Most of the readers here came to this blog because of my writings on conference realignment. However, long before realignment became a year-in and year-out news story, I’ve been writing about and advocating for a legitimate full-scale college football playoff. If there’s one structural item in all of sports (whether college or pro) that has gnawed at me ever since I was a kid, it’s that the way that college football determines is champion is asinine. The best that we could say about the college football postseason is that it has gradually become less asinine over the years.
What made it particularly frustrating is that we have witnessed universities and conferences chase every single dollar under the sun, whether it’s via conference realignment, TV contracts that require odd start times and travel for athletes, and pushing donors to fund everything from state-of-the-art locker rooms to the current zeal for NIL collectives. Yet, when it came to the one money-chasing item on the agenda that fans actually wanted – a full college football playoff – the powers that be continued to fail to deliver over the years. It was a bizarro world in how it’s the one instance where the powers that be failed the fans for not acting rationally in their own economic self-interests.
We have finally reached the state where that constant gnawing and frustration can stop: the College Football Playoff Board of Managers (AKA the designated university president representative from each FBS conference and Notre Dame) has approved a 12-team playoff with the top 6 conference champions receiving bids along with 6 at-large slots. The newly expanded CFP will start in 2026 for sure and it’s possible that it could come sooner.
Personally, I find this to be phenomenal and believe that it will supercharge the interest in the sport beyond the handful of top brands (e.g. Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson) that have dominated during the CFP era. One issue that has come up during the CFP era that wasn’t as acute during the BCS era is that the national interest and storylines in college football have been almost entirely about who and who doesn’t make the playoff. Even in the BCS era, making it to the Rose Bowl or another BCS bowl beyond the National Championship Game was still quite relevant to national audiences. Now, though, virtually any game that doesn’t have an impact on the top 4 rankings is seen as meaningless. That means that there have been a lot of exciting mega-important regular season games for a small number of teams like Alabama and Ohio State over the past several seasons, but a complete dearth of them for the vast majority of college football fans.
I watch the NFL just as much or more than college football and here’s what I see the NFL does so well (and a major reason why it’s the most popular sport in America by a massive margin): the stakes for your own team (whoever that might be), not just the biggest brands like the Cowboys and Patriots, are real and impact the playoff race long into the year. The NFL season isn’t just about the handful of teams that make the playoffs, but rather the much wider group of teams in the playoff hunt. When your own team is in the playoff hunt, that not only drives interest in watching your team’s games, but also every single other NFL game that can have an effect on your own team.
Essentially, NFL fandom is very much “bottom-up” where the intense interest in your own team is what then drives interest you watching the bigger national games as opposed to the other way around. In contrast, college football has really taken a “top-down” approach to fandom over this past generation. The powers that be have been banking on the very top brands like Alabama and Ohio State to effectively have a trickle-down effect to draw viewers to games where they’re often playing opponents that start every Labor Day weekend seeing zero chance of making it to the CFP. (See my Illinois Fighting Illini.) This is ironic because college sports are supposed to be the essence of regional and local sports fandom, yet the largest national brands have become more important than ever. We are seeing this play out right now in conference realignment with the Big Ten adding USC and UCLA (and maybe more) and the SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma.
Ultimately, if we are living in a world where success is singularly defined by whether a team (or conference: see the Pac-12’s struggles) makes it to the CFP or not, the current 4-team playoff system is simply too small for such world. Not too long ago, a Big Ten team that just won the Rose Bowl would be celebrated regardless of whether they were national champions. When you look at Ryan Day’s comments about this past season’s Ohio State team that won the Rose Bowl, though, you would have thought that the Buckeyes had a losing year like my Illini or worse. This isn’t just a reflection of the high standards at Ohio State, but also that a combination of a super-small playoff field and the belief that making that super-small playoff field is the only way a team can be successful is completely warping fan/coach/team expectations along with the way that we watch college football.
Expanding that playoff to 12 totally changes that dynamic. Speaking as an Illini guy, there was no reasonable circumstance where I thought that Illinois could ever make it to a top 4 playoff. However, in a universe with a 12-team playoff where the top 6 conference champs get auto-bids, I can at least squint and see a path for my very plebian football program. You can multiply that for other Power Five programs that have been more successful than my Illini and provide that hope (however small it might be) to an entire class of Group of Five conference teams.
I understand the Stockholm Syndrome of some fans that will bemoan that this will reduce the importance of the regular season, but I once again go back to the core problem that the “importance of the regular season” only applied to a small handful of teams per year while the rest of college football was effectively playing for nothing of national importance by the end of September. This was exacerbated over the CFP era with all of the national energy entirely going to a playoff race that had only 4 spots available. We’re not putting the proverbial genie back in the bottle about the national focus on the playoff race, so the system effectively had to expand to keep more teams (and thereby more fans) invested in the sport.
In essence, the 12-team College Football Playoff provides stakes to your own team – whoever that might be – just like the NFL. While the details still need to be finalized by the FBS commissioners and Notre Dame, essentially any ranked team can look at themselves as a playoff contender. That is a massive change in mindset and I think it’s going to be a great one overall. Interest is inherently capped when it’s just Alabama, Ohio State and a handful of the same usual suspects competing in the playoff annually. In contrast, there’s nothing more powerful than when your own team is in the playoff hunt. Expanding that universe of teams in the playoff hunt is what can drive the interest in college football far beyond where it is today.
A few years ago, I remember when I explained to my then-8-year old son how the college football postseason worked with a totally subjective committee choosing the teams and how this actually was an improvement over the prior BCS system and how sportswriter polls used to determine the national champion. His simple response: “That’s stupid.” Even an 8-year old could clearly see what many adults refused to acknowledge for the last century. The College Football Playoff will now be a lot less stupid going forward.
(Image from CBS Sports)
Follow @frankthetank111
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Woot!
LikeLike
Hook ’em
LikeLike
Great news. Go Hawks!
Hurray for a new comment page.
LikeLike
Frank (and others): how do you think the 4 games will be spread out on each of the first 2 rounds? Noon,3, 6 and 9 on Saturday? A Friday night game and then 3 on Saturday?
LikeLike
I think there will most likely be a Friday night game. The typical CFB game takes >3 hours, and post-season games tend to take longer. While you could play them all on Saturday, it would mean that games probably overlap.
LikeLike
I would imagine 1 game Friday night/NYE, then 1/5/9PM Sat/NYD.
LikeLike
I guess the quarterfinals will probably be over New Years. The first round will probably be the Saturday after Army-Navy
LikeLike
Seems very likely, unless they move the regular season back 1 week.
LikeLike
Awesome!
Maybe I missed it but where are semi final games played?
Also, under this new system it really seems like the B1G champion will almost always be in the Rose Bowl. Hard to see the PAC 12 champ ahead of the B1G with their weaker strength of schedule.
LikeLike
The proposal was that the first round is played on campus and the second round at the traditional New Year’s Day bowls. I do not recall that they specified where the semis would be played. One option is that two of the NY6 bowls move out their game date. The other is that they put those games out to bid, just as the championship game is now.
The subcommittee proposal did not specify how quarterfinal participants would be assigned to bowls. But it is quite logical that the highest-ranking Big Ten team still in the hunt would be assigned to the Rose, and likewise with the SEC to the Sugar.
LikeLike
I wish the first 2 rounds were on campus.
Then semi-final at bowls games, I would choose Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl on News Year Day.
Then championship game at neutral site after.
LikeLike
I agree. Move the season up 2 weeks (and end it 2 weeks early) if need be.
LikeLike
Mostly agree, but I don’t think the playoff race is what drives the intense interest in the NFL, I think it’s gambling. Fantasy football and Survivor and pick ’em pools are why a Jaguars fan will watch a random 49ers/Cardinals game in October. Really, by Week 9 we usually have a pretty good idea about who the 7 playoff teams will be in each conference.
LikeLike
Well the playoff race is a secondary factor!
LikeLike
GEAUX Tigers!
Great column Frank. As a fan and alum of the school with the most hardware this century not named Alabama, but is not as consistent as Ohio State & Clemson, I think this format is great and should have been approved by the commissioners months ago.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be too surprised to see USC, UCLA, Oklahoma and Texas back out of their agreements to join the Big Ten and SEC. They’re all going to have a much better chance of making the playoffs in the Pac-12 and Big XII, respectively.
LikeLike
C’mon, the money and exposure is way bigger in the Big Ten and SEC. You know this.
This isn’t just about the playoff, it never has been.
USC didn’t want to play games that nobody cared about in the Pac-12 deal.
It’s why many of us were certain USC would want to move as early as last year.
LikeLike
z33k; “C’mon, the money and exposure is way bigger in the Big Ten and SEC. You know this.”
Well, let’s think this through. The money and exposure was way bigger in the Big Ten and SEC BEFORE the 12-team playoff came about. I think most USC alumni would prefer #1 in the Pac-12 and a virtually automatic playoff bid to #3 in the Big Ten and going nowhere in the playoffs.
LikeLike
No they wouldn’t because the exposure will be way bigger from playing regular season games against Big Ten teams.
The Big Ten has FOX, CBS, NBC windows lined up for 2023 and beyond. USC will be playing in those windows a lot.
The Pac-12 would have what? Maybe one Fox window during the day and then night windows and Thursday/Friday games with low viewership.
This is about exposure in the 3/4 of the country that really cares about CFB. USC wants to play with all those eyeballs in the Midwest/East Coast on them.
It’s not just about making the playoff.
LikeLike
USC currently regularly plays on Fox, ABC, ESPN, and one game every 2 years on NBC. Are you saying that would have changed had USC and UCLA remained in the Pac? I doubt it. They will likely get marginally more national exposure in the BiG than now, but clearly a lot more money.
However, if the LA schools went back to the Pac, and brought along Nebraska & Oklahoma, that would increase the value of Pac media rights materially from where they are now. Admittedly, it still would be below the level of BiG & SEC. And Oklahoma might have a big problem with not having conference games in Texas.
LikeLike
I’m not going to make the exposure argument (though USC would definitely get more exposure in the Eastern and Central time zones in the B10), but I’ve yet to see schools switch conferences to take less money.
You could argue that FSU passed up the chance to make more money in the SEC to join the ACC, but the TV money was also much smaller back then. Back then, the benefits of winning titles (more alumni donations and ticket sale increases from winning conference and national titles) may have been bigger than the payout difference between the SEC and ACC.
I really doubt that is true these days.
LikeLike
@Redwood86
Look at the windows on those games, a lot of 10:30 pm EST games. What kind of exposure is that?
This isn’t even a debate, I’ll bet that the total viewership of their games will double in the Big Ten.
The Big Ten’s TV windows are way more valuable.
LikeLike
Frank has pointed this out before: university presidents prefer predictable recurring revenue over postseason berths that fluctuate year to year depending on game results. Playoff revenue won’t offset the loss they would take by going back to their far lower-paying conferences.
LikeLike
Marc: “Frank has pointed this out before: university presidents prefer predictable recurring revenue over postseason berths that fluctuate year to year depending on game results. Playoff revenue won’t offset the loss they would take by going back to their far lower-paying conferences.”
You make the mistaken assumption that these top tier schools are more interested in revenue that getting the playoffs. Their fans are NOT. When Oregon and FSU go walking into the playoffs for 8 of the next ten years, they are not going to be chomping at the bit to leave the PAC/ACC to become non-contenders in the B1G or SEC.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s mistaken. Sure, fans may care more about winning titles, but programs definitely care more about money. Think like a university president, not like a fan.
I’ll just repeat what I posted elsewhere. Note that if your assumption was correct, we’d see schools leave the B10 and SEC instead of some of the most renown programs in college football joining those conferences. It’s not like these schools were unaware that a 12-team playoff was likely coming soon.
“ I’ve yet to see schools switch conferences to take less money.
You could argue that FSU passed up the chance to make more money in the SEC to join the ACC, but the TV money was also much smaller back then. Back then, the benefits of winning titles (more alumni donations and ticket sale increases from winning conference and national titles) may have been bigger than the payout difference between the SEC and ACC.
I really doubt that is true these days.”
LikeLike
They will be chomping at the bit when it comes time to pay coaches and players and have to cut non revenue sports to keep up with SEC and Big Ten schools.
LikeLike
Psuhockey: “They will be chomping at the bit when it comes time to pay coaches and players and have to cut non revenue sports to keep up with SEC and Big Ten schools.”
You don’t understand the situation. In 2037, the old ACC TV deal goes away. In 2037, the old ACC TV deal goes away. They’ll be able to negotiate a new contract for much bigger bucks. Meanwhile, the Noles have received an automatic entry to the playoffs in seven of the past ten years. So you think FSU will walk away from that to join the SEC?
Same goes for Notre Dame. Why would they ever join the Big Ten now? They’ll have a much better chance of getting an at-large invitation as an independent than winning the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Colin, we understand the situation perfectly fine.
Even when the ACC gets to negotiate a new deal, simply because the B10 and SEC have far more big brands, FSU would be giving up more than half a billion dollars each decade to stay in the ACC. You seem to think they would do that for more playoff appearances. That’s thinking like a fan.
As for ND, I’m pretty certain the playoff committee will still stress strength of schedule and I’m sure the Domers would prefer to have that first round game at home. They may not give up “independence” (which they treat like a religion) but a scheduling alliance with the B10 (8 games vs B10 teams) with the ACC weakening to what the B12 is like now seems pretty likely to me.
LikeLike
A “scheduling alliance” between ND and the Big Ten is internet fantasy. The Big Ten rejected that deal in 1999. The Big Ten will never become another groveling independence enabler like the ACC.
You have no inkling what the ACC TV market will be worth in 2036. Your revenue projections are baseless.
FSU will clearly have a much better chance of winning an NC while in the ACC that they would in the SEC. They’d probably never make it to the playoffs in the SEC. Same scenario goes for Oregon. They’ll have a much better chance of winning an NC in the PAC vs the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Colin M,
Jimbo Fisher left an easier path to the playoffs after winning a national championship to a much harder path in the Sec. Brian Kelly made the playoffs multiple times at Notre Dame and left to a situation where it is significantly harder. That’s with the current format and dollar differential. That’s only going to increase in the future.
The ACC will never get remotely close enough to the SEC and Big Ten regarding money even with their new contract. By the time 2036 rolls around most of the programs will probably be in severe debt and will jump much like Maryland and UCLA. My guess is Dabo will be out the door soon because of the money. A spot in the playoffs isn’t going to save these athletic departments once the money starts flowing to the players especially ACC schools with lots of nonrevenue sports that they care about.
Notre Dame is a special case that independence is important to their donors. My guess the money will be too great a differential by 2036. The Big Ten will be signing not one but two new contracts at that point. They will use the ACC collapsing and scheduling difficulties as an excuse to join the Big Ten. I expect them to be the last hold out but getting rolled every year in the first round of the playoffs won’t appease the fans forever.
LikeLike
Psuhockey: “They will use the ACC collapsing . . .”
The ACC isn’t collapsing. Quite the opposite. This new playoff format will be a lifeline to the ACC, Big XII and the PAC.
LikeLike
@Colin
The playoff will at most deliver $10-20 million to each team in the major conferences.
That will not make a difference here in closing the gap.
By 2032, the Big Ten and SEC will be sending out invites to ACC schools and they won’t have much of a choice but to accept.
Schools like FSU, Miami, Clemson would have fans rioting in the streets if they rejected invites to the SEC or Big Ten.
LikeLike
z33k: “That will not make a difference here in closing the gap.”
The “gap” that exists now will not exist in 2036. The ACC than gets a new TV deal.
z33k: “By 2032, the Big Ten and SEC will be sending out invites to ACC schools and they won’t have much of a choice but to accept. Schools like FSU, Miami, Clemson would have fans rioting in the streets if they rejected invites to the SEC or Big Ten.’
If FSU has virtually annual automatic invitations to the playoffs and maybe an NC under its belt by 2032, their fans will be rioting in the streets if they change conferences.
LikeLike
@Colin
But that’s my point, the Big Ten and SEC will both be on new TV deals already when the ACC is preparing to go to market.
FSU, Miami and whoever else will not turn down guaranteed paydays in exchange for ACC promises that things will get better in 2036.
They will have already seen the Big Ten and SEC numbers.
It’s over for the ACC.
