to swallow to join the Big 12.  The two friends part could cause issues as well because Arizona and Colorado may not be the friends they prefer to bring.  Abandoning Oregon State and Washington State for the B1G is one thing, but it might be harder to pull that off politically for a move to the Big 12.  If they insist on bringing their little brothers to the Big 12 that should be a non-starter for the Big 12 unless Oregon and Washington either sign a rock solid longterm GOR or there is a clause stating Beav/Coug membership can be revoked if Oregon and Washington leave the conference.  Getting stuck with Oregon State and Washington State in exchange for 5-10 years of having Oregon and Washington would be a terrible outcome for the Big 12.

 

On the first, it really comes down to how deep value goes and how many spots are left.  The way the ACC/B12 are set up, it is favorable that they could get a second team in far more often than they won't.  This is due to them placing their top two teams in the CCG.   Both can consistently, but not always, make a compelling argument that the winner gets the bye and the loser ends up in one of the final four seeds.  Then there is the ND factor.   They don't take a bye, but they can take an at large.   With their brand size, they'll get the benefit of the doubt.   So how often do they make the cut?   I kind of guessed every other year, but whatever number you believe will work here.   An easy solution would just be that ND fills in the years where one of the B12/ACC don't have a wild card, that way we can count those three groups as having 2 total wild cards a year in total.    Matter a fact, i'd add the Pac 10.   E.g. the B12/ACC/PAC/ND will share 2 wild cards in any given year.

That leaves us 4 spots for the B1G and SEC.   The limit of 6 is the factor here because now the 4th best team in the B1G/SEC has to have a compelling story to tell as to why they deserve in over a team that played in a CCG (or ND).    Did they beat all the teams above them?   If not, why do we care?  Its far easier to make a case for the 3rd - the team that just missed out on the CCG, the loser of Ohio State/Michigan, etc.   

Last year would look like this:

  • Byes: Clemson, Michigan, Kansas State, Georgia, Utah, Tulane
  • Wild Cards: TCU, Ohio State, Alabama, Tennessee, USC, Penn State.
  • ACC - 1, B1G - 3, B12 - 2, SEC - 3, Pac - 2, AAC - 1

That's pretty much how I think the count will look the majority of the time, with that last extra team floating between the ACC/B12/Pac/ND, last year it just happened to the the Pac and B12 who got it.   (I see what you said with USC, but you can't just move them, they didn't play a B1G conference record so the losses aren't against the B1G, the B12 wouldn't get 3 in if Utah or Tulane joined.  Agree that USC definitely will always be in the hunt for the B1G's top seeds with OSU/Mich/Penn State though.)   

On your second point, yes agree completely.    Seems the Pac administrators are where the B12 was in 2009-10, which is "what?   no one would do that"   Also, agree, I don't think the B12 would grab anyone for 5-10 years nor take Oregon State nor Washington State.  If Arizona and Colorado come, odds are high you can get Arizona State.   That leaves one spot for 16.   They don't have a lot of benefit going past 16 at this point.    I also think they could wait it out to the next contract too.   They're secure at the moment, the only one walking the razor's edge is the Pac and changing their situation requires someone throwing them a bone.   Its really just a question of if someone decides to take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Gidnik said:

I think the Noles and Clemson get out of the GOR by saying they’re being  irreparably harmed by making so much less than other conferences 

That didn't work for George Michael, or the Beatles, or Lil Kim, or Taylor Swift.   

If you signed it in good faith, and you agreed to the media deal, and you're being paid on that media deal as was structured at signing, you're not irreparably harmed by the decision you made.  

Florida State and Clemson could have left the ACC before signing that agreement, AND they would have made more money.   But they chose not to, no one forced them.   

They can bitch, but they're stuck without someone writing a gigantic check to free them.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hurtlocker said:

That didn't work for George Michael, or the Beatles, or Lil Kim, or Taylor Swift.   

If you signed it in good faith, and you agreed to the media deal, and you're being paid on that media deal as was structured at signing, you're not irreparably harmed by the decision you made.  

Florida State and Clemson could have left the ACC before signing that agreement, AND they would have made more money.   But they chose not to, no one forced them.   

They can bitch, but they're stuck without someone writing a gigantic check to free them.

I think even if they have to pay a substantial buyout to do so it would be worth it in the long run and can surely make up for that loss via the new revenue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I think even if they have to pay a substantial buyout to do so it would be worth it in the long run and can surely make up for that loss via the new revenue. 

I think it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter billion, at this point, all in with buyout and GoR negotiation.

So who is picking them up?  

