- Joined
- Sep 14, 2020
- Posts
- 6,269
- Reaction score
- 5,122
- Bookie:
- $ 14,453.00
Not a lock but I think the betting favorite is FSU/Miami to the Big Ten and Clemson/UNC to the SEC.
Clemson Joins FSU in Suing the ACC To Get Out of Media Rights
- Thread starter Wild Turkey
- Start date
Not a lock but I think the betting favorite is FSU/Miami to the Big Ten and Clemson/UNC to the SEC.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 13,458
- Reaction score
- 9,805
- Bookie:
- $ 499.00
Yeah but ya’s and the B1G are starting with considerably more from the network deals.
WVU would probably agree to take a 1/2 of what other SEC teams would make going forward. I know it’ll never happen but that’s how important as far as safety goes to be in the P2.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 13,458
- Reaction score
- 9,805
- Bookie:
- $ 499.00
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 12,655
- Reaction score
- 9,907
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
So it was just a rumor that the SEC office got into Vandy's ADs ass about improving the football program?
They are gambling on themselves.. they are centrally located in the top area for HSFB recruiting.. not only that, with the portal.. players who go elsewhere and are not happy, tend to want to return home.. where SMU is waiting with open arms.
They are still going to receive money for travel and any postseason bonuses.. They clearly have the people in place to continue to pay for the coaching of it's programs. It's a wild gamble but they seem confident in it.
..also if the ACC begins to lose teams, that agreement likely ends and they will receive whatever is left over for the remaining teams. This is the only avenue they have.. the Big12 won't take them because Baylor, TCU and Okie St DO NOT WANT them.. Hell they didn't want UH either til UT left and they panicked thinking they were gonna lose (LOL) the Houston TV market (LOL).
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Look at FSU and Clemson numbers in the last 3-6 years. Way down, relative to when they are competitive.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Telling them to start spending their money is one thing. Reducing payouts is another. FWIW, I never heard this, but it could be true.
This more likely has to do with our new Chancellor, who is a sports fan, and the Chancellor and my college roommate, who is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and understands that having great sports is key to maintaining alumni support. I know he recently made a $20 million contribution, so them raising $300 million wouldn't have taken long.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 21,324
- Reaction score
- 29,908
- Bookie:
- $ 14,312.00
If so, it was most likely a simple shot across the bow.
I've read that if a certain number of teams break away from the NCAA and form a new league, the teams that get the invite will be teams that have traditionally invested greatly into their football programs.
i.e. It really doesn't matter how competitive they've been, it's have they spent money in attempt to be competitive?
Sure Nebraska has sucked in football the last 10 years, but they've spent big money on coaches, upgraded facilities, etc.. in that same time.
They'll get an invite.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
If that happens, I wouldn't expect Vandy to get an invite. But, as I have pointed out, there will always be a Vandy in any league. Even in the NFL you have teams that win a game or two. The problem with that is that in CFB it isn't designed to overcome that problem and encourage parity. Let's say Nebraska gets an invite to that league and there are no Vandys. Who is to say Nebraska isn't going to be the new Vandy. You won't have any more easy wins because no easy wins will get in the league. How long are you going to be satisfied winning 3-4 games a year? And it's not like you will get the number 1 recruits in a year in order to drive parity ... the haves will continue to get the lion's share of the recruits. I am just using Nebraska as an example ... it could be Auburn, or Florida, or Iowa. But at the end of the day, losses are a zero sum game and if you don't have Vandy, Indiana, Rutgers, and others to take the Ls, then someone has to.
$20 million per team for CFP
- Currently the BIG is slotted $377 million from the CFP for projecting 4 teams into the playoffs out of 14.
- Add FSU/Clem to the mix and that's 5 per year ~403M (20.2 per team).
- Giving previous success and current recruiting.
- They will hold their own
2023: Clemson #5 (#2 BIG), FSU #20 (#5 BIG)
247sports.com
2023 College Football Team Talent Composite
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
247sports.com
FWIW and FYI ... (Thanks)
Year B1G SEC 2014 3 3 2015 3 2 2016 6 2 2017 5 4 2018 4 5 2019 4 3 2020 2 5 2021 3 3 2022 4 3 2023 5 5 39 35
* 4 per year for BIG / 3.5 per year for SEC
B1G at $70 million per team TV Media Deal
- Recap: After the addition of USC/UCLA, BIG inks in a deal with FOX,CBS,NBC for $1.2 billion annually until 2030
- With the deal, the BIG is getting 4 national games a week (2 FOX, 1 CBS, 1 NBC)
- Taking Viewership from the last 8 years (minus 2020), Clem/FSU would sit at #4/#5 in the BIG including the new additions (Ore, UW, USC, UW).
