Rudy! Rudy! Rudy!

[Tomhusker]

Proposed changes, again. Thoughts?

What is 'Project Rudy'? New proposal to reimagine college football includes 70 teams, private equity backing

As the sport faces an uncertain future, a new plan has come to light in an attempt to operate under one umbrella

www.cbssports.com

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

There isn't a chance in hell that something like this will work for several reasons, but mainly because the SEC and the B1G have zero reason to join the other teams in the 72-team super-conference. They totally dominate the TV markets. Through week 6 (millions of viewers):



Tell me why those two conferences would join the other two when their fanbases do not support their teams. The SEC will put up with Vandy, MSU, UF, and the like, but they do that the same way I can say something bad about my brother, but you can't. This is a non-starter for the SEC and the B1G.

 

[Tomhusker]

There isn't a chance in hell that something like this will work for several reasons, but mainly because the SEC and the B1G have zero reason to join the other teams in the 72-team super-conference. They totally dominate the TV markets. Through week 6 (millions of viewers):

View attachment 126285

Tell me why those two conferences would join the other two when their fanbases do not support their teams. The SEC will put up with Vandy, MSU, UF, and the like, but they do that the same way I can say something bad about my brother, but you can't. This is a non-starter for the SEC and the B1G.

I don't disagree.
I do wonder, tho, if the B1G and SEC might be behind this thing, or something similar.

 

[jjc2009]

There isn't a chance in hell that something like this will work for several reasons, but mainly because the SEC and the B1G have zero reason to join the other teams in the 72-team super-conference. They totally dominate the TV markets. Through week 6 (millions of viewers):

View attachment 126285

Tell me why those two conferences would join the other two when their fanbases do not support their teams. The SEC will put up with Vandy, MSU, UF, and the like, but they do that the same way I can say something bad about my brother, but you can't. This is a non-starter for the SEC and the B1G.

Over the long term this would make them more. But Sankey’s position is basically we already own CFB. Why change?

 

[Hu War Yu]

As a South Carolina fan, I'm happy to be a part of the "34 most valuable franchises in college football"

As a Baylor fan, I'm outraged to not be a part of the "34 most valuable franchises in college football"

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Over the long term this would make them more. But Sankey’s position is basically we already own CFB. Why change?

I am not sure how it would make the P2 more money. They have the valuable properties, and so long as they don't shut out the other P4 conferences, it should be fine. It's not like they are going to be willing to do an equal share with the ACC and B12, so they will still have their money problems. I don't think the P2 should go it alone ... but they aren't going to suddenly let the other conferences share the money they don't earn.

Can you explain your thoughts on how they could make more over the long term?

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

As a South Carolina fan, I'm happy to be a part of the "34 most valuable franchises in college football"

As a Baylor fan, I'm outraged to not be a part of the "34 most valuable franchises in college football"

The answer to your conundrum is to get more Baylor fans, and get those fans to watch more football, travel to more games, and just be better fans, in general. Tough task, as a Vandy grad I get it. But money talks.

 

[Hu War Yu]

The answer to your conundrum is to get more Baylor fans, and get those fans to watch more football, travel to more games, and just be better fans, in general. Tough task, as a Vandy grad I get it. But money talks.

I don't think that's it

 

[jjc2009]

I am not sure how it would make the P2 more money. They have the valuable properties, and so long as they don't shut out the other P4 conferences, it should be fine. It's not like they are going to be willing to do an equal share with the ACC and B12, so they will still have their money problems. I don't think the P2 should go it alone ... but they aren't going to suddenly let the other conferences share the money they don't earn.

Can you explain your thoughts on how they could make more over the long term?

The way the contours in the tier system. They would make way more money than the way the conference deals are structured now. But it would be front loaded with investor costs. Once the investors got theirs more would go back to the conferences

From a Yahoo article about it

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

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

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

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I don't think that's it

You don't think what is not it? See the numbers above. The ACC keeps whining about their bad contract. Their contract reflects their poor TV ratings because they have fans who don't care and don't watch games, and/or they just have a small fanbase (that would be Baylor). It's not really difficult to understand.

 

[Deep Creek]

There isn't a chance in hell that something like this will work for several reasons, but mainly because the SEC and the B1G have zero reason to join the other teams in the 72-team super-conference. They totally dominate the TV markets. Through week 6 (millions of viewers):

View attachment 126285

Tell me why those two conferences would join the other two when their fanbases do not support their teams. The SEC will put up with Vandy, MSU, UF, and the like, but they do that the same way I can say something bad about my brother, but you can't. This is a non-starter for the SEC and the B1G.

I agree. Why would the B1G/SEC be willing to do this?

Yahoo has a better article IMO. Smash Plan for CFB Seems there are two different "ideas" in play. Here are two things from that article that intrigue me. (And it would be an interesting debate as to who the eight schools are that are referenced in the last part.)

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

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

(2) Consolidate the media rights of the 70 schools under one agreement, instead of the current structure of five different packages (one for each power league and Notre Dame). I see absolutely no reason the B1G or SEC would be willing to do this...but I could see some of the members from both be willing to IF some of this second part come to fruition.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Deep Creek]

The way the contours in the tier system. They would make way more money than the way the conference deals are structured now. But it would be front loaded with investor costs. Once the investors got theirs more would go back to the conferences

From a Yahoo article about it

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

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

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

Ninjad by a fan of the leprechauns.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

The way the contours in the tier system. They would make way more money than the way the conference deals are structured now. But it would be front loaded with investor costs. Once the investors got theirs more would go back to the conferences

From a Yahoo article about it

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

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

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

As I read this, the bottom schools in the top conferences - Vandy, UF, NW, Illinois, Indiana - would make what the B12 and ACC make. Why in the world would they vote for their conference to do that?