Honestly, I still cannot believe FSU/Clemson signed that deal.   They wanted their own network so badly they signed away all the cash.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hurtlocker said:

I think it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter billion, at this point, all in with buyout and GoR negotiation.

So who is picking them up?  

Honestly, I still cannot believe FSU/Clemson signed that deal.   They wanted their own network so badly they signed away all the cash.

Last I saw it was 120 million or so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

That didn't work for George Michael, or the Beatles, or Lil Kim, or Taylor Swift.

Very different enforcing a contract on a private individual, versus a state. 

25 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Last I saw it was 120 million or so....

That was just the ACC exit fee. The GOR is a whole other thing ON TOP of the 120 million. Breaking the GOR would cost FSU around $700million all in if you assume FSU is worth twice as much as they are being paid…and even more if you have data to prove ESPN is underpaying the ACC in general meaning the damage realistically could more over $1billion.

That how ridiculous of a situation the ACC is in under their current contract that goes until 2036.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Very different enforcing a contract on a private individual, versus a state. 

That was just the ACC exit fee. The GOR is a whole other thing ON TOP of the 120 million. Breaking the GOR would cost FSU around $700million all in if you assume FSU is worth twice as much as they are being paid…and even more if you have data to prove ESPN is underpaying the ACC in general meaning the damage realistically could more over $1billion.

That how ridiculous of a situation the ACC is in under their current contract that goes until 2036.

gotcha, thanks.

 

 

But as stache pointed out, ESPN owns those rights....so going to another ESPN only conference(SEC) could alleviate that.

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Last I saw it was 120 million or so....

$120m is just for the ACC buyout, 3 years of revenue (including tourny, bowl games, post season, its bigger than the broadcast).   

You need to negotiate out of the GoR too, which is only broadcast rights.    13 years x 240m yearly = $3.12b left on the deal.

To buy the rights out of that is somewhere in the neighborhood of $234m if they're worth 7%, or up to $468m, if they're worth 15%.  For above, I factored half of the lowest number, adding up to around $250m all in with GoR negotiations and ACC buyout.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

gotcha, thanks.

 

 

But as stache pointed out, ESPN owns those rights....so going to another ESPN only conference(SEC) could alleviate that.

The rights are owned by the ACC, not ESPN.   ESPN leases them from the ACC.    The Grant of Rights is not between FSU and ESPN, its between FSU and the ACC.   So moving to the SEC would just mean whatever FSU/Clemson were paid, would go to the ACC, not those schools.

Edited by Hurtlocker
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Very different enforcing a contract on a private individual, versus a state. 

But, it isn't really.   They signed a deal for monetary gain with a duration to it.  Due to the fact that it has a duration, and they will get their rights back - it isn't into perpetuity, it is pretty tight.  Its a bit like Muni bonds that states use all the time.   You give me money to build something, I pay you per year for it, then at the end of the contract you get your money back.   The fact that you want more money in the middle of the deal doesn't make it invalid.   No one is screwing over FSU/Clemson, they chose this deal.   All the judge has to do is point at the bottom and ask, "but, you signed this right?   You wanted it, right?   This person had the legal authority to sign this, right?"

"Yes, but someone else got more 4 years later" isn't really a valid argument.    ESPN could easily counter with the costs of building a network for the ACC and how much FSU owes for that creation, which was built off the understanding that FSU/Clemson and everyone else, would be there to defray the costs over time.  Not to mention the reams of evidence of the number of eyeballs they aren't bringing in vs the deal they think they're entitled.

I know we all want GoR's to be like gotcha traps, but they are not.   Don't sign them if you don't want them, period.

Edited by Hurtlocker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

The sovereign immunity thing as an out for GoR's is a joke/meme pointed to by smooth brain lawyers.  If it could have been used, it would have been used at this point.

By who? OU and UT negotiated one year of their GoR into oblivion (and didn't even have to pay the full amount of the separate exit fee). I suppose we could have gone the sovereign immunity route, but for what? One year? What a waste of legal resources. No one else has been in a position where they'd need to seriously challenge a GoR. We may find out if it could really work. But I don't think we ever will. All of the lawyers will get together, charge all of their clients a small fortune, do some 'work' and their clients will each and all go their separate ways with the GoR, and other relevant contractual demands, carefully negotiated away.

Edited by ouflak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ouflak said:

By who? OU and UT negotiated one year of their GoR into oblivion (and didn't even have to pay the full amount of the separate exit fee). I suppose we could have gone the sovereign immunity route, but for what? One year? What a waste of legal resources. No one else has been in a position where they'd need to seriously challenge a GoR. We may find. But I don't think we ever will. All of the lawyers will get together, charge all of their clients a small fortune, do some 'work' and their clients will each and all go their separate ways.