- Factor that these numbers include playing the ACC for 75% of the schedule. Clemson goes from avg 3.02M vs ACC to 4.18M vs BIG/SEC
- At a minimum the addition of FSU/Clem increases viewership of #3/#4 (OSU/UM taking the first 2) slot with better numbers.
- Continue off the BIG getting 4 national games a week (giving UM/OSU takes two of those a week), BIG has to fill 13 weeks x 2, 26 National TV games without the name OSU/UM. Currently with the likes of PSU, Wisc, USC, MSU, Neb, Ore, Iowa, Wash, the BIG can serve some decent cross matchups but with those 7 you can only get to 21 games a year without dipping into matchups vs Ind, Rut, etc and that's if those 7 teams played each other every year, realistically they will face each other every other year which brings that 21 games to 11 out of 26 national games to fill.
- With FSU/Clem, that brings 7 team number to 9 (not OSU/UM) which turns the possible good cross matchups from (11-21) out of 26 a year to (16-36) out of 26 a year, giving the BIG and the networks plenty of options to fill the national time slots.
- End of the day, increasing the # of 4M+ games for the BIG across the year in those time slots.
- Going into the 2030 TV negotiation, the BIG would have more firing power to negotiate with the additions of Ore, Wash, FSU and Clem.
- So no, the BIG will not be losing money if they were to add FSU/Clem. That narrative is false.
- If FSU/Clem is not worth $70M in the BIG then who?!
- The BIG is top loaded and that number is carried by OSU and Migh.
Attachments
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
$20 million per team for CFP
- Currently the BIG is slotted $377 million from the CFP for projecting 4 teams into the playoffs out of 14.
- Add FSU/Clem to the mix and that's 5 per year ~403M (20.2 per team).
- Giving previous success and current recruiting.
- They will hold their own
2023: Clemson #5 (#2 BIG), FSU #20 (#5 BIG)
2023 College Football Team Talent Composite
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
View attachment 118137
View attachment 118138
B1G at $70 million per team TV Media Deal
- Recap: After the addition of USC/UCLA, BIG inks in a deal with FOX,CBS,NBC for $1.2 billion annually until 2030
- With the deal, the BIG is getting 4 national games a week (2 FOX, 1 CBS, 1 NBC)
- Taking Viewership from the last 8 years (minus 2020), Clem/FSU would sit at #4/#5 in the BIG including the new additions (Ore, UW, USC, UW).
- Factor that these numbers include playing the ACC for 75% of the schedule. Clemson goes from avg 3.02M vs ACC to 4.18M vs BIG/SEC
- At a minimum the addition of FSU/Clem increases viewership of #3/#4 (OSU/UM taking the first 2) slot with better numbers.
- Continue off the BIG getting 4 national games a week (giving UM/OSU takes two of those a week), BIG has to fill 13 weeks x 2, 26 National TV games without the name OSU/UM. Currently with the likes of PSU, Wisc, USC, MSU, Neb, Ore, Iowa, Wash, the BIG can serve some decent cross matchups but with those 7 you can only get to 21 games a year without dipping into matchups vs Ind, Rut, etc and that's if those 7 teams played each other every year, realistically they will face each other every other year which brings that 21 games to 11 out of 26 national games to fill.
- With FSU/Clem, that brings 7 team number to 9 (not OSU/UM) which turns the possible good cross matchups from (11-21) out of 26 a year to (16-36) out of 26 a year, giving the BIG and the networks plenty of options to fill the national time slots.
- End of the day, increasing the # of 4M+ games for the BIG across the year in those time slots.
- Going into the 2030 TV negotiation, the BIG would have more firing power to negotiate with the additions of Ore, Wash, FSU and Clem.
- So no, the BIG will not be losing money if they were to add FSU/Clem. That narrative is false.
- If FSU/Clem is not worth $70M in the BIG then who?!
- The BIG is top loaded and that number is carried by OSU and Migh.
You make a resonable argument on the TV money. I've always said that ND, Clemson, and FSU are the only 3 left that might be able to do that.
But you are totally wrong on the CFP and that's the killer. They don't suddenly get more % based on the number of teams they get in. I've tried to tell you - the 29% is a set number until 2028, and probably after that. If they put in 2 teams they get 29%. If they put in 5 teams they get 29%. Adding FSU and Clemson just means that instead of PSU, or USC, or UM, or UO, or UW, they might get Clemson or FSU in, but some of those others won't get in. The point is that per the performance in the past (adding teams to the B1G), they have never gotten more than 5 in. They won't suddenly get 6 because FSU and Clemson are in the B1G. Instead, the top teams will have a couple more losses and will finish 14th or 16th and not qualify for the CFP.