LikeLike
zeek: “It’s over for the ACC.”
The new playoff format will consolidate the Little 3 of the P5. This creates a lot more interest in their conference races each year simply to see who will get into the playoffs. It will quickly become a national obsession.
On the flip side, assume you’re the AD of Bama or Georgia or Auburn. Why would you now want Clemson and FSU joining the SEC?
LikeLike
Colin, you either are intent on ignoring reality or are bad at math (or both). You might be completely ignorant of what the ACC would be worth on the open market, but knowledgeable people are not. Bob Thompson (the former head of Fox Sports) said he didn’t think any of the ACC schools are additive to the B10 but backtracked when someone pointed out that the 2 FL schools are very attractive. The rest of us can look up viewership data as well. A league that only has 2-3 schools (at most) that are additive to the B10/SEC will simply not be getting anything close to what the B10/SEC will get in TV money in the ‘30’s. In fact, a league like that looks suspiciously similar to the old Pac with the LA schools and old B12 with the RRR schools. Even on the open market, the ACC would only get a few million more per school. Miami, even though they won the BE most years and even a few national titles while in the BE, still left the BE for the ACC over a far smaller money differential (really only savings on travel) than what FSU, Miami, and Clemson will face in the ‘30’s. Did you see ‘Canes fans rioting in the streets when they left the BE?
What you say is contradicted by both history and logic.
LikeLike
Richard: “Did you see ‘Canes fans rioting in the streets when they left the BE?”
Again, a totally broken analogy. This is a New Day in college football, actually a New World. We now have a 12-team playoff with six automatic bids for the top six conference champs. This changes everything.
The fans of FSU, Clemson and Miami are going to be laser focused on getting that automatic bid. They will not be fretting about how much money is coming in any more than they are right now. They will want easy access to the playoff and a chance to win the NC. The same is true of Washington, Oregon and Utah in the Pac-12.
LikeLike
Colin, they will be lazer-focused on how their program is at a severe financial disadvantage compared to the SEC and B10 programs. It’s always a new world, but you’re out of your mind if you think that they wouldn’t mind not being competitive with the SEC/B10 programs even if their route to being bounced out early in the CFP is easier.
LikeLike
Look, let’s pretend the 12-team playoff had been in effect last year. Who would have gotten in? The Week 15 AP poll used for the following rankings:
Six top-ranked conference champs: Bama, Utah, Baylor, Cincy, Michigan and Pitt.
Six top-ranked at-large: Georgia, ND, Ohio St, Ole Miss, Oklahoma St and Michigan St.
The FSUs and Clemsons and Oregons and Washingtons are going to look at this and say “Should I trade off relatively easy access in my present conference for extremely difficult access in the B1G/SEC?
And if they do leave, do you see how much easier it will be for the Pitts and the Wakes and the Utahs and the Stanfords?
LikeLike
@colin. How laser focused will a mid-3 program be when they keeps losing good coordinators and HCs to B1G and SEC teams because the minute they show they have talent an SEC or B1G team in a down year will pay a hell of a lot more for their services?
LikeLike
Colin, I understand that you are intent on thinking like an ignorant fan (not even a hardcore informed fan) regardless of what information is presented to you, but if FSU/Miami/Clemson stay in the ACC, their chances of winning the national title will be as good as those of Pitt/Wake/Utah. Sure, they may make the playoffs more often, but they’ll never amass the type of talent and depth to actually knock off UGa/Bama/OSU multiple times in a row. You seriously believe FSU/Miami/Clemson fans have the mentality of PU fans and think that just making the playoffs is great and never actually winning the national title again is OK?
Are you under the mistaken impression that the playoffs are a crapshoot and that any team who makes the CFP has an equal chance of becoming national champs as any other team?
LikeLike
Richard: “You seriously believe FSU/Miami/Clemson fans have the mentality of PU fans and think that just making the playoffs is great . . .”
Actually, I think most FSU/Miami/Clemson fans have the mentality that they have a much better chance of an NC if they actually get into the playoffs with an ACC autobid rather than finishing in the middle of the pack in the SEC.
LikeLike
Colin, so you think that when the discrepancy in financial resources between FSU/Clemson and the big dogs in the SEC/B10 like Bama/UGa/LSU/OSU/UMich/PSU/Texas/OU become as big as the discrepancy in financial resources are now between Pitt/Utah (or, if you prefer, NCSU/GTech) and Bama/UGa/LSU/OSU/UMich/PSU/Texas/OU, the talent level at FSU & Clemson wouldn’t be what they are at Pitt/Utah/NCSU/GTech now compared to Bama/UGa/LSU/OSU/UMich/PSU/Texas/OU?
Or that just making the expanded playoffs means you’re magically likely to win a national title?
You seem to think that, but I can assure you that the leaders of FSU/Clemson/Miami are not so ignorant. Inside the SEC/B10, FSU/Clemson/Miami can be at the same level of competitiveness as Bama/UGa/LSU/OSU/UMich/PSU/Texas/OU. Outside the SEC/B10, they’ll be closer to where Pitt/Utah/NCSU/GTech are now. That’s the future reality that you’re ignoring.
LikeLike
As for the scheduling alliance with ND, that really depends on what the B10 wants. You seem to assume that the B10 always would prefer ND as a full member rather than have a scheduling alliance with ND. But there have been rumors that the Big dogs in the B10 (OSU & UMich) do not want to make it harder for them to win the B10. Makes sense as winning the B10 means more alumni donations.
So they may prefer to capture ND’s surplus value via a scheduling alliance rather than making the Domers full members.
BTW, ND is already a B10 associate member. In hockey.
LikeLike
Colin, I took a look at some numbers, and by the 2030’s, if FSU and Clemson stay in the ACC, Northwestern and even Purdue will be bringing in more total revenue than FSU/Clemson. Yet you are clinging to the illusion that a program that brings in less money than Purdue will somehow be able to amass enough talent to compete for a national title. Do you think that if PU joined the ACC (or the B12, let’s say), the Boilers will suddenly be competing for the national title?
LikeLike
One more thing — everyone has known for a while that the playoff would almost certainly expand. This is not a surprise to USC, UCLA, Texas, and Oklahoma. To the extent this matters in their calculations, they would have already considered it.
LikeLike
That’s worth pointing out many times.
CFP calculations don’t have anywhere near the impact on realignment as factors like conference revenue distributions (with the largest portion coming from conference tv rights) and exposure.
We’re at a point where there is a clear breakup of the Power 5 that’s unfolded. The Big Ten/SEC are a Power 2, then there’s the Middle 3 (with the ACC having similar payouts as the Big 12/Pac-12 due to its undermarket deal), then the Group of 5.
This likely doesn’t have any impact on the future decisions by schools like FSU and Miami and Clemson.
The exposure that the Big Ten/SEC are going to get will dwarf what the ACC sees; same reason why Washington/Oregon will continue to try to push to get to the Big Ten.
Next realignment will be announced in around 10 years.
LikeLike
z33k: “The exposure that the Big Ten/SEC are going to get will dwarf what the ACC sees; same reason why Washington/Oregon will continue to try to push to get to the Big Ten.”
z33k, that isn’t going to happen. The top teams of the PAC/ACC/Big XII will stay where they are to get almost automatic access to the playoff rather than go to the Big Ten or SEC and finish in the middle of the pack.
LikeLike
You are aware of the differential in TV money these days, right? A few more playoff appearances over a decade won’t make up for $300mm-$400mm less in TV money over a decade (not to mention even more money in future decades).
LikeLike
Colin we will have to revisit this in 10 years but avoiding competition has never been a good rationale especially when we are likely headed to a world with conference distributions providing payment for players.
If it affects recruiting in such a fashion, it will effect rrealignment.
SEC and Big Ten will both go to 18-20 in the 2030s.
LikeLike
Following your logic, PU should leave the B10 to join the MAC, where your school would go undefeated and win the MAC pretty much every year, with a much better chance of making the playoffs than in the B10.
LikeLike
Richard: “Following your logic, PU should leave the B10 to join the MAC, where your school would go undefeated and win the MAC pretty much every year, with a much better chance of making the playoffs than in the B10.”
Totally broken analogy. That’s not my logic at all. A realistic analogy would be FSU. Given the chance, would FSU now go to the SEC? They have a 50-60% chance of an automatic bid in the ACC compared to a 5% chance of an at-large bid in the SEC.
LikeLike
z33k, that isn’t going to happen. The top teams of the PAC/ACC/Big XII will stay where they are to get almost automatic access to the playoff rather than go to the Big Ten or SEC and finish in the middle of the pack.
I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in…
LikeLike
On a more serious note, unless the ACC and/or PAC can somehow dramatically close the revenue gap with the SEC and B1G (which isn’t likely), there is no way any of their schools would turn down a bid from one of the Big 2. (Seriously, by 2030, the Big Ten and SEC schools will likely be making $50 million more a year than anyone else, and that number will continue to grow.)
LikeLike
2034 (or whenever their new TV deal starts) for the SEC, most likely. But yes, a B10 school would likely take in more than a half-billion more total than any non-SEC school (at the least) in conference distributions in the 2030’s. Unlike some folks who insist on thinking like a fan, I doubt any school would be willing to sacrifice that type of money for a few extra playoff appearances.
LikeLike
Richard: “Unlike some folks who insist on thinking like a fan, I doubt any school would be willing to sacrifice that type of money for a few extra playoff appearances.”
I’m thinking like a fan because a lot of fans will be thinking. If FSU makes the playoffs seven times in ten years by 2036, are they going to jump to the SEC in 2037?
LikeLike
That’s crazy talk, Richard. PU might be able to win the MAC 50% of the time now, and it would be a lot less often once they had MAC-level revenue.
LikeLike
Brian, tell Colin that.
Colin, so you seem to believe that FSU leadership think like fans and would be willing to give up more than half a billion dollars every decade just so they can make the playoffs more often and get bounced in the early rounds because by the 2030’s, all of the non-P2 schools will be severely under-resourced compared to the SEC and B10 powers.
You don’t seem to understand that by the 2030’s, the non-P2 leagues will be in the same position the G5 leagues are in now.
At best, by then, the ACC, PAC, and B12 will be like the old BE after the BE lost Miami. Nominally a “power conference” with automatic (or near-automatic) access to the postseason (the BCS back then, the CFP in the 2030’s), but with far less revenues than the other power conferences. All those schools had an easier path to the BCS (and BCS title game) in the BE, but how many of those schools wanted to stay in the BE when they had a chance to move elsewhere?
LikeLike
Richard: “Colin, so you seem to believe that FSU leadership think like fans and would be willing to give up more than half a billion dollars every decade just so they can make the playoffs more often . . .”
Richard, you’re looking at the horrible, pitiful TV deal that the ACC is now stuck in until 2036. Obviously, they will get a much better arrangement when the current GOR expires.
LikeLike
Colin, I’ll just post what I said above:
“ Colin, you either are intent on ignoring reality or are bad at math (or both). You might be completely ignorant of what the ACC would be worth on the open market, but knowledgeable people are not. Bob Thompson (the former head of Fox Sports) said he didn’t think any of the ACC schools are additive to the B10 but backtracked when someone pointed out that the 2 FL schools are very attractive. The rest of us can look up viewership data as well. A league that only has 2-3 schools (at most) that are additive to the B10/SEC will simply not be getting anything close to what the B10/SEC will get in TV money in the ‘30’s. In fact, a league like that looks suspiciously similar to the old Pac with the LA schools and old B12 with the RRR schools. Even on the open market, the ACC would only get a few million more per school. Miami, even though they won the BE most years and even a few national titles while in the BE, still left the BE for the ACC over a far smaller money differential (really only savings on travel) than what FSU, Miami, and Clemson will face in the ‘30’s. Did you see ‘Canes fans rioting in the streets when they left the BE?
What you say is contradicted by both history and logic.”
LikeLike
Richard: “What you say is contradicted by both history and logic.”
History is meaningless. College football is in an entirely new era with entirely new rules.
LikeLike
Richard,
Brian, tell Colin that.
No thanks. Internet rule #2 is “Don’t feed the trolls.” Colin has made it abundantly clear he falls into that category.
LikeLike
Brian: “No thanks. Internet rule #2 is “Don’t feed the trolls.” Colin has made it abundantly clear he falls into that category.”
I don’t think that type of childish name-calling is appropriate on this forum. I’ve been called doctor, colonel and professor but never a troll.
Colin Meyer, DVM, PhD
Colonel, US Army (ret.)
Professor Emeritus, Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M University
LikeLike
Ah, it must be something in the water at College Station then that removes all sense of reality (sorry, M(ag), I couldn’t resist).
Being more serious, though, so Colin, do you think any Aggie regrets joining the SEC and would prefer to be back in the new B12?
LikeLike
Richard: “Being more serious, though, so Colin, do you think any Aggie regrets joining the SEC and would prefer to be back in the new B12?”
Totally different scenario. I was on the faculty when A&M went to the SEC and there was one overwhelming issue: the Longhorn Network. Now that classic rivals UT and OU are also in the SEC, the Aggies wouldn’t go back to a rival-less B12.
LikeLike
Now you have. Mazel tov.
Do you think any of those credentials prevents you from being an internet troll? Evidence here shows they clearly do not.
LikeLike
I have no idea what a casual fan of FSU and similar schools may hold regarding leagues. I can state that for dedicated educated fans, as well as the administration at FSU, nothing is more important than the gap in money being received by UF compared to FSU.
If anyone in Tallahassee was not focused on that, losing Jimbo Fisher to TAMU for a ten year $75 million contract was a wake up call. It is very apparent that if FSU develops a great new coach (Norvell? Neon Deion Sanders? ???) if someone comes along and offer that coach $9 or $10 million per year or so, FSU will probably not be able to keep the coach.
Unlike Miami, FSU does not have bunches of big dollar donors around.
Dabo Sweeney signed a $90 million plus contract with Clemson a couple of years ago. I can only assume that there are some big time donors kicking in to that.
Then there is NIL, or other money, to players. FSU knows that they do not have access to the required money. Let’s face it, FSU lost the top recruit in the country to Jackson State and Coach Sanders, due to NIL money. Bringing in the top ranked HS player in the country could have been a starting point to bring FSU back to king level, but money won out.
Yes, winning a couple of ACC championships and playoff appearances would be very nice, but if FSU got B1G or SEC money, they believe that they can be back on top to stay.
As an aside the academics as FSU like the neighborhood with B1G teams and it would be easier to win a national title in the B1G, so maybe they are not locked into the SEC quite yet.
LikeLike
Bernie -it’s easier to win a national title in the B1G? Really? History suggests otherwise.
B1G national championships in the BCS/CFP era: 2 both by Ohio State.
SEC NCs in the BCS/CFP era: 14 – 6 by Alabama, 3 by LSU, 2 by Florida, and one each by Georgia, Auburn & Tennessee.
LikeLike
Alan,
I think that’s Bernie’s point. They’d have to get past OSU in the B10, vs AL, LSU, UF, UGA, … (plus UT and OU soon).
LikeLike
Brian – my point is many SEC teams compete and win national championships. When
Saban finally retires, you’ll see more.
Ohio State is the only B1G team to win anything in 25 years. After Michigan’s split title in 97, you have to go back to the 60s and Michigan State for another B1G, non-Ohio State title. You may say it’s easier to get over one team than six, but the facts show otherwise. Previous contenders that have joined the B1G like Nebraska and Penn State can’t get past Ohio State. We’ll see what happens with USC, but I believe they’ll fall in line behind Ohio State as well.
Even with Alabama having the greatest coach of all time and experiencing the greatest championship run of all time, SEC schools have similar resources and can beat Bama and win a national championship.
Even when Ohio State has a down year – for them – no other B1G school steps into the breach and becomes a real contender. Other B1G schools that make the CFP have been 0 for the semis.
Many SEC schools can and do compete for and win titles. Only Ohio State wins in the B1G and there’s nothing that Miami has done in the last 20 years or FSU in the last 10 years make me think they’ll kick Ohio State off the B1G throne.
LikeLike
Yes, but FSU is essentially an SEC team. They are in fertile recruiting grounds, unlike the B10 schools. They and their fans put CFB above everything, unlike much of the B10. They have all the advantages of being like the SEC, and could face the weaker competition of the B10. No other B10 schools are in that category. That’s why it’s different.