There is a major difference between negotiating the end of an agreement and breaking it in court.

Also Sovereign Immunity doesn't mean the state isn't bound to contracts it signs, it just means, very generally, that the state can't be prosecuted.

In this case, no one needs to sue the states.   The States would need to sue the ACC to get their rights back.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

There is a major difference between negotiating the end of an agreement and breaking it in court.

Also Sovereign Immunity doesn't mean the state isn't bound to contracts it signs, it just means, very generally, that the state can't be prosecuted.

In this case, no one needs to sue the states.   The States would need to sue the ACC to get their rights back.

 

Assuming everything you say is absolutely 100% true, I still say that when any moment of truth comes, there will not be any courts involved, no sovereign immunity, no prosecutions, and no law suits. It will be a bunch of guys (ok fine, maybe one of them will be a gal) in a room hammering away at a deal that everybody can, and will, eventually live with. And that will be that.

Edited by ouflak
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ouflak said:

Assuming everything you say is absolutely 100% true, I still say that when any moment of truth comes, there will not be any courts involved, no sovereign immunity, no prosecutions, and no law suits. It will be a bunch of guys (ok fine, maybe one of them will be a gal) in a room hammering away at a deal that everybody can, and will, eventually live with. And that will be that.

Agree man, totally.   My argument is that it is just easy to negate the contract.   It is not.

Negotiations on the other hand, that's exactly how it will happen.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

Agree man, totally.   My argument is that it is just easy to negate the contract.   It is not.

Negotiations on the other hand, that's exactly how it will happen.     

We’re all in agreement, but my point is:

States entities have more leverage than your average private individual.

GOR have not been tested with a state entity (as far as I am aware).

The GOR has a great chance of holding up (not arguing otherwise)

Additional legislation by motivated governments (State of Florida or South Carolina) can also assist in poking holes even if the first challenge fails.

Doing nothing will be costly for both FSU/Clemson, the ACC, and ESPN as legal battles are expensive.

I think they will likely come to some sort of an agreement, but for now we are just seeing the first in a long line of public back and forths between the schools/conference/ESPN that will ultimately be settled.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/25/2023 at 10:29 PM, Hurtlocker said:

Right, it's not absolute, its probability.   The point here isn't that no three loss teams would make it into the CFP, it's that with the expansion of conferences, even with going to 9 conference games, there should be a sizable amount of two loss teams to fill the slots.  Never, under any circumstance, was it stated that it would never happen, just that the probability is low for several reasons:

  1. As many as 11 P5 teams (Including ND) should have 2 losses or less in any given year
  2. The 12th team is the next highest champ outside of the P5.  These are usually outside the top 15, even with less losses.  That means there will be more teams will less loses available for those 6 spots.
  3. With the expansion to 16 there will be more B1G and SEC teams with 2 losses or less, making the best 3 loss team potentially the 4th option within that conference.  This may be the single biggest reason why there are less 3 loss B1G/SEC teams - they can get 3 in with two-losses (or less!)
  4. With B12 expansion to 12 (or 14 for the ACC) there is a higher chance for more 2 loss or less teams being viable contenders.

With 11.38 possible 0-2 loss teams in the P5 per year it is extremely probable that you get this result, yearly:

  • B1G = 3 total, Champ + two 2 loss or better
  • SEC = 3 total, Champ + two 2 loss or better
  • ACC = 2 total, Champ + one 2 loss or better
  • B12 = 2 total, Champ + one 2 loss or better
  • PAC = 1, Champ
  • Non-P5 = 1, Champ

The B1G and SEC should have 2.25 teams, each, per year who have 3 losses.  Those teams need to have a good enough record against their own conference (e.g. wins come against the best teams, not the worst) to beat out 2 spots.   That's it, two available spots, that extra ACC/B12 team.  

Of course, it could be a year like last year where there was a 3 loss team in the top ten and there were a lot more losses to go around to everyone - that's when reality kicks probability in the balls.

There have been a couple of years where three 3 loss teams were in the top 12.  And there have been years when everyone had 2 losses or less and 2 loss teams got left out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bullet said:

There have been a couple of years where three 3 loss teams were in the top 12.  And there have been years when everyone had 2 losses or less and 2 loss teams got left out.

Yeah I'm with you.   Last year KState was 10 with a 9-3 record, over other B1G and Pac 2 loss teams, but they would have been in due to the CCG anyway.