So, no, this: "Add FSU/Clem to the mix and that's 5 per year ~403M (20.2 per team)" - is simply wrong. You get $377 regardless of who or how many get in. At least until 2028 and that check-in provision is more to see if the ACC still exists, not to see if the SEC/B1G get more.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 13,506
- Reaction score
- 8,571
- Bookie:
- $ 1,422.00
Tough to see Clemson/FSU bringing enough value to the B1G to get full shares.
Notre Dame is the only one remaining that does.
Notre Dame is the only one remaining that does.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Had the CFP followed a participation/merit approach I think that Clemson/FSU could have made sense. But without being able to add anything to the CFP, they would just be taking money from the other 18 schools.
Sure they wouldn't get the bump immediately
But when 2028 comes around and you put 2 teams a year from 2024-2028 then expect to get 14% from 2028-2031 or 36% if the Conf. get 5 teams within that span.
Now if the BIG were to start putting 5 teams in without FSU/Clem (while they're trying to get out the ACC) then that would be the killer because like you said, 6 is a hard number to reach for 1 conference
Depends on if or when they can get out the ACC.
It will look like the Oregon/Wash deal where they will get partial shares until the BIG renegotiates their TV contract in 2030
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Dude, I posted the numbers in this thread:
| Year | B1G | SEC |
| 2014 | 3 | 3 |
| 2015 | 3 | 2 |
| 2016 | 6 | 2 |
| 2017 | 5 | 4 |
| 2018 | 4 | 5 |
| 2019 | 4 | 3 |
| 2020 | 2 | 5 |
| 2021 | 3 | 3 |
| 2022 | 4 | 3 |
| 2023 | 5 | 5 |
| 39 | 35 |
The 29% is a combination of past performance where the B1G got more teams in but didn't do as well, and the SEC got fewer teams in but did better. That's why they were treated the same. You now acknowledge that no conference is going to regularly get 6 in (the one 6 above is an aberration - those teams would be playing each other in the future). FSU and Clemson wouldn't be adding another team ... they wold be replacing one that would otherwise get in. In other words, they would provide no incremental value.
Neither of those conferences is going to drop down to 2 teams, and neither of them is going to agree to a reduction to 14%. The only reason that check-back provision was added was to see whether the ACC exists in 2028. Period. Right now from everything I read it looks like even if FSU and Clemson get out - not a good day for that with the NC court's rulings - the ACC will still survive.
I take no joy in this. I wrote a detailed article that said FSU's (and Clemson's) best approach was to insist the ACC give more CFP money to FSU because of merit. And I wrote that UNC and UVA would be stupid additions as they added no incremental CFP shares, while FSU and Clemson probably would. But, the B1G and the SEC didn't go that route by not valuing participation, understanding they have all the teams they need to maximize participation now. Like UNC and UVA, under the new model FSU and Clemson no longer can argue to the P2 that if you let us in we will increase you CFP value. Instead, they will take a share from the CFP money pool without adding incremental value. No one cares if it's Clemson or PSU, FSU or LSU. Both teams have about 8 teams that will comprise the 3-5 each year that will get in, without FSU and Clemson.
Yes, you posted a chart that shows the BIG / SEC getting 4 teams on avg the last 10 years which got them to 29%.
The BIG / SEC getting 5 teams in the upcoming CFP would net 36% (5/14) in 2028. Not sure how we're not on the same page on this.
SOS is going to be huge in determining the at-large teams. The SEC will get their 5 in with the teams they have right now. The BIG could get to 5 as well but adding FSU / Clem improves the overall strength of the conference to reach that number on avg
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 6,965
- Reaction score
- 5,543
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Because you are just pulling percentages out of your ass. There is nothing that says if they get 5 teams in, they get more %. They get 29%, no matter how many teams get in. You seem to think the percentage the SEC and the B1G get changes year to year and depends on the number of teams that get in. That's not the case. Tell me you understand that. Show me a single article that says that.
But it doesn't increase the likelihood that they would get more each year. If you add FSU and Clemson to either conference, suddenly Ole Miss is no longer in the discussion, or UF takes longer to come back. Or, FSU and Clemson start losing 4-5 games per season and aren't in the discussion. Adding more quality teams guarantees that more teams will lose more games at all levels of the conference.
You got screwed. You provide no incremental CFP value under the CFP formula. Not sure how you don't see this.