LikeLike
Oklahoma has 4 playoff appearances (0-4) and left for SEC. The primary reason Texas left was for recruiting (they still have loads of $$$). The expanded playoff has made it easier for them to get a bid since the SEC is likely to have 3 or more bids most years. It may be harder to get a bid in the SEC than B12 but when they get a bid they will be more likely to win after being tested against better competition.
Anyone who gets a SEC or B10 conference invite needs to consider how long this new football playoff system will last. If the autobid-bye teams from the B12, PAC, and ACC keep getting blown out their byes will probably go away, maybe replaced with top 4 ranked of the 12 or an expansion to 16. Autobids may also be eliminated or reduced to 4 or 2. Changes could occur by 2035 and the direction is likely to be more bids for the P2.
LikeLike
Little 8: “If the autobid-bye teams from the B12, PAC, and ACC keep getting blown out their byes will probably go away, maybe replaced with top 4 ranked of the 12 or an expansion to 16. Autobids may also be eliminated or reduced to 4 or 2”
Little 8, there is no way on God’s Green Earth that the commishes of the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12 will ever vote to reduce the autobids for conference champs.
LikeLike
It may not matter what they think after a decade where their teams get blown away early in the playoffs and the national champs are all SEC (most of the time) or B10 teams.
The SEC and B10 would just negotiate a playoff system with TV networks and tell the other conferences “here are the rules; feel free to join or not. Up to you.”
LikeLike
Richard, your analogy with respect to the Big East is not a good example. For football, that league was always an unnatural construct without sufficient natural rivalries. Of course Miami fled to the ACC to regularly play teams in the southeast. All other things equal, who would not?
While things have been changing in one direction for the past decade due to money, one should not forget that there is a very good reason that NCAA sports remained regionalized for so long. Geography will eternally exert its magnetic pull. Nationalization at the expense of all non-monetary considerations is not necessarily a permanent trend. The SEC’s contiguous-state approach may prove an advantage in terms of long-term stability.
LikeLike
If SEC and B10 members dominate the CFP over the next 15 years the only vote the B12, PAC, and ACC may have is to eliminate the autobids or get eliminated from the CFP. They will not give up anything unless faced with the prospect of losing more. Now if Baylor, NCSU, Stanford, et. al. start winning the CFP I doubt that type of power play can be made.
LikeLike
Little 8: “If SEC and B10 members dominate the CFP over the next 15 years the only vote the B12, PAC, and ACC may have is to eliminate the autobids or get eliminated from the CFP. ”
Look, this thing is set up by a vote of conference commishes and ND. The commishes of the PAC, ACC and Big XII are not going to vote to eliminate themselves.
LikeLike
Colin, it was set up by all conference commissioners _this_iteration_.
Like some people on here, you keep looking to the present and past instead of the future. Where the puck was and is rather than where it’s going, so to speak. In a world where the financial and on-the-field discrepancy between the P2 and everyone else will be as big as the current financial and on-the-field discrepancy between the P5 and G5, the ACC/B12/Pac will have power more similar to the current G5 than to what they wield now.
LikeLike
The B1G and SEC may have the power to rearrange the playoffs, but why would they? The SEC will probably have three teams in the 12 every year and sometime four or even five. The B1G will have two or three every year. How greedy could the P2 get? They will probably have a minimum of five or six of the 12 every year. And then there is ND too.
Trying to push out the other leagues is an invitation to political reaction and perhaps Congressional intervention. If that happens, any type of chaos could result.
With their inherent financial advantages through TV contracts and having multiple playoff teams, why possibly blow up everything by having Congress start hearings on why good old Alma Mater U no longer is being treated fairly in the playoffs?
I know that some of you are not nearly as concerned as I am about political intervention, but it is always a real threat to invite the bull into the China shop.
Just look at the current stupidity of the CA Board of Regents.
Right now there are more than 70 teams in P5 leagues. Through realignment and perhaps consolidation, that could drop to 65 or 60, but I do not see that as enough to cause major problems. Go with much lower numbers or get an entire league or two that feel that they were arbitrarily deprived of something that they have (ticket to at least one playoff team) and who knows what happens.
LikeLike
@Jersey Bernie – Yes, I think there’s a big difference between a de facto financial power advantage of the P2 and everyone else versus a broader or even total legal structural separation.
As the old saying goes, pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. The Big Ten and SEC are getting fat right now. They need to be wary of the negative repercussions of turning into hogs.
LikeLike
I’m with Frank on this.
The SEC and Big Ten will want to keep access open. For 2 reasons: 1) to keep the sport important in all regions of the country (i.e. the lower leagues can also see a team rise to the playoff every year, so they keep fan support and keep investing in the sport), and 2) to avoid anti-trust.
Anything else will invite all sorts of anti-trust problems that they don’t want to have to deal with…
They don’t have the anti-trust exemption that the NFL has; they can’t go out and try to block everyone else from playing in the games that matter at the end.
And it would be counterproductive in the end; nobody will watch a playoff of only Big Ten and SEC teams outside of those 2 leagues. Fans of other conferences’ teams will watch if their conference champs are included often enough.
LikeLike
Only MLB has an anti-trust exemption.
LikeLike
Bernie,
It would depend on how they frame it. If they try to make the CFP a P2-only affair, that would invite trouble. But if the P2 decide to stage a post-season B10/SEC challenge instead of competing in the CFP, and all the media selectors happen to choose the winner of that as the national champion, that would be different. Everyone else can hold a CFP, and let the voters pick an overall champion.
LikeLike
Alan,
The NFL has a partial exemption, allowing them to cooperate on TV deals through the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961.
LikeLike
Sankey understands this. He and Bowlsby, when talking about their 12 team model and not having designated automatic bids, talked about how when they get more restrictive, they get into more legal and political trouble. If the Big 10 and SEC try to take their ball and go home, they risk all kinds of problems they could avoid by remaining inclusive. All it takes is one powerful senator, like Orrin Hatch of Utah, to start causing problems.
LikeLike
I meant the media rights anti-trust exemption that the NFL has. Big Ten/SEC do not have that.
LikeLike
z33k,
<And it would be counterproductive in the end; nobody will watch a playoff of only Big Ten and SEC teams outside of those 2 leagues. Fans of other conferences’ teams will watch if their conference champs are included often enough.
You know that’s not true. Most of the CFP audience is fairly casual fans. They don’t care about conference participation. Lots of fans of smaller schools would still watch. And frankly, a decent number of fans of left out conferences would still watch because they’re games between highly ranked teams.
LikeLike
As a non-adversarial talking point, let’s say the 12-team playoff had been in effect last year. Who would have gotten in?
Using the Week 15 AP poll as a reference, the top six conference champs were:
Bama, Michigan, Cincinnati, Baylor, Utah and Pitt.
The top six at-large teams were:
Georgia, Notre Dame, Ohio St, Ole Miss, Oklahoma St and Michigan St.
Note this is before Oklahoma & Texas join the SEC and USC & UCLA join the Big Ten. It’s going to be a heck of a lot harder for Oregon, Washington, Clemson and FSU to get an at-large in the Big Ten or SEC compared to winning a conference championship in the Big Ten or SEC.
LikeLike
Colin, why are you using the AP poll when the CFP has it’s own ranking that is actually used to determine playoff spots?
Also, again, it doesn’t seem to have sunk in with you that the powers-that-be and dedicated fans of those schools wouldn’t be happy with just making the playoffs and getting blown out there. And no, not all teams that make the playoffs have an equal chance of winning the national title when some of them are operating at a large financial disadvantage.
LikeLike
Richard: “Colin, why are you using the AP poll when the CFP has it’s own ranking that is actually used to determine playoff spots?”
OK, here are the final CFP Top 25 rankings. They provide exactly the same 12 teams.
1. Alabama (12-1)
2. Michigan (12-1)
3. Georgia (12-1)
4. Cincinnati (13-0)
5. Notre Dame (11-1)
6. Ohio State (10-2)
7. Baylor (11-2)
8. Ole Miss (10-2)
9. Oklahoma State (11-2)
10. Michigan State (10-2)
11. Utah (10-3)
12. Pittsburgh (11-2)
LikeLike
The current playoff proposal was designed to get a 11-0 vote since that is required to amend the current agreement. If the B12, PAC, and ACC champs typically finish 7, 11, and 12 (as in 2021) it will be hard to justify those first round byes. For this round I think the SEC/B10 is more interested in the $$$ distribution than changing any of the format.
For the next renewal it will be hard for the middle 3 to justify keeping the byes unless they consistently finish in the top 4 for the next 10 years. I expect that will be changed to top 4 or just be eliminated with an expansion to 16.
The way to get rid of top 4 byes and top 6 champs autobid is to guarantee that at least one G5 team is included. That should get an 8-3 vote without any of the PAC/B12/ACC approving. However, if a decision is made to expand to 16 the autobids will probably be left in place since it is very likely all will be in the top 16 and the expansion eliminates all byes.
The key is that whatever playoff agreement is made this round is likely to change in the next round in the mid 2930’s, and those changes are not likely to be favorable to the B12, PAC, or ACC.
LikeLike
Little8,
The current playoff proposal was designed to get a 11-0 vote since that is required to amend the current agreement. If the B12, PAC, and ACC champs typically finish 7, 11, and 12 (as in 2021) it will be hard to justify those first round byes. For this round I think the SEC/B10 is more interested in the $$$ distribution than changing any of the format.
For the next renewal it will be hard for the middle 3 to justify keeping the byes unless they consistently finish in the top 4 for the next 10 years. I expect that will be changed to top 4 or just be eliminated with an expansion to 16.
I think the B10 and SEC will actually want to keep this format for a while. They are both likely to get a bye for their champs, plus get multiple at-large bids. It looks magnanimous on their part to let the M3 fight over the other 2 byes, but in reality it means 1 of the M3 always misses out and takes a PR hit (just like missing the CFP now). It also let’s the P2 keep the G5 down to basically that 1 bid, or occasionally keeping out a M3 champ. And don’t forget, the B10 values rewarding champs so they may fight to keep that 6+6 format even if the SEC tires of it.
If they expand to 16, they lose the advantage of byes. The G5 will also push for a second slot, plus the M3 will get a reasonable share of those extra slots. I don’t think there’s a lot of upside in 16 for the P2.
Instead, I would look for adjustments to the revenue distribution plan over time. That’s how the SEC can maximize it’s returns from the CFP and not get pushback.
The way to get rid of top 4 byes and top 6 champs autobid is to guarantee that at least one G5 team is included. That should get an 8-3 vote without any of the PAC/B12/ACC approving.
Why would the B10 and SEC want to get rid of the top 4 byes? I think it would very hard to drop the top 6 champs and still promise a G5 spot unless the G5 champ is usually one of the top 4 champs going forward. The M3 would make a stink about a lower champ being guaranteed a spot if they aren’t – it would have to be just the top 4 champs, and the G5 won’t trust the committee not to screw them on that (and they’d be right).
However, if a decision is made to expand to 16 the autobids will probably be left in place since it is very likely all will be in the top 16 and the expansion eliminates all byes.
I’m not sure the benefit is there for 16. First round games pay the least, and this would mean that all the champs that just won CCGs wouldn’t get any extra recovery time. Many of the proponents of 16 want to add more autobids (11+5), and that won’t happen. Besides, how do they schedule 8 first round games in the limited TV windows available to them since the NFL owns Thursday and Sunday? Overlapping playoff games don’t pay as well.
The key is that whatever playoff agreement is made this round is likely to change in the next round in the mid 2930’s, and those changes are not likely to be favorable to the B12, PAC, or ACC.
I agree, but I think it’ll be the revenue split that changes rather than the format.
LikeLike
Here’s an article regarding the NFL and their tax-exempt status.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/us/nfl-nonprofit-taxes
The reason goes back to 1942 when the IRS ruled the NFL was a trade association for its now 32-member teams and therefore exempt from taxes as a nonprofit under section 501(c)6 of the tax code.
Just to be safe, the NFL lobbied Washington in 1966 on the eve of its merger with the American Football League.
Two powerful Louisiana politicians, Sen. Russell Long and Rep. Hale Boggs, wanted a football team in New Orleans. Then-NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle wanted antitrust protection and confirmed tax-exempted status for the league office.
The Saints were born in New Orleans and in exchange, Rozelle got his wish slipped into an unrelated federal bill on investments and depreciation.
LikeLike
Colin:
Right, and that data doesn’t actually support your contention. Are you trying to argue that FSU/Miami/Clemson have no hope of being as good as MSU/Ole Miss if they joined the B10/SEC?
Or they would be happy to have the resources of Baylor, Oklahoma State, Utah, or Pitt if they stayed out of the B10/SEC?
LikeLike
USC yes, TX and OK are far more geographically proximate and, much more importantly, convinced they would have a shot as at large invitees as #3 thru #6 of SEC versus #2 Big xii.
LikeLike
If making the playoff were the most important consideration, Texas and Oklahoma would stay in the Big XII. It is a lot easier to be #1 in that league, where an auto-bid is assured. They knew perfectly well that the playoff was near-certain to expand, and chose the SEC anyway. That is all you need to know about where playoff contention fits in the decision hierarchy.
LikeLike
Marc: “They knew perfectly well that the playoff was near-certain to expand . . .”
Gotta chuckle at those now saying “We all knew this was going to happen” when, of course, no one had any inkling if and when it would happen.
LikeLike
Doubt USC would back out before 2030. A little bit less doubt regarding UCLA.
As for Texas & Oklahoma, I dunno.
LikeLike
This doesn’t change anything for those 4. They always would have made it with a conference championship before.
LikeLike
Have you been reading all the people moaning here about BiG 14 travel to the west coast?
By 2030, USC and UCLA may be the ones moaning and groaning. We shall see.
Who knows, a chastened Pac might even be much more open to Oklahoma and Nebraska – two teams that would fare a lot better in the Pac than in the SEC and BiG, respectively.
LikeLike
Assuming those teams want to leave.
I suppose we’ll see, but I just can’t see any school being willing to cut their TV money in half when that money is so big now. Not to mention that the SEC and B10 will earn a disproportionate amount of the CFP credits.
LikeLike
Money and exposure are just going to be too great in the Big Ten and SEC for anybody to want to leave those situations.
10 years from now the ACC schools will be announcing moves…
LikeLike
Sorry, Frank, my team still does not have a chance. We could go 12-1 and still be left out. Strike that, we WOULD be left out. It’s not a real playoff without all conference champs. If we can’t start the season with a path to the playoff that takes the subjective out of it, it’s still not fair.
LikeLike
12-1 Rice would make it as one of the conference champs unless there’s 6 conference champs ranked higher.
There’s rarely going to be multiple G5 champs with 12+ wins.
This is the best system for the G5 that the Big Ten/SEC will allow. 6 conference champs is a huge increase in access relative to previous systems.
LikeLike
You’re giving the committee too much credit. A 12-1 Rice would be ranked behind a 11-2 MWC team, probably an 11-2 SBC also. It would take a string of years at that level to change minds and make them think it wasn’t a fluke. A system like this based on perception is just not a true playoff. And if the one loss was the ccg, forget about it. Rice would drop to the bottom of ‘others receiving votes’.
LikeLike
Rice could get in like Cincinnati did last year: go undefeated and knock off a highly ranked team. If the new playoff system was in place now going undefeated with wins against USC and Houston should do it. However, since buy games occur early in the season Rice’s chance at a playoff spot would probably end in early September (today if Rice does not upset USC).
LikeLike
Right, if 2016 WMU could make the new playoffs, there’s zero reason why Rice can’t as the MAC programs are probably the most disadvantaged programs in FBS.
LikeLike
Right. If 2016 WMU could make the new playoffs, there’s zero reason why Rice can’t as the MAC programs are probably the most disadvantaged in FBS.
LikeLike
z33k,
It may be unusual, but 2019 wasn’t long ago:
12-1 Memphis
12-1 Boise
12-1 App St
I agree this is probably the most the P5 would allow.
LikeLike
The six highest-rated conference champions? Would that mean a champ of a Pac 2.0 that’s largely comprised of WSU, OrSU and Mountain West emigres would get an automatic bid, or might it be bumped for the champ of the American? (I’m guessing Notre Dame gets special treatment, as per usual.)