The overall point isn't it won't ever happen, schedules being schedules, results being results, etc.   It is that moving to 16 teams, instead of 10 or 12 or 14, you can have more 2 loss teams, making it harder for a 3 loss to break into the top four.   Its not that they ever won't, it is just that the table is set to have more options for less losses.  Its also not that its about 3 loss beating a 2 loss of another conference, it is will that 3 loss make it out of their own conference ranks.  The fourth ranked team in any conference is usually going to have some concerns on their schedule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2023 at 11:42 AM, USC Traveler said:

 

Wilner literally says at the end:

He's not talking about competing.  He's talking about gaining entry.

 

He also started off with the following, which I didn't originally post, as I was trying to keep it brief.  

He's focused on the playoffs because he's a cheerleader for the PAC, and he knows that UW/UO aren't getting into the BIG.

Wilner literally says UW/UO would be better off not joining the BIG now so that they can win playoff games to build their brand for the inevitable P2 consolidation.  

That's delusional- if they had invites, the best way to join the P2 is to join when invited.  Then you're in.  Full stop.  

 The argument that waiting is better is just cheerleading for the WAC10, which is what Wilner has spent the last 10 months doing.

Wilner thinks UW and Oregon are gone in 2030.  So he's sugar coating what they are stuck with for the next 7 years.  He seems to hope Stanford and Cal get an invite to the Big 10 also.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter billion, at this point, all in with buyout and GoR negotiation.

So who is picking them up?  

Honestly, I still cannot believe FSU/Clemson signed that deal.   They wanted their own network so badly they signed away all the cash.

Dabo was afraid of moving.  FSU's Barron was an academic snob.  Probably learned it on the faculty at UT.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ouflak said:

By who? OU and UT negotiated one year of their GoR into oblivion (and didn't even have to pay the full amount of the separate exit fee). I suppose we could have gone the sovereign immunity route, but for what? One year? What a waste of legal resources. No one else has been in a position where they'd need to seriously challenge a GoR. We may find out if it could really work. But I don't think we ever will. All of the lawyers will get together, charge all of their clients a small fortune, do some 'work' and their clients will each and all go their separate ways with the GoR, and other relevant contractual demands, carefully negotiated away.

Nobody ever pays the full exit fee.  2 years of revenue is absurd and would most times lose in court.  These exit fees were written when revenues were 1/3 to 1/2 of what they are now.

Big 12 needed to move on, had their new deal and so we paid a small amount.  They weren't getting any more with us staying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

GOR have not been tested with a state entity (as far as I am aware).

Additional legislation by motivated governments (State of Florida or South Carolina) can also assist in poking holes even if the first challenge fails.

 

 

Yeah, outside the 1984 case giving the rights back to schools, not really.   But that was a different structure completely.   States do control their rights now and do assign what occurs with them.   That's what the GoR is for.    I also am not aware of any because normally they aren't the topic of conversation.   We provided this thing for you to make us money on it for a set amount of time.   It's like most advertising or signage deals through IMG or another.   Its too expensive, fee wise, to do it one year at a time, so they bundle it together for multi-year deals.  They're far more helpful to the school than harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bullet said:

Nobody ever pays the full exit fee.  2 years of revenue is absurd and would most times lose in court.  These exit fees were written when revenues were 1/3 to 1/2 of what they are now.

Big 12 needed to move on, had their new deal and so we paid a small amount.  They weren't getting any more with us staying.

The Big 12's was signed in 2012 and ACC's was a few years later.   These are not archaic documents.   Also, not sure how it loses in court so easily.  If so, why even negotiate, why create and sign them in the first place.   If it would fail most times, the lawyer's fees to break it wouldn't get close to the $80m exit fee.

The big hold up with the Big 12 change wasn't conference buyouts, that was worked out in the last two years of withheld payments.   The issue was the grant of rights and Fox.   They would reduce payment for the Big 12 for no Texas/OU in 2024, which would have forced the B12 to not negotiate the rights out if they weren't even.   Once Fox got the Michigan/Texas game in 2024, everyone was happy and they could part ways even in the rights department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a summary of the three most reasonable PAC10 scenarios and outcomes.

Probability 1: The new deal turns out to be around 25mill per year per team with a 60/40 split linear to streaming ratio. If this is the best they can do, then the conference is doomed and the 4 corners + OUW join the BIG12. (Unless of course OUW get the BIG invite)

Probability 2: A 6 year 1.8billion dollar deal is on the table. That comes out to 30ill a year per school as long as they don't expand. This deal is also 60/40 split linear to streaming. The reason nobody has signed off on this deal is that nobody signs until everybody signs. Eight of the PAC10 schools are happy with this deal but OUW is lobbying for a BIG invite.

