The beginning of the end of the NCAA as we know it ...

Deep Creek said:
Why not? The SEC media payout is estimated to be twice what the Big 12 is.
Click to expand...
The expanded playoff was a part of those negotiations. Other options were available and of course OU knew the move would impact being in a continued 4 team playoff. Hence the 12 team.
 
Here is a very quick rundown on how the money likely gets split - this is based on the current model and March Madness.

- Total Pot = $1.8 billion.
- Peel off $400 million for administration costs, and payments to the G5 teams as a whole, and maybe to the schools under that. March Madness basically funds a ton of other sports at the D2 and D3 level.
- $100 million split between the P5 - $25 million each conference. This might be a larger number ... say, give each conference $100 million. But I'll go with a base of $25 million per conference.
- That leaves $1.3 billion that goes to the shares that go to the conferences based on performance.
- You get a share for the following:

1. Each team that gets in gets a share - 12 shares.
2. Round 1 - 8 shares - 1 to each of the 4 winners, 1 to each of the 4 byes.
3. Round 2 - Elite 8 - 1 share to each of the 4 winners.
4. Round 3 - Final 4 - 1 share to each of the 2 winners.
4. Round 4 - NC - 1 share to the winner

That's a total of 27 shares. $1.3 billion / 27 shares = $48.15 million per share.

Here are some scenarios:

Winning team - 5 shares, or $240.75 million.
A team that gets in but loses in the first round - $48.15 million
Runner-up - $192.6 million
A conference that gets four teams in has the winner, a first-round loss, a second-round loss, and a third-round loss - 11 shares, $529.65 million.
A conference that gets five teams in has both teams in the NC, a 2nd round loss, and a 3rd round loss (this is likely the max scenario) - 14 shares - $674.1 million.

This is why I think that FSU is crazy to want to get out of the ACC. Instead of being the pricks they are, they should negotiated with the ACC to get get a greater share of the CFP money. Why should FSU get a 15th share which is the same as BC or Syreacuse? Say your will stay in but you want 50% of your shares. Win the NC and get to keep $120 million. They would get $24 million for getting in, another $24 million for each win.
 
Deep Creek said:
I’ll buy the profitable part. Not the popularity part. It is ALL about money. USC didn’t go to the B1G for any reason other than the amount of money from the media deal was double what they would get from the PAC. It wasn’t about popularity.
Click to expand...
I believe they are connected. If you only have 2 conferences, I don't think the TV value is as high. Look at the numbers this year with teams other than UGA/OU/Clemson/tOSU ... they were the best in years.
 
Deep Creek said:
Growing the sport? That altruistic idea went out the window a hell of a long time ago.
Click to expand...
It's not altruistic ... you grow the sport to make more money. Win-win.
 
SoonerC said:
The expanded playoff was a part of those negotiations. Other options were available and of course OU knew the move would impact being in a continued 4 team playoff. Hence the 12 team.
Click to expand...
Actually the media money and the CFP money are different pots of money. I think you are correct but it's because you wouldn't go to the SEC unless you knew there were liley going to be 4 SEC teams getting in most years.

As early as 2019 I figured out the connection between the 2026 CFP contract, conference expansions, and OOC schedules. I have posts here and elsewhere where I mention it.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
It's not altruistic ... you grow the sport to make more money. Win-win.
Click to expand...
Hell you're an attorney. You know better. That's financial, not altruistic.

altruistic - adjective. Showing a disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others; unselfish.
"it was an entirely altruistic act"
 
Deep Creek said:
Hell you're an attorney. You know better. That's financial, not altruistic.

altruistic - adjective. Showing a disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others; unselfish.
"it was an entirely altruistic act"
Click to expand...
I mean, I said "It's not altruistic" - so we agree, right?

They do give money to D2 and D3 schools they don't have to give. And, they support the G5 even though the don't have to.