Also, the minute any plan has "once the investors got theirs" involved with it, it's not going to work. VC people fuck up everything they touch. No state school is going to be allowed to assign the assets they need to assign to make this work.

 

[jjc2009]

Ninjad by a fan of the leprechauns.

 

[jjc2009]

As I read this, the bottom schools in the top conferences - Vandy, UF, NW, Illinois, Indiana - would make what the B12 and ACC make. Why in the world would they vote for their conference to do that?

Also, the minute any plan has "once the investors got theirs" involved with it, it's not going to work. VC people fuck up everything they touch. No state school is going to be allowed to assign the assets they need to assign to make this work.

Because the top would make more than double.

You gonna sit there and tell me Vandy NW Illinois and Indiana have any pull in these discussions?

You don’t know the Big 10. They only pay attention to two schools

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I agree. Why would the B1G/SEC be willing to do this?

Yahoo has a better article IMO. Smash Plan for CFB Seems there are two different "ideas" in play. Here are two things from that article that intrigue me. (And it would be an interesting debate as to who the eight schools are that are referenced in the last part.)

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

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

(2) Consolidate the media rights of the 70 schools under one agreement, instead of the current structure of five different packages (one for each power league and Notre Dame). I see absolutely no reason the B1G or SEC would be willing to do this...but I could see some of the members from both be willing to IF some of this second part come to fruition.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, no way that the bottom of the P2 would ever vote for this. Believe it or not, but the P2 seems fine knowing that teams like Vandy, UF, NW, Illinois, etc., get a full share. And, how would this be good for competition? Right now the disparities are not horrible. But if you get 16 schools getting $250 million, and the bottom getting $30 million, that's worse than what we have now.

Also, are they sure an expanded playoff would generate more money? You can only expand it so far before you are playing 20 games a season. And no one is going to vote for fewer regular season games.

This is a point I raise all the time is that the minute you get rid of the Vandys, someone else becomes Vandy. Losses are zero sum. In this case, the minute you get rid of G5 and FCS opponents, then some of the 70 become the G5 schools. In other words, the bottom tier in particular win 3-4 games a year playing the G5. Take that away, and 4-8 teams become 1-11 teams. Who wants that?

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Because the top would make more than double.

You gonna sit there and tell me Vandy NW Illinois and Indiana have any pull in these discussions?

You don’t know the Big 10. They only pay attention to two schools

Yes, they do have pull. Vandy has a 1/16th vote in the SEC that is equal to UGA's 1/16th vote. Same in the B1G. They can't be kicked out of the SEC. Enough teams would be lower tier teams to never get this voted on.

I can't speak to the B1G, but the lower teams have academic clout and I don't think they will get kicked to the curb as quickly as you think. Here is something to think about ... the SEC gets ratings, hence value, due to the quality of their football. The B1G gets ratings and value due to the size of their fanbases. It doesn't matter that Illinois sucks in football ... they have had 50-60K students for decades. They have eyeballs.

 

[jjc2009]

Yes, they do have pull. Vandy has a 1/16th vote in the SEC that is equal to UGA's 1/16th vote. Same in the B1G. They can't be kicked out of the SEC. Enough teams would be lower tier teams to never get this voted on.

I can't speak to the B1G, but the lower teams have academic clout and I don't think they will get kicked to the curb as quickly as you think. Here is something to think about ... the SEC gets ratings, hence value, due to the quality of their football. The B1G gets ratings and value due to the size of their fanbases. It doesn't matter that Illinois sucks in football ... they have had 50-60K students for decades. They have eyeballs.

Ok well if you’re a top tier sec school and there’s more than 1 that’s more votes than Vandy. Georgia stands to double its take. You think they’d vote in the bottom tier’s interests.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Ok well if you’re a top tier sec school and there’s more than 1 that’s more votes than Vandy. Georgia stands to double its take. You think they’d vote in the bottom tier’s interests.

But a move like that will require a super-majority of votes. You are making this difficult ... the SEC is a conference that looks at itself as a whole. There has been no news of the SEC or the B1G looking at uneven distribution. That's what you have seen in other conferences.

Let's assume that 1/3 are tier1, 1/3 are Tier2, and 1/3 are Tier3. The bottom Tier likely can block anything, and depending on what Tier2 gets, Tier2 + Tier3 > Tier1.

 

[Deep Creek]

As I read this, the bottom schools in the top conferences - Vandy, UF, NW, Illinois, Indiana - would make what the B12 and ACC make. Why in the world would they vote for their conference to do that?

Also, the minute any plan has "once the investors got theirs" involved with it, it's not going to work. VC people fuck up everything they touch. No state school is going to be allowed to assign the assets they need to assign to make this work.

You read it correctly. You just aren't recognizing the other end. The top Tier 1 top 16 schools' revenue.

The thing to support your point is the increased revenue over time MAY WELL BE large enough to pay the Vandy, NW types what the Tier 1/top 16 teams will earn anyway.