Probability 3: The BIG invites OUW by the end of June. The odds of OUW getting into the BIG have increased recently for a few reasons: A. They quickly hired a new commissioner knowing that if they were going to expand they could do it now or in about 6 years. B. Originally the Eastern Block was uneasy about having four left coast schools to travel to and preferred to stay at two. But as it turns out it is more equal for the Eastern Block if there are four west coast schools. Here's why: The BIG plays 9 conference games. To lesson the stress on traveling, the left coast schools would host 5 conference games a season and only have to travel for 4 conference games a season. If you have only have two west coast schools those two schools would host a combined total of 10 home games and of course 1 of those games will always be USC VS UCLA so in that scenario NINE east block schools travel west every season. IF you add OUW then between the four WCS you'd have 20 home conference home conference games, Since the four WCS would play each other at home that would be 6 of the 20 home conference games that they'd play, leaving exactly FOURTEEN home games and there are FOURTEEN eastern block schools meaning every eastern block school goes west once each and every season. It is far more equitable for everybody to have to travel west once a year rather than just NINE east coast schools travel west. If there are two or four WCS the easten schools wouldn't take their football team out west more than once a year anyhow. But with four WCS no eastern block school would have the advantage of NOT having the stress of going out west. In the event OUW get the invite, then of course the 4 corners join the Big 12. CALSTAN and the State Schools have to coble something together with Fresno, SDSU, UNLV, Nevada, Boise, and some worthless sports programs like SMU.

I've been thinking probability #2 is how it will turn out. The PAC stays at 10, they get 30mil a year, with 40% streaming. BTW 40% streaming is only a little worse than what they currently have. Their current deal is about 66/33 and most of the streaming is on the PAC12 network with its 15,000,000 subscribers. Any new deal will have a streamer like Apple or Amazon so the potential audience is much much more than the PAC12 NETWORK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CustersDoctor said:

Here's a summary of the three most reasonable PAC10 scenarios and outcomes.

Probability 1: The new deal turns out to be around 25mill per year per team with a 60/40 split linear to streaming ratio. If this is the best they can do, then the conference is doomed and the 4 corners + OUW join the BIG12. (Unless of course OUW get the BIG invite)

Probability 2: A 6 year 1.8billion dollar deal is on the table. That comes out to 30ill a year per school as long as they don't expand. This deal is also 60/40 split linear to streaming. The reason nobody has signed off on this deal is that nobody signs until everybody signs. Eight of the PAC10 schools are happy with this deal but OUW is lobbying for a BIG invite.

Probability 3: The BIG invites OUW by the end of June. The odds of OUW getting into the BIG have increased recently for a few reasons: A. They quickly hired a new commissioner knowing that if they were going to expand they could do it now or in about 6 years. B. Originally the Eastern Block was uneasy about having four left coast schools to travel to and preferred to stay at two. But as it turns out it is more equal for the Eastern Block if there are four west coast schools. Here's why: The BIG plays 9 conference games. To lesson the stress on traveling, the left coast schools would host 5 conference games a season and only have to travel for 4 conference games a season. If you have only have two west coast schools those two schools would host a combined total of 10 home games and of course 1 of those games will always be USC VS UCLA so in that scenario NINE east block schools travel west every season. IF you add OUW then between the four WCS you'd have 20 home conference home conference games, Since the four WCS would play each other at home that would be 6 of the 20 home conference games that they'd play, leaving exactly FOURTEEN home games and there are FOURTEEN eastern block schools meaning every eastern block school goes west once each and every season. It is far more equitable for everybody to have to travel west once a year rather than just NINE east coast schools travel west. If there are two or four WCS the easten schools wouldn't take their football team out west more than once a year anyhow. But with four WCS no eastern block school would have the advantage of NOT having the stress of going out west. In the event OUW get the invite, then of course the 4 corners join the Big 12. CALSTAN and the State Schools have to coble something together with Fresno, SDSU, UNLV, Nevada, Boise, and some worthless sports programs like SMU.

I've been thinking probability #2 is how it will turn out. The PAC stays at 10, they get 30mil a year, with 40% streaming. BTW 40% streaming is only a little worse than what they currently have. Their current deal is about 66/33 and most of the streaming is on the PAC12 network with its 15,000,000 subscribers. Any new deal will have a streamer like Apple or Amazon so the potential audience is much much more than the PAC12 NETWORK.

Actually, I think all of these are not looking likely at all. Just my opinion though.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...