Whatever, it’s good to see the playoff now have some significance to areas north of Clemson (aside from Columbus, Ohio). College football was in severe danger of devolving into a NASCAR-like regional endeavor.
LikeLike
The six highest-rated conference champions? Would that mean a champ of a Pac 2.0 that’s largely comprised of WSU, OrSU and Mountain West emigres would get an automatic bid, or might it be bumped for the champ of the American?
You have read it correctly. Now, without further Big Ten expansion the Pac is still a serious conference. In most years, I suspect the Power Two and the Middle Three would take five of the six autobids, leaving one for the Gang of Five.
I’m guessing Notre Dame gets special treatment, as per usual.
Actually not. Since they are not in a conference, they cannot get one of the six conference champion bids, and they are not eligible for a first-round bye.
LikeLike
One detail I haven’t seen but that I am curious about is whether they will re-seed in the second round. I have seen it suggested that the winner of the 5-12 game (ND-Pitt) would have played Alabama this past season. Doesn’t it make more sense to re-seed so that the top seed gets the easiest first game rather than potentially the hardest?
LikeLike
I believe I read reseeding on Frank’s Twitter.
LikeLike
As I said in the other thread: it’s not a coincidence to me that they were ordered by the presidents to work on 2026 and then consider working backwards to 2024-2025 if feasible.
The Big Ten’s veto (as part of the Alliance) of CFP expansion was predicated on wanting the expanded CFP to go to public bids on the TV rights and thus break it up as a package so that ESPN wouldn’t control the entire thing with control of the “narrative” of the season.
Negotiating an expansion for 2023 and beyond would have enabled ESPN to ask for a multi-year extension (perhaps as long as 10-12 years) of their exclusive rights to the whole property.
The SEC and ND may have been okay with that, but I don’t see how or why the Big Ten would ever agree to that.
Working on 2026 and beyond first makes the most sense from the Big Ten’s position then trying to negotiate an expansion with ESPN for 2024-2025.
Therefore, this is all in accordance with the actions that the Big Ten took to veto the original proposal. The Big Ten was never opposed to the 12 team playoff that Sankey/Swarbrick/Bowlsby designed, the issue was the TV rights. That was the only issue that mattered here.
LikeLike
No. They whined about the Rose Bowl and getting a designated bid most.
Nothing has changed on multiple bidders for 2024-2025. Absolutely nothing. The 3 big CEO egos simply wasted a year throwing a temper tantrum.
LikeLike
Everything changed. They’re working on a new deal for 2026 and beyond before trying to work on 2024-2025.
That is a completely different situation from applying an extension to 2023 and beyond.
The playoff structure was never the issue.
That would have been resolved eventually. The TV situation was the main sticking point.
LikeLike
Not really. Fans talked about the Rose Bowl more than Warren did. Kliavkoff brought it up. He recognized it was an F.U. move by Sankey et al. Autobids caught the media’s focus. Warren brought up the media partners issue immediately.
Both the B10 and P12 said they supported CFP expansion in concept, they just didn’t feel comfortable voting yes to that plan at that time. The P12 had the audacity to want to know some financial details before signing a contract.
https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/acc-pac-12-big-ten-commissioners-push-back/story?id=83118550
The motion that was brought to the table for them to vote on last week didn’t split playoff expansion into the current 12-year contract, which runs through 2025, and another vote for Year 13 and beyond. Instead, it was one yes-or-no vote on expanding the playoff under the originally proposed 12-team model with the six highest-ranked conference champions and the next six highest-ranked teams.
…
Kliavkoff said the Pac-12 would have voted in favor of the 12-team proposal if the vote was specific to the final two seasons of the current contract.
…
The ACC had made its position clear — both publicly and privately — long before the vote, which had to be unanimous in order for the format to change within the current contract. Phillips, the only Power 5 commissioner who served on both the NCAA’s constitution committee and transformation committee — both tasked with restructuring the organization’s governance — stated in mid-January that his conference was united in its stance that “this is not the right time for expansion.”
Phillips pointed to three main reasons for the league’s reluctance: too many unanswered questions as it relates to the health and safety of the athletes; the “overall disruption in college athletics,” including the new NCAA constitution and a desperate plea for federal legislation as it relates to NIL; and a 365-day “holistic review” of policy as it relates to the sport.
…
The Big Ten and Pac-12 felt there were lingering unanswered issues, particularly with the Rose Bowl and the unknown revenue distribution in Year 13. Without knowing the TV contract, the CFP could not answer how the revenue would be shared beyond the current term.
“There can’t be, ‘Well, we’ll answer that after we agree that we’re going to expand currently, we will answer that down the road,'” Warren said. “And so I know from where I sit, where the Big Ten sits, I said it very clearly: We are 100 percent supportive of expansion. We think it’s the right thing to do. But it has to be at the right time, in the right format, for the right reasons.
Warren also rattled off other issues, like mental health, the academic calendar, the revenue share and making sure multiple media partners are assured an opportunity to participate. The Big Ten has also been steadfast in its position that the Power 5 conference champions and one more should have an automatic bid in an expanded playoff — a proposal that hasn’t received much support around the table.
…
“What we’re asking for for the Rose Bowl is a tiny little ask,” Kliavkoff said recently on The Paul Finebaum Show. “We’ve asked for three hours every three years to be protected against having to compete against a CFP quarterfinal. … Not a big ask. It’s difficult to expand the College Football Playoff and also hold onto the great traditions we have in the bowl games. We’re trying to do that. It’s a difficult balance.”
LikeLike
And absolutely none of the stuff they said they were for has been settled.
LikeLike
Not true.
1. They committed to expansion after the current deal ends, and then maybe start it earlier. Before they were trying to force it through under ESPN’s exclusive deal. That’s a huge difference.
2. The lack of autobids being acceptable has been settled.
Also, the presidents don’t have to sweat the details. Their minions do, and nothing legally binding has been signed. You need details before you can sign contracts, which is all the P12 asked for.
The ACC probably still feels things are unsettled, but the recent realignment has them running scared. The want/need the money too much to delay for the other issues.
LikeLike
NOBODY was saying they HAD to have an extension. If you believe conference commissioners explanations of why they do things, you probably even believe the CFP committee on why they rank teams the way the do, despite the fact that the explanation changes week to week!
Absolutely nothing has changed from a year ago in relation to the playoff setup.
LikeLike
ESPN would never have signed off on just a 3 year expansion of the playoff. It’s ESPN. They’re the hardest bidders in this sport.
You really believe that ESPN wouldn’t have required an extension as part of that contract renegotiation?
This is the right way to handle it, work on 2026 and beyond first, then go back to ESPN for 2024-2025.
LikeLike
So why didn’t the B10, PAC, and ACC say a year ago: We need to work on 2026 forward and then see if we can negotiate a deal with ESPN to start the expanded playoff early?
LikeLike
Because that wasn’t on the table. The vote was for 2023 and reopening the old contract.
LikeLike
Do you believe ESPN would pass up the chance to make hundreds of millions of dollars? Of course they would not.
LikeLike
Well, the schools gave up that chance so it’s possible. ESPN passed on the chance to make money from the B10 going forward, so it’s possible. ESPN wants value.
They would’ve used expansion as leverage for themselves. Nobody can predict what final deals would’ve been possible. Maybe the two sides wouldn’t have been able to reach a mutually agreeable compromise. We’ll never know.
LikeLike
We might find out in a few months if they get the CFP expanded in 2024.
LikeLike
Nobody said they had to have one, because ESPN doesn’t make their demands in public. But this was a known concern a year ago.
https://apnews.com/article/sports-college-football-football-craig-thompson-6ad3a1632222abda571580768aade77a
How soon a new format could be implemented is tied directly to television rights. ESPN owns the playoff through 2025. Having multiple network partners is likely to increase the overall value, but whether that can happen before the end of the current deal is unclear.
…
ESPN’s current 12-year contract gives it exclusive rights to the College Football Playoff through the 2025 season, no matter the current format.
Is there a way to get around that exclusivity?
That’s a significant question to which no one involved with the CFP has given a clear, public answer because the terms of the deal with ESPN are confidential.
The strategy for the CFP could be to offer some type of extension to the current deal to ESPN, maybe allowing the network to lock in the semifinals and/or championship game for six additional years in exchange for the right to bring the new inventory —- eight more games in a 12-team format —- to other networks for bidding.
Bringing an expanded CFP to market has become especially important to the conferences (Pac-12, Big Ten and Big 12) that currently partner with both Fox and ESPN. Those leagues have media rights deals of their own coming up in the next four years.
LikeLike
So, Notre Dame can never receive a top-4 seed, unless or until they join a conference and win a conference championship???
LikeLike
Yes, you have that right.
LikeLike
Under this model, that is correct; they would never receive a bye.
LikeLike
Great article and analysis.
Also, the top four seeds still get byes, which should calm the thought that only a handful can actually win it all, even if true, it is still determined on the field.
ND is on board and they will have a first round game even if top 4 rank.
LikeLike
Ian Boyd is a great knowledgeable read. Sadly, he paywalls most of his stuff, but not his overall CFP predictions for this season:
https://americaswargame.substack.com/p/who-can-win-the-national-championship
One thing he pointed to my attention is that the North (B10&ND), West (B12&Pac), SEC West, and Southeast (ACC & SEC East) tend to average 1 CFP bid each.
This year, he’s pretty bullish on both OSU and UMich.
I personally am predicting 2 SEC and 2 B10 in the CFP. 10-1 UMich downs unbeaten OSU in The Game. 11-1 Bama destroys unbeaten UGa in the SEC CCG.
UMich/OSU rematch for the natty.
LikeLike
The proposal the presidents adopted is not precisely the subcommittee proposal, although it is very close. One nuance is that the home team for the first-round campus games can designate the site. Gene Smith already said that he would prefer Indy over Columbus at that time of year, for safety reasons.
But this invites many questions. Would the Big Ten impose a consistent philosophy, or could Wisconsin make a different choice than OSU does? Smith’s concerns (safety) would seem to be equally valid at all of the Midwestern Big Ten stadiums. How much would it cost to reserve an NFL stadium for a game that is not certain to happen? Who pays if the stadium isn’t used? What if two Big Ten teams are hosting in that round?
LikeLike
Why would the B10 impose anything? Maybe Wisconsin wants Camp Randall regardless. Iowa would likely have to leave the state (which I doubt would be a popular decision). I reckon each school is capable of making their own judgement on safety.
LikeLike
Well, the sport has a long history of imposing rules from the top down. I am sure someone will be tempted. After all, if Smith is right, is his stadium the only unsafe one at that time of year?
LikeLike
As an aside, the safety argument strikes me as pretty wack. Did anyone die during the Ice Bowl? All those playoff games up in Green Bay?
LikeLike
While the Ice Bowl was obviously extreme, pros know they might be playing in such games, and are more prepared for them. The NFL has a long history of playing outdoor games after the colleges have closed shop for the year.
As a Michigan fan, nothing would please me more than to see the Wolverines hosting Mississippi State in Ann Arbor in mid-December. But I will grant that Bulldogs probably have players who have never even seen snow, much less played in it. And they do not have cold-weather equipment either.
At the time of the Ice Bowl, Lambeau Field had heated turf, although it malfunctioned on the day of that game. Most college stadiums do not have heated turf at all. I am pretty sure Ohio Stadium does not. I suspect there are some stadiums where the plumbing and heating would be really doubtful.
LikeLike
On the other hand, during 2020, a bunch of B10 teams played in those stadiums at the same time of year.
Anyway, I’ll be interested to see if, indeed, OSU ever hosts a first round game, whether the Bucks would move the game outside the state of OH (and what firestorm would ensue if they did). Cincy and Cleveland, in the same weather conditions at the same time of year, host football games just fine.
LikeLike
They both have heated fields, OSU doesn’t.
LikeLike
Yeah, that would be quite a bit of money not being spent in Ohio. I say if OSU hosts a game, move it to either Cleveland or Cincinnati. Keep the money in Ohio. Both cities/stadiums have experience hosting games in inclement weather.
LikeLike
The problem with that is you are dependent on the NFL schedule. They probably don’t want another game tearing up their field in December.
It’s really a head injury issue with the turf fields. I think the playoff committee/org may have to allocate some resources to these stadiums if there is anything they can do on game day.
LikeLike
Brian, I understand. That’s why I’m saying, while Gene Smith is so blithe about moving an OSU-hosted playoff game to Indy now, I’d be very interested to see if OSU would actually move that game outside of OH when push comes to shove.
BTW, they didn’t worry about head injury in 2020?
LikeLike
It’s a post-season game, so he might move it. He wouldn’t move a regular season game out of Columbus, but OSU doesn’t owe Cleveland or Cincy anything. Smith isn’t worried about OH getting the tax dollars, but he does support local businesses. The fans would complain, but Smith would put the athletes first.
They almost got sued for worrying about player health in 2020. If they can’t factor in the chance of dying from COVID, OSU’s last home game would’ve been 12/12 in 2020, but it really was 12/5.
https://www.si.com/college/ohiostate/football/ohio-state-football-gene-smith-wants-option-to-host-potential-first-round-college-football-playoff-game-indoors-lucas-oil-stadium-ohio-stadium
And remember what he actually said:
But if that were to happen, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith would prefer to play the game indoors at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis rather than in potentially inclement weather at Ohio Stadium.
“I want a clean environment. I don’t want a hard surface for the players,” Smith said during his press conference at the Woody Hayes Athletic Center on Wednesday morning. “I know the fans would like to have it in the ‘Shoe, and maybe it’s snowing or we’re playing whoever, but that surface is a whole new ballgame.
“I would prefer to have the indoor elements and have a clean field. If it was this year, I would want C.J. (Stroud) to have good weather. It’s just that simple.”
…
“I know our fans rally around that and they’d like to host Alabama up here (in December), but now we have the flexibility to move into domes,” Smith said. “Now we can move into (Lucas Oil Stadium) or Ford Field (in Detroit) or (U.S. Bank Stadium in) Minneapolis or whatever if we end up hosting.
“I think that’s important because who knows what the inclement weather could be like at that time of year in any of our places in the north, so we need that flexibility.”
Smith noted that Columbus doesn’t have the same harsh winters as elsewhere in the Big Ten footprint, which means that moving a playoff game would only be an option depending on the date of the first-round game, not a certainty.
“We’re south of the snow belt, so our weather is different than it is in Wisconsin or Minnesota,” Smith said. “I want that flexibility for the league, but depending upon the date that this thing ends up, we may look at the historical calendar and say, ‘Oh yeah, it’s OK to play in Columbus,’ so we don’t need to go do a deal that particular year with (Lucas Oil Stadium). The deeper you go in December, the more challenging it is here.
“We want the flexibility to go indoors. It’s not like automatic. Now, you have to come up with a strategy to predetermine that at some point in time because you have to cut the deal with the facility and do all the operations, ticket sales, all that. But a lot of that is going to be date-dependent, so I’m kind of anxious to see how this playoff schedule actually will end up. When will it actually start? That’s critical.”
Smith just wanted the option, because he didn’t think the game dates were settled yet. Once a schedule is known, then he could make a decision. He’d always a contingency plan in case an early storm is predicted, obviously.
Also, NFL teams don’t have a choice. They can’t move games to another stadium except in an emergency. They might want to do it if it was possible.
LikeLike
Really? Death is the only concern? Well the newspapers say a fan died that day in the stadium, and 19 people went to the hospital for frostbite. The players say they still suffer lingering effect from the frostbite they got over 50 years ago.
The NFL considers it an increased health risk, and that’s with all the resources they have available.
https://www.nfl.com/news/harsh-cold-doesn-t-cause-injuries-but-can-make-them-more-painfu-0ap3000000455784
What are the biggest health issues players might face by playing in below-freezing temperatures during playoff games this weekend?
Cold weather may present a challenge to players, coaches, medical staff and other sideline personnel if any one of the following is present: 1.) Temperature of 40 degrees and below or 2.) Wet (rain, snow, ice, high humidity) or wet clothes at temperatures below 60 degrees. In addition, winds with speed above 5 mph in combination with wet conditions and temperature 40 degrees or below increase the risk of cold injury. The most common medical conditions facing football players in sub-freezing temperatures are hypothermia, frostbite and cold-induced asthma.