But, they doing something that grows the sport can also result in greater revenue, right? I mean, doing only SEC and B1G may seem like they would make more money, but I think they would lose eyeballs if they did that.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I mean, I said "It's not altruistic" - so we agree, right?

They do give money to D2 and D3 schools they don't have to give. And, they support the G5 even though the don't have to.

But, they doing something that grows the sport can also result in greater revenue, right? I mean, doing only SEC and B1G may seem like they would make more money, but I think they would lose eyeballs if they did that.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I misread it.

Just curious. Why do you think they'd lose eyeballs? The only eyeballs I can see them losing are if there are crummy SEC/B1G games like Illinois/Rutgers with losing records scheduled at the same time slot as something like UNC/Pitt when both are undefeated and ranked pretty high.
 
Deep Creek said:
You are correct. I misread it.

Just curious. Why do you think they'd lose eyeballs? The only eyeballs I can see them losing are if there are crummy SEC/B1G games like Illinois/Rutgers with losing records scheduled at the same time slot as something like UNC/Pitt when both are undefeated and ranked pretty high.
Click to expand...
If it were just the B1G and the SEC, you would lose the eyeballs of any alumni of ACC, PAC and B12 schools. I think it would mean the left coast would be less interested, notwithstanding the fact that the B1G has UO, UW, USC and UCLA.

I've always advocated here for rules that would drive parity and for each conference to be represented, even though that has been against my own best interests. I am a life-long SEC fan and could be fine with just SEC schools, even without the B1G. But it's a hollow win if you haven't played the best of all the teams from all over the US.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think the SEC would prefer there to be more teams from all over, so long as they get their shot at getting 3-5 teams in the CFP in a given year.
 
SoonerC said:
The expanded playoff was a part of those negotiations. Other options were available and of course OU knew the move would impact being in a continued 4 team playoff. Hence the 12 team.
Click to expand...
people forget that UT asked the Big12 to ask ESPN/FOX to begin early negotiation on a new media deal.. the answer given to the Big12 office is that they were not interested in negotiating a new media deal at that time

ou took the lead in aggressively reaching out to the SEC at that point.. UT was ready to listen to offers from the BiG as well.. but ou didn't want that (they got burned before with the BiG).. thus UT and ou began hatching a deal with the SEC
 
You guys are still so conference-centric. Look at all your arguments.
Haven’t you seen what’a been happening. The integrity of the conferences don’t mean shit to these people.
Being able to negotiate with the media as a national block is going to make the entire pie bigger for them. Why compete, even while succeeding in that competition, with other school alliances, when you can consolidate and charge whatever premium you want?
I mean, consolidation is exactly what you’ve been seeing with your own eyes, right? Why is your default position that the current 2024 system is the system that is incentivized to carry forward when everything you’ve seen is moving in one clear direction?
Oh, I forgot Y’all are status quo warriors at every step, and I’ve only pointed that out every single step of the way on this. lol.
 
ELTEXAN said:
You guys are still so conference-centric. Look at all your arguments.
Haven’t you seen what’a been happening. The integrity of the conferences don’t mean shit to these people.
Being able to negotiate with the media as a national block is going to make the entire pie bigger for them. Why compete, even while succeeding in that competition, with other school alliances, when you can consolidate and charge whatever premium you want?
I mean, consolidation is exactly what you’ve been seeing with your own eyes, right? Why is your default position that the current 2024 system is the system that is incentivized to carry forward when everything you’ve seen is moving in one clear direction?
Oh, I forgot Y’all are status quo warriors at every step, and I’ve only pointed that out every single step of the way on this. lol.
Click to expand...
I am totally conference-centric because I think it will remain that way for at least the next few decades, if not longer.

I don't agree that they are going to go with a 64-team (or whatever number, as you point out) conference that doesn't respect conferences. Chip Kelly's diatribe about Nike and Amazon divisions was idiotic. I don't think we have seen anything that would lead one to believe that the SEC is going to give up its roots in the south and contiguous states; nor anything with the B1G indicating they will give up their academic emphasis and what appears to be a drive to be a coast to coast league (although I am not sure that was a planned thing instead of a more reactionary move - because of cable dollars with Rutgers and Maryland, and the West Coast teams in response to the SEC grabbing Texas and OU).