Are there any injuries they might suffer that they might not face otherwise?
There are no musculoskeletal injuries unique to the cold, however, players will be at an increased risk for muscle strains and tears, usually to the hamstrings, quadriceps and calf muscles. Since the ball is harder, there is a risk for fractures of the hand and fingers when trying to catch or receive the ball. Those players who participate in a game only intermittently (i.e. punters, kickers, special teams players) are at a heightened risk as they are expected to go “all out,” such as on a punt or kickoff, without a significant “warm up”.
…
What role does a frozen or harder field play in these conditions?
A frozen surface is harder, which means that any direct contact with the ground may increase the risk of fractures, contusions and/or head injuries.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2325967116639222
Concussion risk doubles for games at 50 or below vs 70+. Ankle injuries go up 50%.
LikeLike
Well I do think Bob Lilly got frostbite in his fingers!
LikeLike
The primary safety concerns are for the 60K-100K fans attending. Few B10 stadiums have the plumbing insulated and heated for winter play (All NFL stadiums are designed for January play where located)/ Think exploding toilets rather than concussions. Also slip and falls due to ice, etc. It is feasible to thaw the field prior to the game with tarps/heaters and it is unlikely to get brick hard during the game except in very cold conditions. Fixing the plumbing takes months and costs millions.
LikeLike
12 team playoff terrible for season ticket holders. I am dropping my donation and season tickets so I can use that money to go to playoff games. Regular season games like Mich-OSU, Bama-Geo are meaningless.
LikeLike
I suppose you consider all NFL regular season games meaningless, then.
Anyway, I don’t believe a 12-team playoff would make Bama-UGa (first time) any more meaningless than it was this past season, when the loser not only made the playoffs but won the natty.
LikeLike
Yes, they are. Win 10 of 17 games, maybe even just 9, and you’re in.
LikeLike
You are free to not like them, but the NFL season keeps expanding because the fans do, in fact, treat them as if they are meaningful. I do not watch the NFL very much. Still, I can see that their model obviously has worked.
LikeLike
They are a business that only does football. Their sole goal is making money. Of course their model works for them. CFB is not solely a business.
LikeLike
You are free to not go, but in the proposed system the top four conference champions get first-round byes, which ensures that winning your conference has real value.
In basketball, the postseason has 68 teams rather than 12. But as far as I can see, rivals still play as if conference championships matter, even in years when both are good enough to be assured of a place in the tourney.
LikeLike
Would be ironic if Larry then can’t get any good seats to playoff games because he dropped his season tickets….
LikeLike
And look how important fans consider the regular season in MBB. Hoops starts in March for most people because the season is meaningless. That’s what the expanded tournament did.
LikeLike
Well in a 12 team tourney, most years it will be 11 of the 69 power conference teams (and 12/133 overall). In contrast, in basketball, its about half the power conference members (1/5th of the whole division). Drastic difference.
LikeLike
The NCAA tournament used to be 8 teams. The NFL playoffs used to be 2 teams. Neither has stayed that size.
Yes, and you can probably name 6 of those 11 in the preseason with high accuracy, and the pool the other 5 will come from as well.
LikeLike
So Brian, if the CFP ever expands to 24, feel free to complain.
LikeLike
The I-AA playoff grew from 4 to 24, D-II from 8 to 28, and D-III from 4 to 32. So far.
LikeLike
Like I said, Brian, if the FBS playoffs grow to 24 or more, feel free to complain because at that size, I’d agree with you that the regular season is devalued. Before then, I disagree. Certainly with the 12-team CFP, there’s plenty of incentive for teams to win every game.
LikeLike
Same. When we talk 24 to 32, yes, I will say its too big. I think the basketball tourney would be better at 48 to 52.
LikeLike
I started complaining at 2, and don’t need permission to continue.
LikeLike
Brian, I definitely can believe you started complaining at age 2 and haven’t stopped ever since.
LikeLike
The comment by Larry makes me think of something: even though El Clasico could be contested up to 7 times in a season now (twice in La Liga, up to twice in the Copa del Rey, up to twice in the Champions League, and the Supercopa matching the La Liga and Copa del Ray winners from the previous season) between Real Madrid and Barcelona, RM and Barca fans have not cancelled their tickets. Rather, they want to beat their rival as often and as badly as possible.
I suppose that’s the difference between a real rivalry and a fake one.
LikeLike
Frank,
Respectfully, you are wrong in almost every respect on this issue.
The CFB postseason has only gotten more and more asinine over time. The bowl system made perfect sense.
And not all fans wanted this, just the ones that valued money over everything else and didn’t care about the players.
This isn’t going to supercharge interest because bad teams know they are bad teams, and their fans know it to. A large number of CFP games have been blowouts, and that’s with the top 4. I don’t think getting crushed in the CFP is a vast improvement over going to a bowl game you might actually win.
One mistake you make is thinking that the NFL should be the aspirational goal for CFB. CFB can never be the NFL and will fail if it tries to be. NFL interest is driven by gambling, fantasy sports (another form of gambling), gambling, peer pressure, gambling, TV coverage, and gambling. There are reasons why tens of millions of Americans don’t watch the NFL at all, and many of those people are CFB fans.
NFL teams have a relative level of parity that CFB will never come close to. The draft, salary cap, and free agency are all designed to make it more even. Even then, everyone knows the Lions, Jags, Browns and Jets are probably going to suck every year. The data shows only maybe 15 teams have sufficient talent to have a chance at the title. Fans know this, and expanding the CFP doesn’t change it.
The NFL also uses a lot of local TV coverage. I don’t see that working in CFB. Show fans in NJ and NYC only RU games and see how many tune in. I greatly prefer the national coverage of CFB.
NFL fans don’t care about any other team. They watch because it’s football and they have money riding on it. And it’s not like they have a bunch of other games to choose from, unlike CFB.
You don’t understand OSU and other power fans. Last year was a lost year, and an embarrassment on the defensive side. We pay our coaches way too much for either side to ever be that bad. Losing to UM makes the season a failure. Watching that same team get crushed in the CFP only makes it worse. The Rose Bowl was a booby prize, and the game was terrible. Only by luck did we pull out a late victory. There was no team achievement for fans to celebrate about last year. Every year OSU starts with the same set of goals:
1. Beat TTUN – nope
2. Win the B10 – nope (see #1)
3. Win the national title – nope
It was a John Cooper season, but with a terrible defense. We fired Cooper for having those sorts of seasons over and over. Winning the Rose Bowl used to mean something, but your precious improved postseasons have ruined it. Now it is at best a stepping stone, or else a meaningless consolation prize.
Maybe MI would celebrate just for winning a Rose Bowl, since their last win was in 1998 for the national title. OSU has 2 national titles and 3 Rose Bowl wins since then (plus a bunch of other NY6 wins and BCS/CFP appearances).
Expanding the CFP will not change how OSU fans react. They either achieve the three goals or they don’t. Being a top 12 team is nothing for OSU fans to get excited about, it’s just making another NY6 bowl. Those only matter if they are the final game of your season. Now everything will be about getting a bye, and all ESPN”s coverage will tilt that way, and so will Fox’s and CBS’s. Only NBC will talk about it differently, and that’s only because ND can’t get a bye.
This will reduce the importance of the regular season. OSU probably needs to go 10-2 or better to make the CFP. But they are huge favorites in 6-9 games every year, sometimes more. Now those out-of-nowhere losses to PU and IA mean
almost nothing. And IL fans still know they aren’t going any time soon. A few more teams have games that matter, but at the expense of all the big games losing all meaning. Who cares if AL beats UGA or not, if they will both make the CFP anyway? Why bother watching OSU vs ND if both will be in regardless of the outcome? What’s the point of watching rivalry week if OSU and MI will both advance and you are a neutral fan?
And on top of all this, they still are keeping the worst selection committee in the world as the arbiters of everyone’s fate. Talk about stupid. It’s like the NFL asking Jimmie Johnson, Mike Mayock, and Urban Meyer to pick all the wildcard playoff teams using the eye test. Even winning your conference isn’t enough, you also have to convince a committee that you’re better than the other conference champs. And they decide who gets a bye, who gets to host a home game, and what the pairings are. Yeah, that’ll go well.
LikeLike
Sorry, Brian, but as a fan of two of the “have-nots” (Maryland and Iowa State), I intensely disagree with you, even though the Terrapins or Cyclones will rarely (if ever) qualify for a 12-team playoff, much less one of four. I would think the vast majority of college football fans – whether they root for power teams or not – would disagree too. You can’t go back to being Woody Hayes in 1968, obsessed with the Rose Bowl and beating “TTUN.”
LikeLike
I didn’t say we could go back, I said the postseason was better. The national title was nice, but wasn’t an obsession like it is now. The focus was the regular season and then a nice bowl trip as a reward. People could argue about the best team forever.
Now the only thing that matters is the national title. Conference titles are about seeding. 2, 4, 12, 16, 32, it doesn’t matter how many teams are in. Everything except winning that title is failure now. And as long as the CFP is run by a committee, it is the worst possible postseason.
OSU never stopped having those same 3 goals, regardless of the postseason format, so it wouldn’t be going back for us. But this system really incentivizes being #13 if you can’t be elite. Go play in one of the best other bowls and have a chance to actually win your last game. #12 is basically like a G5 in an OOC buy game – getting paid to get crushed.
Most fans just want games to watch. They don’t really care who’s playing. But it will be harder to sell them on the importance of games when losses don’t mean much. 1 upset used to derail a great season so fans would tune in to see it happen. Now it means nothing, the team just can’t blow 2 more games.
LikeLike
Frank is 100% right. The bowl system was asinine. There’s a reason no other sport does it that way. ALL the other NCAA sports and divisions have championships.
The top teams often never met. In 1984 Nebraska and Texas were #1 and #2 all year. Both were disappointed they didn’t meet and slept-walk through their bowl games, each losing by 1.
You think the committee is bad, what about 2000, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011 and several others in the BCS system where clear contenders never even got to play for the title. The old system was a beauty pageant. Everything you hate about the committee was magnified in the old systems.
LikeLike
IIRC, in 1984 Brigham Young clinched the “title” early in the bowl process by beating Michigan in the Holiday Bowl.
LikeLike
That’s exactly the problem – trying to name a champion. The bowl system never tried to do that because it knew it was a fool’s errand.
Many other NCAA sports have longer season and/or meets allowing for many competitors to compete at once.
No, I know the committee is bad.
None of those years you list bother me, because they all assume declaring a national champion is the most important goal and that it can be done accurately. I don’t accept either of those premises. All CFB titles are mythical BS, and they always will be. Now you can just declare tournament champions.
LikeLike
You flaw is thinking the champion is named. If you have a playoff, the champion is earned.
LikeLike
The tournament champion is, sure.
LikeLike
And nothing has cheapened the bowl games like the proliferation of bowl games. Players are opting out more an more because its nothing special. Any team with a winning record goes. The bowl system makes the NCAA basketball tourney look chincy with invitations.
LikeLike
Yeah, the bowl system was untenable.
The “big bowls” below the BCS/NY6 have become diluted by the proliferation of bowls.
Bowls like Citrus, Outback, Alamo, Music City have had much lower TV ratings than they used to even just 10-15 years ago because there’s so many added bowls now that dilute the product.
At this point, expanding the CFP makes sense. Also with the Big Ten and SEC at 16 teams, a 4 team playoff no longer made sense regardless.
LikeLike
What exactly was “special” about the second-tier bowls, even when there were fewer of them? Forty years ago, there were not as many, but there were a lot more than just the top six.
At some point, the draftable players realized they were taking an unconscionable financial risk of a severe injury in a game that meant nothing, hence the new and lamentable tradition of opting out, even in the major bowls when they are non-playoffs.
Since the vast majority of the bowls are creatures of TV, the ones nobody watches are going to disappear. In the original subcommittee proposal, first round losers would not be bowl eligible. The version approved yesterday did not say if that is still true.
LikeLike
I would add, we are now seeing some players opt out in the regular season as well.
LikeLike
I think the issue is on both sides: from the top end, the expansion of BCS going from 8 teams to 10 to CFP/NY6 with 12 just means there’s less ranked teams available for the big bowls under the top.
Citrus Bowl typically had two teams near the top 10 for most of the 90s-00s.
Now it’s teams more in the 15-20 range or unranked.
LikeLike
I’d argue the BCS/CFP have cheapened them a lot. Now, a 1/1 bowl is often a disappointment.
LikeLike
If you were starting a new sport, here is the one system you certainly would not choose:
“Let’s make sure the best teams never play each other. Then, a media poll will decide who won.”
LikeLike
It’s exactly the system I’d choose for an amateur sport with this many teams and this few games, because the national title will always be mythical in CFB because they are not nearly enough games to fairly determine one. The bowl system was never intended to determine a national champion. That was the beauty of it. They left MNCs to the fans and the media. The bowl system let lots of teams and fans end their season on a positive note.
Now all but 1 is a failure. That’s the system I would choose for pro athletes in a small league with a longer season. In part, that’s because I don’t care if professional players get injured.
LikeLike
We have to accept that playoff structures are now designed to maximize revenues and entertainment, not identify/establish the best team.
I believe that if a playoff only included conference/division champions, then it would be much better at identifying/establishing the best team. It would be reflective of a true tournament of champions. To Brian’s point, it is illogical that a non-conference champion can be the best team, so it should not be in a playoff. To identify the division champs, where necessary, scheduling should emphasize matchups between teams in the same division.
MLB has the most ridiculous structure. A team plays 162 games, and if it ends up a wildcard faces a single-elimination game. Really? Rather than play 162 games for a roll of the dice, it would be much more fair to have a single wildcard spot for the team with the 4th-best record in the league. And the only justification for a wildcard at all is there are 3 divisions, so without a wildcard there would need to be a bye – which would be a disadvantage in baseball.
In the NFL, this logic obviously means an 8-team playoff. NHL would be 4 as currently constituted, but if it moved to 8 divisions it would be 8. NBA could be 8 with wildcards like baseball.
In CFB, even if the #2 team in the country is in the SEC, since that team lost out to the #1 team, it should be out. Notre Dame is automatically disqualified from the playoff , except perhaps under the condition it is undefeated or meets pre-defined scheduling requirements, because being an independent gives it an unfair scheduling advantage.
With 32 conferences, MBB March Madness would be just/almost as exciting while the conference tournaments would be much more exciting. Those conferences with divisions could even have divisional tournaments before the conference tourneys. March Madness could thus begin in February!
LikeLike
We have to accept that playoff structures are now designed to maximize revenues and entertainment, not identify/establish the best team.
You are right about that, but your proposed systems do not identify the best team either. They merely provide less revenue and less entertainment while being just as competitively flawed as the systems you despise.
LikeLike
I don’t accept that they provide more entertainment. Look at how many blowouts have been in the 4-team CFP, and the expanded one will be much worse.
I agree that they try to provide it. They just fail miserably.
They don’t maximize revenue, either. That would be much larger.
LikeLike
I don’t accept that they provide more entertainment.
I do not mean close games; I mean games that people will watch. I tend to think that the rut of non-competitive games in the CFP is just random statistical noise with a (so far) very small sample size. I cannot think of a reason why #4 vs. #1 and #3 vs. #2 would always be bad.
LikeLike
It’s been 8 years, so 24 games. It’s not a tiny sample anymore. The CFP has led to a lot of blowouts.
LikeLike
It’s been 8 years, so 24 games. It’s not a tiny sample anymore. The CFP has led to a lot of blowouts.
Statistically, it is quite possible to have a bad run of games in a 24-item sample. It is obviously true that this has happened, but nobody has suggested a reason why the format itself should have led to so many lopsided games.
Even the old bowl system that you favor frequently had match-ups among highly ranked teams, and they were not all like this. The games do not become bad, just because you put the CFP label on them.
LikeLike
Marc,
Statistically, it is quite possible to have a bad run of games in a 24-item sample.
Sure, but when it’s spread over many years, with many coaches, and many teams, it seems less likely.
It is obviously true that this has happened, but nobody has suggested a reason why the format itself should have led to so many lopsided games.
1. It’s a bad format, and the football gods don’t like it
2. Too much time to prepare for the games (teams with 10 coaches and 20 analysts breaking down game tape and scheming for weeks)
3. Too much emphasis put on the games (nerves, anxiety, etc.)
4. Time off leads to rust
5. So many TV timeouts the players lose focus
6. Saban drugs the opponent’s Gatorade
7. Gamblers have bought off teams
8. The CFP committee is terrible at their job
Even the old bowl system that you favor frequently had match-ups among highly ranked teams, and they were not all like this.
Not all, but some were. But back there were lots of bowls so a few blowouts didn’t mean much. Now only 3 games count, so perhaps they only seem more prevalent. I don’t feel like running the numbers to check.
The games do not become bad, just because you put the CFP label on them.
History shows otherwise.
LikeLike
“But back there were lots of bowls so a few blowouts didn’t mean much. Now only 3 games count, so perhaps they only seem more prevalent.”
Ah, so an argument for an expanded playoff, then.
LikeLike
1. It’s a bad format, and the football gods don’t like it
It is a sad day when Brian, who is known for relentless facts and logic, is reduced to this.
2. Too much time to prepare for the games (teams with 10 coaches and 20 analysts breaking down game tape and scheming for weeks)
The semi-finals are played over New Year’s, exactly when the traditional bowls would have been played. They have the same 10 coaches and 20 analysts in the regular season too, and would have them whether there was a playoff or not.
The final is roughly two weeks after the semi-finals, so they have about the same amount of time to prepare as after a regular-season bye week. (Also, the majority of the finals have been competitive games.)
4. Time off leads to rust
They would have the identical time off if they played in a traditional bowl.
5. So many TV timeouts the players lose focus
They would have the identical commercials in a traditional bowl.
8. The CFP committee is terrible at their job
The CFP’s rankings have always been pretty close to the old-fashioned polls. No one has suggested that the committee’s #4 would be #10 everywhere else.
LikeLike
Marc,
The only serious point on that list is that coaching staffs have changed as TV money has shot up. In the bowl system days, Bear/Woody/Bo/JoePa/whomever didn’t have 20 former NFL coaches/NCAA head coaches/etc. as full time analysts on top of his full coaching staff, detailed analytics that were generated for any and every situation, and video and other resources were tougher to manipulate.
I think teams really can come in more prepared than ever used to be possible. And everyone is more focused on these games. These are business trips, not fun trips like bowls.
LikeLike
…the national title will always be mythical in CFB because they are not nearly enough games to fairly determine one.
Is there any sport whose playoff necessarily determines the best team? All you can say is that the champ was the team that won that year’s tournament, often due to (un)lucky calls, breaks, and bounces that probably would not recur if the games were played again. Sometimes there is a team so dominant that you can be pretty sure they would win again, but frequently there is not.
LikeLike
A playoff is not capable of determining the best team. It is merely a money grab.
LikeLike
A playoff is not capable of determining the best team. It is merely a money grab.
Fans called Michigan Stadium a money grab when Fielding Yost build it and then raised ticket prices to pay off the debt. I think they have gotten over it. College sports are constantly changing. The words “money grab” are merely a synonym for “the subset of changes I don’t like.”
LikeLike
A money grab is a money grab. Everyone is openly saying they need to expand to make more money from the CFP. Nobody that matters is concerned about more access for the G5 or other such things. They want more money, and this is the easiest path to getting it.
LikeLike
Brian, you would choose that, but most CFB fans wouldn’t. More importantly, almost nobody below 40 would, and pretty much everyone who thinks the way you do will die out.
LikeLike
I can’t help that most CFB fans are wrong. But most of them aren’t really fans anyway. They are casual CFB consumers, or fans of non I-A teams.
LikeLike
Brian, you would choose that, but most CFB fans wouldn’t. More importantly, almost nobody below 40 would, and pretty much everyone who thinks the way you do will die out.
The system Brian mourns was not the system for the entire history of the sport. He prefers the system he first knew, but if he grew up in another era, he very likely would prefer something else.
LikeLike
I could fully support going back to the pre-bowl era as well, but I think the bowl games are a nice reward for players. That’s the history from 1869-1997, most of which I was not alive for. I can’t help being born when the better system was in place.
Other sports had different types of systems, and I knew them for the garbage that they were then and now. Expanding the systems to let everybody in has never improved any of them.
LikeLike
That’s a pretty offensive way of putting it. More people under 40 don’t care about sports compared to those over 40.
One time on a Texas board we were talking about the 1984 season when UT and NU didn’t play. One guy, said, “that’s the beauty of it. 30 years later and we are still debating it.” Now I don’t think the beauty of it is the controversy, but some people do.
I think every competitor wants a chance to prove they can be the best. The bowl system was a “give everyone a ribbon” model. A playoff is just much better for the players and the vast majority of the fans.
LikeLike
I pretty much agree with you. The old bowl system was better. In 1970 we had three national champions: Nebraska, Ohio State, and Texas. All three schools still claim the NC’s.
LikeLike
Let’s do it the way they do it in kindergarten:
YOU get a national title!
And YOU get a national title!
And YOU get a national title!
And YOU get a national title!
And YOU get a national title!
And YOU get a national title!
etc.
LikeLike
Everybody’s a winner!
Hurrah!
LikeLike
Apples and oranges. Reasonable selectors can disagree about who should be #1. The same selector giving out multiple titles is crap. Your example is the second type.
LikeLike
Huh? OK, I’ll just have different parents give out #1 place prizes to each kindergartener, then. By your logic, that’s perfectly OK.
Everybody wins!
Wooooo!
LikeLike
Follow
LikeLike
Ut oh, Grandma’s feeding the seagulls again.
LikeLike
UCLA contract with Rose Bowl lasts until 2042. Seems ironclad, only allows 1 neutral site game for UCLA in the county.
SOFI is closer to campus (10-15 miles south instead of 25+ east) and closer to where people live.
At some point UCLA will get to SOFI.
100+ degree September games is almost unusable out in South Cali.
Enjoy the Rose Bowl while it’s still in use folks. We get around 18 years of Big Ten play.
LikeLike
Sankey sounds bearish on the chances of expanding the playoff before 2026.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34517297/sec-commissioner-greg-sankey-unsure-college-football-playoff-expand-early
LikeLike
Here’s a little more detail of Sankey’s comments.
https://theathletic.com/3563622/2022/09/03/greg-sankey-playoff-expansion/?source=user_shared_article
One justification has been a desire to have broadcast rights for the 12-team Playoff go to a full bid process, amid the perception that ESPN was in the driver’s seat because of its relationship with the SEC. But Sankey said that was never the case.
“We said from the beginning, in the original presentation, we’re going to the market, we’re going to the market, and every media entity will have an opportunity, so the notion that somebody leverages is completely incorrect,” Sankey said. “To me what’s unfortunate is we could have spent the last nine months talking about the implementation and we’re nine months farther behind than we would have been had we gotten to this back in January.”
LikeLike
I don’t trust that at all.
Whether the expanded playoff could go to market under the 2023 expansion deal was entirely up to ESPN since they owned 100% of that contract.
That’s very different from what they’re working on now.
This is what Frank wrote in 2021: “I still maintain that it would be really difficult for the powers that be to delay playoff expansion until 2026. While I understand the rationale of wanting to take the contract to the open market, 5 years is an eternity when it comes to the media landscape. If I were running the show, my goal would be to get ESPN to agree to a relatively short extension at the end of the current contract (maybe 2 to 3 years), which would allow them to have 5 to 6 years of broadcasting the newly expanded playoff. The playoff TV rights could then go to a fully open market after that time.”
We don’t have to take Sankey’s statements at face value when they don’t match reality.
ESPN would have had the ability to ask for an extension under the deal that Sankey co-authored for 2023 expansion.
LikeLike
Sankey made a public statement refuting your conjecture. Any other commissioner could call him out and say his statement is not true.
Again, you may be right and I may be crazy, but I’m not aware of any public statements or even anonymous sources that back up your speculation that Disney holding out for an extension is the reason the B1G/ACC/PAC voted against the same plan their presidents just voted for.
By the way ask the NFL what a tough negotiator Disney is, as they have been overpaying for the worst NFL package for years. As circumstances change, Disney has shown that they will rework deals with college sports, unlike CBS.
LikeLike
Public statements at the time from Warren said that was one concern the B10 had, so Sankey and friends must not have conveyed it clearly if they did say it.
I also recall no public statements at the time from Sankey denying that ESPN would have a monopoly. Since the topic was clearly discussed in articles about the no vote, he had the opportunity to refute it. Do you have any statements from back then?
And legally speaking, ESPN has an exclusive contract with the CFP through 2025 regardless of whether or not it expands. Sankey couldn’t promise that they would go to market before then, and the B10 didn’t want an expanded CFP all on ESPN. Since the February vote was for “immediate” expansion, it had to be an all-ESPN deal unless ESPN said otherwise.
Maybe Sankey told everyone they’d go to market for 2026 and beyond, but that assumes that ESPN would’ve allowed earlier expansion and not wanted an extension (or a discount on the extra games).
To borrow a word, I think he may be mis-remembering what was said when and to whom.
LikeLike
I think Brian has it right.
Nobody knows what ESPN would have asked for or negotiated.
But I would be surprised if they wouldn’t have required a multi-year extension to expand the playoff under the vetoed deal.
Sankey didn’t expressly negate that view. That’s the problem.
The 2023 expansion proposal did not specify how the media rights would be handled. If it had been specified as just a 3 year expansion proposal that would be okay.
But that wasn’t on the table. Some sort of nebulous negotiation with ESPN was on the table.
This has nothing to do with Sankey but with the structure of the deal.
The CFP commissioners working on the 2026 deal is much more sensible and then backdating it to 2024-2025. That should have been the original approach.
LikeLike
Well, the P12 just threw away another season’s chances of earning respect. #11 UO gets embarrassed by #3 UGA and #7 UU loses to unranked UF. CU lost to TCU. Their best week 1 win will either be over Boise or SDSU. Others beat Rice, MAC schools, or I-AAs.
Now their only hope is a USC team that has ND as their only decent OOC game, and ND already has a loss (but they could get back to 10-1). Plus, USC is leaving for the B10 so their doing well doesn’t really help the P12 ‘s reputation much anyway.
LikeLike
Utah lost the game when they went for 2 up 19-14 in the 3rd. Such a stupid call. Had they not done that, it would have been 27-28 on the last drive and they could have kicked a FG for the win.
LikeLike
Utah lost because their QB forced a pass into coverage and got it intercepted. If he had thrown it away Utah could have kicked a chip shot field goal to tie for overtime.
LikeLike
1. What else is new?
2. Why does that matter? According to Colin, all the schools in the Pac would still want to stay there because they have an easier path to the playoffs (where they’d get blown to bits by UGa/Bama/etc. but Colin doesn’t seem to think that far ahead).
LikeLike
Sure, an easier path to the playoffs via the Pac… but with far less $$$$ coming in.
LikeLike
Oh, I don’t disagree with you, but Colin seems to want to keep insisting that just making the CFP but not having the resources to win the national title is what those programs and fans of those schools _really_ want.
LikeLike
Richard: “Oh, I don’t disagree with you, but Colin seems to want to keep insisting that just making the CFP but not having the resources to win the national title is what those programs and fans of those schools _really_ want.”
No, I didn’t say that at all. That is your hysterical distortion of my comments.
LikeLike
Colin, yes you did. There’s no distortion.
You said schools like Clemson and UO would prefer to stay in the ACC/Pac for easier CFP access even though that would mean taking in less football revenue than Northwestern by the 2030’s. Do you seriously believe that any program that makes less money in football than Northwestern can realistically challenge for the national title?
LikeLike
There are always many mistakes in a close football game that could have been decisive. I cannot blame the QB for throwing a pass he believed was open. (Sure, he could have kicked the FG there, but it’s not as if OT is a sure thing either.) The coach is supposed to know that you do not go for two in the third quarter.
LikeLike
I had not been watching that game at all, but flipped over just as they went for two. I said to myself that’s a bad decision and he’ll regret it. Never chase the points until you have to (never before the 4th quarter) – there are too many ways it can go wrong.
LikeLike
Watched a lot of cfb like everybody else here.
Nothing last night changed my mind that the Big Ten needs more teams that can play at that peak “championship” level. That idea was reinforced to me.
I don’t think Oregon will ever be able to recruit at the level needed to match what Alabama/Georgia put out there last night. Doesn’t mean they can’t be a secondary addition to fit into that secondary tier, but that’s not the priority.
Schools like USC can, but that’s the only school out West that can.
Just cements the idea that the Big Ten has to go for FSU and Miami as well as considering Clemson (if the SEC for some reason doesn’t want to go for 4 schools).
LikeLike
While I agree that Oregon is not a good choice for the BiG, the difference in recruiting quality between the Ducks and Georgia has not been that great. 45 >= 4-star players versus 55. 5 >= 5-stars (including Nix) v. 15. #7 in rankings v. #2. Certainly doesn’t signify a 49-3 outcome.
I question hiring the DC of a team whose HC was DC prior to becoming HC. Same goes for OC. The Ducks’ new OC worked under a HC who was an OC. It’s like Stanford hiring Buddy Teevens, Steve Spurrier’s OC, thinking they were getting the equivalent of Spurrier.
LikeLike
A note on scheduling: the Pac-12 and ACC are prime examples of “scheduling for failure”. In the ACC’s case, way too many games at G5 in-state schools by the NC/VA schools. I get why they do it because there’s so many FBS programs in those 2 states, but the recruiting argument seems half-baked. Va Tech’s brand in Eastern Va should be strong enough even without visiting ODU; ditto for UNC and NC State visiting App State and ECU.
Those are lose-lose games. All they show is that G5 teams can match you in their houses; how does that help build any brand separation for supposed “Power” teams? How many SEC or Big Ten teams do that often? Maybe once a decade you can travel to an in-state G5 team, but Va Tech’s gone to ODU and lost twice in the last 4 years. That just tarnishes your brand.
For the Pac-12, stop visiting SEC teams in one-off games in Atlanta and Dallas. (Everyone needs to stop doing that unless you’re Clemson and you’re 120 miles away from Atlanta or maybe Texas Tech/TCU “visiting” Dallas).
There is literally nothing to be gained for Oregon or Michigan or Miami or whoever in those games. Stop scheduling for failure. You’re never beating Alabama in Dallas or Georgia in Atlanta at the start of a season.
LikeLike
MSU visited each of WMU, CMU and EMU once as part of a series of 12 games last decade.
There’s a series of reddit posts about the last time each P5 team played a true road game at a G5 (not just in-state). The link above is to part 5 – the SEC, and it contains links for the other P5. I know specified in-state, but that was too much research, plus the same logic applies to playing at any G5.
Mississippi State: 9/18/21, 31-29 L @ Memphis (AAC)
Vanderbilt: 9/11/21 (9:00 CT), 24-21 W @ Colorado State (MWC)
Florida: 9/11/21 (Noon CT), 42-20 W @ South Florida (AAC)
South Carolina: 9/11/21 (11 a.m. CT), 20-17 W @ East Carolina (AAC)
Missouri: 8/31/19 (6:30 CT), 37-31 L @ Wyoming (MWC)
Ole Miss: 8/31/19 (11:00 a.m. CT), 15-10 L @ Memphis (AAC)
Arkansas: 9/8/18, 34-27 L @ Colorado State (MWC)
Kentucky: 9/2/17, 24-17 W @ Southern Miss (C-USA)
Texas A&M: 9/20/14, 58-6 W @ SMU (AAC)
Tennessee: 11/6/10, 50-14 W @ Memphis (C-USA)
LSU: 9/29/07, 34-9 W @ Tulane (C-USA)
Alabama: 11/29/03, 37-29 L @ Hawaii (WAC)
Auburn: 10/9/76, 28-27 L @ Memphis State (Ind)
Georgia: 9/23/72, 24-13 L @ Tulane (Ind)
The surprise is probably UF. Otherwise the big names are at the bottom, with AU and UGA not since the 70s. Everyone else has done it in the past 20 years, though.