I have seen what is happening, and while the conferences have picked off a few teams here and there, the SEC and the B1G have a culture they are trying to maintain. There is no indication to me that Sankey is going to suddenly be willing to break up the SEC and join some 64 team conference where some of the teams will be in one division, some in another, and some excluded.

I am anything but a status quo warrior, as you put it. No conference was saying "no" to Texas or OU. I've advocated for CFP expansion, paying players, 1 free transfer, and a variety of other changes to the system. But the one thing I think will remain sacrosanct, at least for the SEC and the B1G, is that they will run their own conference, even if they become part of football only group, or something other than the NCAA so that they can challenge the court rules, state legislation, etc. That is something they can't do when you have Akron have the same power as Alabama. So, we will see a split where some teams employ the players and agree to a CBA. But that will be within the conference configurations we have today, with obvious consolidation here and there.

A couple quick points:
- Neither Sanky nor Tony Petitti is going to give up their jobs and power.
- Neither the SEC nor the B1G will be willing to give up the control they have, or the position they have of being the two preeminent conferences by joining some larger group that will include teams and schools that can't drive that kind of revenue.

Changes are coming for sure. And you have probably highlighted some of them. But your larger overarching changes won't happen, in my opinion, in my lifetime - the next 25 years or so.
 
duckboy33 said:
It's not altruism. It's about long term $$$
Click to expand...
I agree totally which is why they shouldn't give any impression they are doing something philanthropic for anyone else. If they try to make it like they are doing something altruistic it is nothing but a big farce.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
I am totally conference-centric because I think it will remain that way for at least the next few decades, if not longer.

I don't agree that they are going to go with a 64-team (or whatever number, as you point out) conference that doesn't respect conferences. Chip Kelly's diatribe about Nike and Amazon divisions was idiotic. I don't think we have seen anything that would lead one to believe that the SEC is going to give up its roots in the south and contiguous states; nor anything with the B1G indicating they will give up their academic emphasis and what appears to be a drive to be a coast to coast league (although I am not sure that was a planned thing instead of a more reactionary move - because of cable dollars with Rutgers and Maryland, and the West Coast teams in response to the SEC grabbing Texas and OU).

I have seen what is happening, and while the conferences have picked off a few teams here and there, the SEC and the B1G have a culture they are trying to maintain. There is no indication to me that Sankey is going to suddenly be willing to break up the SEC and join some 64 team conference where some of the teams will be in one division, some in another, and some excluded.

I am anything but a status quo warrior, as you put it. No conference was saying "no" to Texas or OU. I've advocated for CFP expansion, paying players, 1 free transfer, and a variety of other changes to the system. But the one thing I think will remain sacrosanct, at least for the SEC and the B1G, is that they will run their own conference, even if they become part of football only group, or something other than the NCAA so that they can challenge the court rules, state legislation, etc. That is something they can't do when you have Akron have the same power as Alabama. So, we will see a split where some teams employ the players and agree to a CBA. But that will be within the conference configurations we have today, with obvious consolidation here and there.

A couple quick points:
- Neither Sanky nor Tony Petitti is going to give up their jobs and power.
- Neither the SEC nor the B1G will be willing to give up the control they have, or the position they have of being the two preeminent conferences by joining some larger group that will include teams and schools that can't drive that kind of revenue.

Changes are coming for sure. And you have probably highlighted some of them. But your larger overarching changes won't happen, in my opinion, in my lifetime - the next 25 years or so.
Click to expand...
No one is saying there won’t be divisions and that these divisions probably won’t be the geo-centric ones we have now… I’m saying that the near future is going to be a new national alliance and not just the current conferences fighting for a bigger piece of the current pie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top