B10:
1. Indiana: 9/25/21, 33-31 W @ WKU (C-USA)
2. Purdue: 9/11/21, 49-0 W @ UConn (Ind)
3. Maryland: 9/14/19, 20-17 L @ Temple (AAC)
4. Minnesota: 9/7/19 (9:30 CT), 38-35 2OT W @ Fresno State (MWC)
5. Illinois: 9/7/19 (2:30 CT), 31-23 W @ UConn (AAC)
6. Wisconsin: 8/30/19, 49-0 W @ South Florida (AAC)
7. Rutgers: 11/21/15, 31-21 W @ Army (Ind)
8. Penn State: 9/5/15, 27-10 L @ Temple (AAC)
9. Michigan State: 9/4/15, 37-24 W @ Western Michigan (MAC)
10. Nebraska: 9/13/14, 55-19 W @ Fresno State (MWC)
11. Northwestern: 9/17/11, 21-14 L @ Army (Ind)
12. Iowa: 9/7/02, 29-24 W @ Miami (OH) (MAC)
13. Michigan: 11/28/98, 48-17 W @ Hawaii (WAC)
14. Ohio State: 10/17/53, 12-6 W @ Penn (Ind)
One of these things is not like the others – 1953 for OSU. MI was 1998, and again everyone else is within the past 20 years. It’s interesting that NW is so low on the list. And relatively speaking, so is RU.
LikeLike
The list is definitely not correct, because Michigan played @UConn in 2013. (After scheduling the game, Michigan tried desperately to get it moved to a neutral site, but the Huskies refused.)
LikeLike
Marc,
His criteria for making the list:
Here’s how I chose what fit the list:
1. The game must have taken place at the home stadium of the team in question at the time at which the game was played, so Oklahoma-Houston at NRG Stadium did not count toward this list.
2. My definition of a non-Power school differed based on era. In the CFP era, it is all G5 schools and non-Notre Dame independents. In the BCS era, it is all non-AQ schools (meaning Michigan’s 2013 game at UConn would not fit, the AAC was an AQ conference in 2013). Pre-BCS, I went with what felt right and automatically excluded any teams that were in the SWC or were AQ when the BCS began.
LikeLike
Zeek, that happens when your program isn’t filthy rich, so can’t afford buy games all the time so have to schedule 2-for-1s and HaH’s with G5’s or “neutral site” games in the South for money* (Yet Colin seems to think that’s OK because getting to the CFP to be blown out a few times is worth it).
*Except in the case of UMich playing in TX, which probably was for recruiting exposure; that game was also planned before the edict came down from the B10 office to only schedule HaH’s or neutral site games where the B10 gets control over at least half those games (such as the Wisconsin neutral site series with LSU and ND).
LikeLike
Richard: “(Yet Colin seems to think that’s OK because getting to the CFP to be blown out a few times is worth it).”
Please stop attributing these absurd comments to me. You are either badly confused or deliberately dishonest.
LikeLike
What do you think then? Because staying outside the B10/SEC may increase a school’s likelihood of making the CFP (slightly) but would decrease that school’s chances of actually winning the national title considering that that school would be bringing in less total football revenue than Northwestern starting sometime in the 30’s.
It’s hard for me to imagine that you actually believe any program that will bring in less total money that Northwestern has a realistic shot at winning the national title. Do you think my Wildcats have a realistic shot at the natty?
LikeLike
NW’s low chances at a Natty have little to do with $$$, but a lot to do with their academic standards. Putting Stanford into the BiG is not going to materially increase its chances of winning a national championship.
LikeLike
Fair point, but again, I can not think of any program since, well, forever, who brought in less football revenue than Northwestern and won a national title.
I’m not sure what some people on here are thinking. That there is zero correlation between revenue and ability to win the national title? That’s clearly not true.
LikeLike
Revenue will become a significant factor when conference distributions start to be apportioned to players.
When that happens, who knows. But it’s coming. When conference commissioners like Warren are talking about it, it’s just a matter of time.
At that point, conference distributions will become a direct factor in recruiting.
LikeLike
“A rising tide lifts all boats.” – Wen Kang, The Gallant Maid (Qing Dynasty)
Colin M has it right (way up) above, and has taken an unfair heaping of abuse on this subject.
The CFP agreement DOES change things and gives a lifeline to every program not currently destined for the B1G or SEC. (Check The Athletic for multiple columns on this.)
Yes, finances matter – but only to a point. The ACC does not have to make B1G- or SEC-like money – it just needs to be close. And judging by their public comments, ESPN recognizes that, is incentivized for the ACC to be successful, and is working with the ACC to that goal. As Colin M further said, the ACC will get a better tv deal, and probably well before 2036.
As a UVA (and ACC) fan, I prefer regularly playing our neighboring states in the ACC with an easier schedule than the 16-team B1G or SEC. (But we’re looking forward to playing IL next week!) If ESPN/ACC are indeed able to check the right financial boxes, Clemson and FSU will be not be any different.
Much will happen over the next few years – but the new playoff structure gives everyone a shot at the NC, and undoubtedly changes the calculus for conference realignment.
LikeLike
PS. I’ve felt Colin M has been unfairly critical of Swofford and Phillips – who represent the consensus, collective will of the ACC Presidents. But on this one he’s right.
LikeLike
With all the other bombshells in the recent Magnus podcast, this nugget seems to have been lost. He did suggest that if the ACC wanted more money they should add a 9th conference game.
LikeLike
The biggest problem the ACC has is there’s likely to be a lack of unanimity for major changes beyond more superficial ones.
The only substantial change is likely the 9th game. But even there I’m struggling with how that adds a lot more value: worth noting that schools like FSU and Clemson are already playing 10 Power 5 games. FSU already plays Florida as a “9th game” and Clemson already plays UofSC. Both valuable games against SEC schools. Then add their 10th game against schools like ND or Georgia or LSU this past year.
Where is the extra real estate on those schedules for a 9th ACC game, would they agree to that if they’re playing ND and an SEC team or would the ND games count as a 9th ACC game?
You likely need unanimity to extend the GoR. How exactly are you going to get agreements from FSU, Miami, and Clemson on that if they have other options?
I’m just not seeing it, even if ESPN gives the ACC another $5 million per school for the 9th game, that isn’t bridging a $50 million gap.
And then the Big Ten and SEC are likely to be targeting ACC schools in 2031-2032.
Why would those schools agree to extend the GoR and upgrade that TV deal? You’re going to be having to extend that bad deal just to get more money brought up to 2031-2036; ESPN isn’t giving away money here in a world with cord cutting getting steeper and more competition from Amazon/Apple for TV rights. And an SEC renegotiation in 2032-2033 that’s likely to be huge $.
11 years ago, I was far more bullish than most on the Big Ten poaching Maryland after vp19 came by with the idea. (I thought Maryland was a must get for the Big Ten even when others were saying the ACC was secure).
And now I’m firmly convinced that FSU, Miami, and likely others will bolt the ACC in the early 2030s.
There is nothing here that’s a game changer unless ESPN increases the value of their TV deal by 50%. But the only way they do that is if they steal money from years past 2036… if FSU, Miami, and Clemson agree to that, their presidents/ADs should be fired.
LikeLike
That doesn’t mean I’m right on anything or most things, but generally the path forward has become clear reasonably early.
The ACC has 14 years left in is current configuration, but unless something materially changes about the product that its delivering, more schools will announce exits in the early 2030s.
Maybe they supercharge their payments by dominating the CFP for the next 14 years, but beyond that, how does this change?
LikeLike
20 years ago Miami and USC ruled college football – and the B10 and ACC media agreements were roughly commensurate. 10 years ago, the BCS was used to decide the NC.
2032 (let alone 2036) is a long time from now. Extending the GoR is not an issue that needs to be decided at this time – identifying ways to increase revenue is. University Presidents play the long game, and a lot will happen over the next 10 years that no one will have seen coming.
Sorry, just not buying into the doom & gloom predictions for the ACC.
LikeLike
That’s fine, I’m just telling you the reality that the weakest moment for the ACC will be around 2031-2032 unless something materially changes.
The NFL deals end in 2033, and the SEC deals end in 2033-2034. The ACC deal ends in 2036. (The Big Ten is likely to renegotiate its deal ending in 2030 for 6 years to end in 2036).
For every big media company, they’ll likely be 100% focused on the NFL negotiations around 2032 and then the SEC negotiations. ESPN will likely have $5+ billion a year tied up in those rights if they manage to win the same proportion of those rights that they have now.
I’d imagine the Big Ten and SEC will likely be talking to ACC schools around 2031-2032 knowing that it’s the best moment to try to poach schools.
The ACC will have to try to somehow dramatically increase its TV deal around then, but the only realistic way is to pull forward revenue from 2036 and beyond…, but I’m just skeptical that can work without a GoR extension. I don’t see how or why FSU, Miami, Clemson etc. would agree to that to bail out a bad deal.
Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal.
LikeLike
Hootburns, I have to tell you that the top academic and athletic department people at FSU, at the least, do not view it the way that you do.
They are scared to death of being financially crushed by UF.
The rest of the SEC is not the issue to them, it is their situation with UF.
LikeLike
The biggest problem the ACC has is there’s likely to be a lack of unanimity for major changes beyond more superficial ones.
And even assuming unanimity, I am just not seeing much they could do.
LikeLike
For Jersey Bernie above –
Yep, understood; have heard that about FSU/UF too.
Unfortunately for FSU, I don’t see the SEC taking FSU. It does not make financial sense given the SEC already has the Sunshine State in its coffers. And I don’t see UF supporting their entry in any shape, form, or fashion.
FSU has made a lot of noise about leaving the ACC, but it’s probably in their better interests to help solve the ACC’s problems. Just my two cents.
LikeLike
HooBurns: “FSU has made a lot of noise about leaving the ACC, but it’s probably in their better interests to help solve the ACC’s problems. Just my two cents.”
That all changed last week with the new 12-team CFP. We aren’t going to hear another peep out of FSU nor it’s squealing President.
LikeLike
Colin,
Why is Oklahoma leaving the Big 12? They had the very scenario you are describing even under the 4 team playoff format. Their road to the “Final Four” has, and would continue to be, much easier as a member of the Big 12 than in the SEC. So why are they jumping?
LikeLike
Nathan: “Why is Oklahoma leaving the Big 12? They had the very scenario you are describing even under the 4 team playoff format.”
No, they didn’t at all. The B12 champ now has a virtually certain autobid. Previously they had nothing of the kind. If the 12-team playoff had been in effect previously, I doubt that OU and UT would have left the B12.
LikeLike
Considering they still haven’t joined the SEC, not will they for a couple of seasons, why not back out? If they’re now guaranteed a spot in the playoffs as a Big12 champ (which, as I pointed out they were doing with regularity under the 4 team format) shouldn’t this now allow them to reverse their decision? The Big12 would *GLADLY* take them back. It’s not like there’s no history of teams changing their mind re: realignment (TCU & Boise St). At worst they pay a breakup fee. Anyone want to take the “Oklahoma reverses it’s decision and stays in the Big12” bet? I’ll give 100-1 odds.
LikeLike
HooBurns, if the SEC turns down FSU, the B10 likely takes FSU and Miami for demographic, recruiting, and new markets reasons.
FSU will definitely be heading somewhere when the ACC GOR ends.
Colin: You keep insisting on believing that a program that will be bringing in less football revenue than Northwestern in the ’30’s (if they stay in the ACC) has a realistic shot at the national title.
LikeLike
If the 12-team playoff had been in effect previously, I doubt that OU and UT would have left the B12.
This imagines they are so stupid that they did not realize that the playoff was very likely to expand. If their decision was predicated on the playoff remaining at 4 teams, someone at those schools needs to be fired for incompetence.
LikeLike
Marc, I agree. Outside of Colin’s imaginary fantasy world, I don’t believe anybody is as stupid as he seems to think the folks who run unis are.
LikeLike
“If the 12-team playoff had been in effect previously, I doubt that OU and UT would have left the B12.”
Two reasons, outside of the money, that Texas was 100% leaving the Big 12:
1) A&M has been beating us for the difference maker recruits; those kids want to play in the SEC.
2) Our Big 12 home schedule is unattractive. With OU always in Dallas, the only real desirable home game is when we host an LSU or Bama. The SEC move guarantees two or three great home match-ups every year.
LikeLike
Good points, Christian, and to some extent, those points would be true for the ACC powers as well (yes, their schedules are a bit more attractive and their top teams have shown the ability to win head-to-head recruiting battles with SEC (and B10) powers at times, but once the financial gap becomes a chasm, perception will follow, as USC has found out while in the Pac.
LikeLike
The very make-up of the ACC works against it. More than one-third of its members (SU, BC, Wake, Duke, Miami) are private institutions with somewhat small enrollments; Georgia Tech is public but not much larger; UVa and UNC are relatively small state flagships; Pitt at L’ville are urban public colleges; and Clemson, NCSU and FSU fit the large land-grant mode. This isn’t the B1G we’re talking about.
LikeLike
Even Clemson isn’t all that big. Lil Ole Clemson has smaller total enrollment than UNC and lag almost the entire 16-school B10, beating out only NU and UNL (barely).
Only FSU, NCSU, and VTech are large state flagships/co-flagships like most of the schools in the B10.
LikeLike
HooBurns,
Colin M has it right (way up) above, and has taken an unfair heaping of abuse on this subject.
I disagree on both points. He started name calling on Frank’s previous post, and he generally spiraled into trolldom.
The CFP agreement DOES change things and gives a lifeline to every program not currently destined for the B1G or SEC. (Check The Athletic for multiple columns on this.)
Yes, finances matter – but only to a point. The ACC does not have to make B1G- or SEC-like money – it just needs to be close.
1. Define close. If the B10 and SEC are soon distributing $100M (to keep it a nice round number) per year per school in total revenue (to keep it a nice round number), how much does the ACC need to make? $50M? $70M? $80M? $90M?
2. The current CFP basically pays the P5 all about the same amount. That seems unlikely for the expanded version. At-large bids are likely to earn more money going forward, and maybe even wins (like units in the NCAA tournament). A 12-team CFP has been projected to be worth $2B.
Rough math:
If you say 50% is split as base pay (5/6 for the P5 – equal amounts per school, with 1/6 for the G5 to split), that’s roughly $12M per P5 school.
Then assume the other 50% is split based on games played (byes included), but excepting the NCG (to match the hoops model). That’s 12 1st-round units, plus 8 for the quarterfinals, plus 4 for the semifinals, so 24 total. That’s $41.7M per unit.
From prior analyses and rounding to be kind to the other 3, roughly the B10 and SEC will take 4 at-larges (I’ll split 2 and 2 for simple math – I’m not claiming that’s a prediction). The other 3 get 0.5 each on average.
Assume all champs are top 4, and that all games are coinflips. Total units up to the semis would be B10/SEC – 6 each, ACC/B12/P12 – 3.375 each. That’s $15.6M per school vs about $11.7M per school, assuming even splits. That’s a 3.9M gap.
The point is that the expanded CFP will probably increase the gap a little, not close it. What it should do is close it as a percentage (50/100 is more than 54/125).
And judging by their public comments, ESPN recognizes that, is incentivized for the ACC to be successful, and is working with the ACC to that goal.
So they will just give them money?
There are things the ACC can do, like adding a 9th game, and dropping I-AA games for better OOC games, to earn more money. There could be something from working with the P12 to move the P12N into the ACCN. But that’s a few million dollars per year. The projected gap is much larger than that. Even if ESPN (out of complete charity) renegotiated the current deal to be current fair market value, it would be maybe $35M per school, correct? The B10 will soon be getting $70M+.
As Colin M further said, the ACC will get a better tv deal, and probably well before 2036.
The B10 starts its big new deal in 2023 and will get another new deal in 2030. The SEC will start their all-ESPN deal in 2024 and will get a new deal in 2034. It’s not like everyone else will lose value relative to the ACC.
LikeLike
Brian, it’s ok to disagree on whether the new playoff format will incentivize schools to stay where they are. More power to you – the proof will be in the pudding down the road.
In the end, university presidents want a stable revenue stream, a fair shot at playing for championships, and to not fall too far behind in the conference arms race.
None of us can say how close the ACC has to be; the point is that there is in fact an acceptable margin – the ACC just has to determine what that is & get there.
And despite the fan speculation about what ESPN will or won’t do – the only real info available is that ESPN has publicly said they’re working with the ACC on it.
Am not into name-calling, have seen the discourse previously, and wasn’t really commenting on that aspect LOL
LikeLike
Be very clear, I am not in favor of any of this realignment. I’d rather undo it than have more of it. I certainly am not rooting for the ACC to get raided.
You said the ACC has to be “close enough” financially as part of your argument for the CFP expansion to help the ACC. You have to have some sense of what you consider close enough to make that argument. And since the CFP expansion is likely to increase the financial gap, I’d like to hear why that helps.
I know there is some upside to having more access, but the ACC hasn’t been left out anyway. The expansion helps the P12 and B12 much more than the ACC in that sense.
ESPN has been content to let the ACC hang in the wind for years. They can work around the margins some, but there isn’t a big leap in revenue coming unless the ACC makes some structural change to justify it. The deal isn’t that far below market value (unlike the SEC’s CBS deal, for example, or ND’s NBC deal).
LikeLike
Colin M has it right (way up) above, and has taken an unfair heaping of abuse on this subject. The CFP agreement DOES change things and gives a lifeline to every program not currently destined for the B1G or SEC.
No, he has it completely wrong, as he so often does. There will be more money in an expanded playoff, but the Big Ten and the SEC will get a disproportionate share, because they will have more teams that play in it. Financially, the playoff does not allow the ACC to catch up. It preserves (at best), and may even exacerbate, the financial gulf that separates them.
LikeLike
Let’s say Conference A makes @ $70M per team per year. Conference A is known as the Death Star b/c it is highly competitive; joining assures that (1) your students will have unprecedented travel demands & (2) your team rarely makes it to the National Championship.
Then there’s Conference B that makes $55M per team per year. There’s limited travel (i.e. the volleyball team won’t have to travel across the country for half your conference games). B/c Conference B is top heavy, your team is virtually assured of being in the National Championship every year.
That is a realistic scenario, and I don’t see university presidents automatically jumping into the Conference A boat. That is what I was commenting on, and I don’t think that’s completely wrong…
LikeLike
HooBurns: “That is a realistic scenario, and I don’t see university presidents automatically jumping into the Conference A boat.”
In addition to that, schools that leave the ACC, B12 or Pac to join the Big Ten or SEC will be trading a very good chance of making the playoffs for a very poor chance.
LikeLike
Realistic except for 2 things:
1. The projected financial gaps are much more than $15M. That’s the problem
The differences in TV deals are projected to be $30M or more in the very near future.
2. “Your team is virtually assured of being in the National Championship every year”
Even if I assume you meant to include the entire CFP in that statement, maybe a handful of schools could feel that way right now (AL, OSU, Clemson, UGA, OU) but they all remember when that wouldn’t have been true. History says nobody stays a top 10 team all the time, and that’s what this would require unless you can guarantee winning your conference and being a top 6 champ.
LikeLike
Brian, you appear to assume that nothing changes on the ACC side, only B1G revenue will continue to grow, and the ACC’s gap will widen indefinitely.
Whether the ACC expands, partners with the PAC, adds a 9th conference game, or whatever, we are talking a decade from now. There is every reason to believe the ACC (and ESPN) will take steps to shrink the $30M gap. And it is not unreasonable to think they might have some success – we shall see.
If you’re Clemson, then you have to think you have a shot at the Natty every year as long as you remain in the ACC, as things stand now. That’s not true if you join the B1G/SEC 16-team Death Stars.
Further, neither UVA nor UNC – both proud, wealthy institutions – are going to willingly consign themselves to permanent mediocrity as Maryland has.
No one’s hiding under a rock here. It all depends on what the ACC (and ESPN) is able to do, right? They appear to have 10 years to get there.
LikeLike
Right, Hoo, it’s not just an issue of CFP access vs conference money. Those are just two of a host of factors.
It’s hard to imagine UVA and UNC walking away from Tobacco Road basketball. It would be considered treason in VA and NC. They would become outcasts.
All-sports team travel for FSU and Clemson to the Big Ten would be horrific, both for the B1G and Noles/Tigers. ND’s AD has already complained about getting Olympic sports to Tallahassee and a glance at a map shows that Clemson is out in the middle of nowhere.
For the SEC, FSU and Clemson to the SEC captures zero TV markets. They already have FL/GA/SC. And if they did leave, who would be getting the ACC autobids to the CFP? Well, it would be Wake, Pitt, VT and Miami.
LikeLike
The ACC will try, but there aren’t good reasons to believe they can make much of a dent. Simply look at TV ratings. They are comparable to the current Big 12 and way behind the Big 10 and SEC. The only way I see the gap to close is if the TV market collapses in the 2030s and the Big 10 and SEC don’t get as good a deal next time. Then the ACC’s long term lock in will help. That is far, far more likely than the ACC to be able to do anything on their own in a rising TV market.
LikeLike
Right, I see Bullet in touch with reality and a few people who are not.
The ACC has to hope that something really destroys the TV market (or not, because the only things I can think of–financial and/or political calamity and/or awful unrest–are very bad for America). Otherwise, even if the ACC market value rises, the B10/SEC’s will rise more and yes, the gap will widen.
LikeLike
HooBurns,
Brian, you appear to assume that nothing changes on the ACC side, only B1G revenue will continue to grow, and the ACC’s gap will widen indefinitely.
Until proven otherwise, yes. They are under contract. Those are the facts in evidence at this point.
I have heard no realistic (they aren’t raiding the B10 or SEC, and ND isn’t joining) proposed ideas that would add more than a few million dollars per school to the ACC deal even if ESPN did adjust it. All the media experts agree on that, too, so it’s not my uninformed opinion.
Whether the ACC expands, partners with the PAC, adds a 9th conference game, or whatever, we are talking a decade from now.
Who could they realistically expand with that would raise their revenue? ND isn’t joining, and they aren’t raiding the B10 or SEC. Everyone else is already in a conference paying about the same as the ACC or more.
The ACC already has 8 games plus the 5 ND games plus the SEC rivalries. Will they agree to 9 games on top of that? And if they do, those likely replace their best remaining OOC games. So how much value do they add? A few million, as I said before?
There is every reason to believe the ACC (and ESPN) will take steps to shrink the $30M gap.
Is there? ESPN isn’t obligated to do anything, and they aren’t a charity. ESPN needs a sound business reason to unilaterally increase the payout. Disney does have shareholders they are responsible to, after all.
And it is not unreasonable to think they might have some success – we shall see.
No, it isn’t. Especially depending on how you define “some success. ” I notice you continue to avoid putting any sort of numbers on these things. Even giving the ACC a boost to $35M per school per year (from $27M now) would leave them over $35M behind the B10 in a few years. Both contracts presumably have annual escalators (4% is typical), so that will just grow the gap over time.
If you’re Clemson, then you have to think you have a shot at the Natty every year as long as you remain in the ACC, as things stand now. That’s not true if you join the B1G/SEC 16-team Death Stars.
1. Clemson has been this quality under Dabo, but nobody else since the 80s. They probably don’t want to count on that lasting forever.
2. FSU and Miami have both been way down. That probably won’t last forever either.
3. They have to be top 1-2 in the ACC to get into a 12-team CFP, or top 3-5 in the B10 or SEC. In theory, that’s equally difficult. It’s supposed to be the 11 best teams plus a G5 champ, right?
But that’s just Clemson. FSU and Miami can’t assume that at this point. What happens to the ACC if they want out in 2036?
Further, neither UVA nor UNC – both proud, wealthy institutions – are going to willingly consign themselves to permanent mediocrity as Maryland has.
Remind me of all their recent football success. Both are 0-1 in the ACCCG in 17 years. UVA has never won an outright ACC title (co-champs in ’89 and ’95), and UNC hasn’t won one since 1980. When have they been anything but mediocre in football?
And since both are so wealthy, they should have no concerns. They can stay in the ACC and compete nationally despite the financial gap.
No one’s hiding under a rock here. It all depends on what the ACC (and ESPN) is able to do, right? They appear to have 10 years to get there.
I’d contend it’s what the ACC is able to do but what ESPN chooses to do.
LikeLike
Maryland’s “permanent mediocrity,” HooBurns? Nonsense. Since joining the B1G in 2014-2015, only wealthy behemoths Ohio State and Michigan – both fielding many more athletic teams than College Park – have won more conference titles than the Terrapins. College Park has thrived in its new home. And if you insist on placing this in a solely football context, UMd, UVa nor UNC haven’t won a conference football title since the Terps took the ACC crown in 2001 (the Cavs and Tar Heels have each won the Coastal Division but lost the conference championship game).
LikeLike
I do not know why people are connecting Clemson to the B1G, under virtually any circumstances. The academics are simply too weak. Clemson will need to keep winning to convince the SEC to take a second team in SC.
Anyone who does not think that FSU would jump at a chance at joining either the SEC or B1G has no idea what is happening in Tallahassee. Yes, travel in the SEC would be much easier and culturally similar. Of course, the idea of association with the academic standards of the B1G really attracts important people at FSU. If the choice comes it would be an interesting issue.
The SEC will give FSU an offer just to defend against the B1G.
As far as getting to and from TLH (Tallahassee airport), there are direct flights from Chicago, Milwaukee and Indianapolis, and other major airports. The problem is that getting from a secondary city airport directly to TLH will not work. By the way, TLH is only 15 or so minutes from the FSU campus, so that is not the issue.
What can the ACC do to significantly increase its funding? Will ESPN unilaterally simply increase payments? Another complication is that ESPN owns the ACC network, so it is not as though that will help.
In the past year, the ACC network has been added to Comcast Xfinity. I do not know what extra revenue that brings, but I have not seen anything indicating extra money to the teams.
I think that it an optimistic dream to believe that the ACC schools will increase revenues nearly enough to compete with the SEC or B1G.
In NC and VA want to stay in the ACC, that would work. Clemson, FSU and Miami will leave and then there will be a great basketball league that also happens to play football. (Or maybe just FSU and Miami)
LikeLike
If it was $70M vs. $55M I could see some schools not moving for $15M. However, the estimates the PAC is getting is $25-$30M. Much harder to pass up more than twice the media money. Keep an eye on the PAC and B12 deals as they get announced. Those will be close to what the ACC can expect than SEC or B10 deals.
LikeLike
For sure, if I was in the ACC, I would like to believe that schools in the ACC actually have a shot at winning the national title.
But the reality is that by some point in the 2030’s, Northwestern will be bringing in more total football revenue than any ACC school. Does anyone seriously believe any program has a realistic shot at the national title if Northwestern is capable of outspending them?
And yes, at one point in time, the Pac and ACC did make as much money as the B10. Back then, the SEC far and away led everyone else in TV viewership. Then the B10 started the BTN, giving the conference a financial, exposure, and brand/recruiting boost and added UNL and East Coast schools. Even though RU and UMD still draw abysmal viewership to their games, that combination has really boosted the viewership of the top B10 games.
Here are the list of conference games that got more than 4mm viewers by conference:
2014 (giving half-credit for split coverage):
SEC: 20
B10:8.5
ACC; 4
B12: 2.5
Pac: 2
2021:
B10: 14
SEC: 11
B12: 3
Pac: 1
ACC: 0
LikeLike
There are only 22 schools that have won an AP or coaches national title going all the way back to 1960. BYU in 1984 and Pitt in 1977 were a long time ago. Georgia Tech, 1990 coaches poll, has shown no sign they will repeat and went winless a couple of years later. Beyond those 22, only Oregon and TCU have even finished in the top 3 more than once since 1968 and only 32 total schools have cracked the top 3 even once. If you go back another 8 years and start after 1960, its still only 36 schools to make the top 3 (Navy, Ole Miss, Illinois and Wisconsin get added to the list). There aren’t many schools with a chance to win.
LikeLike
z33k, you’re not wrong. The ACC clearly needs to improve its fortunes by 2031/32 – there’s no disputing that.
LikeLike
Yeah I want to be clear that I’m not trying to talk down the ACC or anything.
Just that we’ve sort of learned around here when the important turning points for realignment appear.
Realignment is all about rare opportunities when schools and conferences can consider different alignments.
They are rare though and if not taken then a school may not be available again.
If the ACC schools get to 2036 and sign a new TV deal and GoR, then that might mean a 3 year buyout could rise to $300 million even ignoring the GoR.
At that point realignment starts to look prohibitive.
I think if we see ACC schools leave, it has to be in 2036 and announced in 2031-2032.
LikeLike
Brian: “I notice you continue to avoid putting any sort of numbers on these things.”
Yes, that’s right. In candor, I don’t have to offer a number – we both know there’s a number there. It’s up to the ACC to determine from its members what that amount is & find a way to get there.
Clearly, you think a $35M gap will kill the ACC – and perhaps you’re right. Clearly, you think the ACC’s ability to reduce that gap to $15M is unlikely. Obviously, the right amount (that keeps schools in the ACC) is somewhere in between – and we’ll learn what it is between now and 10 years from now (maybe sooner).
How to reduce that gap? You kinda shot down every idea that’s been floated, LOL. That’s ok – the ACC has about 10 years to figure it out, by all accounts.
Cheers!
LikeLike
Sure, the ACC could and should try to “find a way to get there”. Will the ACC succeed? I doubt it. Would FSU, Clemson, and Miami be willing to stay in the ACC at a large permanent financial disadvantage to the big dogs in the SEC and B10 if they have the opportunity to join the SEC/B10?
Unlike some folks on here who seem to think that those schools would take a slight increase in their chance to make the CFP in return for being permanently disadvantaged in actually competing for the national title, I doubt that very much.
LikeLike
HooBurns,
Yes, that’s right. In candor, I don’t have to offer a number – we both know there’s a number there. It’s up to the ACC to determine from its members what that amount is & find a way to get there.
You’re making the argument that it’s reasonable to think the ACC can close the gap enough. That’s pointless if you refuse to estimate what close enough is. You’re the one throwing out this theory. It’s not reasonable to think it’s possible if there is no number attached.
So pick some number you as an ACC fan thinks is reasonable, then make a case for how the ACC can get there. Or just make a numerical case for how they can close the gap. I haven’t heard or seen anyone suggesting they can get much past $35M, and the B10’s new TV deal will be well over $70M before it ends.
Clearly, you think a $35M gap will kill the ACC – and perhaps you’re right.
No, I think certain schools will leave to chase that money. USC and UCLA did when the gap was lower. UMD did. UT and OU did. I think Clemson, FSU and Miami definitely would chase it if offered. I think it highly likely every ACC member would as well, but some might prefer to ignore big time CFB and stay in the ACC instead.
Clearly, you think the ACC’s ability to reduce that gap to $15M is unlikely.
Not a single person has some up with a plausible way for the ACC to do that. Not the head of ESPN, not the former head of Fox Sports, not the ACC commissioner, and not a single fan. There are things they can do around the edges that have been estimated as worth a few millions dollars.
Obviously, the right amount (that keeps schools in the ACC) is somewhere in between – and we’ll learn what it is between now and 10 years from now (maybe sooner).
No, it’s not obvious. UMD left when the gap was smaller than that, FSU and Clemson were talking about leaving when the gap was smaller than that. I don’t think it’s at all obvious what that number is, and it likely varies from school to school.
How to reduce that gap? You kinda shot down every idea that’s been floated, LOL. That’s ok – the ACC has about 10 years to figure it out, by all accounts.
I’ve shot down the unrealistic ones – adding ND, or any school from the B10 or SEC. Nobody anywhere has shown how anything else can gain them tens of millions per school. Adding the P12N content and some western subscribers – a few million. Adding a 9th game – a few million at most. Adding B12 or P12 schools – nothing.
Bringing the contract to present market value – a few million. Those estimates come from people in the industry, not me. The money just isn’t there.
If you have a new and different idea, we (and the ACC) would like to hear it.
LikeLike
BTW, I just thought of something:
Nearly a decade ago, I had put schools in to tiers based off of financial resources, recruiting grounds, and brand:
Super-kings: OSU, Bama, UGa, UF, LSU, Texas
Kings: UMich, PSU, ND, OU, Tennessee
I originally had FSU and USC with the super-kings but demoted them to kings due to their financial capabilities not matching the super-kings. Miami too was just a king due to lack of money.
And A&M, UCLA, and Auburn were super princes (I should have had Clemson here too).
But with B10/SEC money, USC and FSU become super-kings and A&M and UCLA (and Clemson) become kings (BTW, if you’re not a super-king, you need a transcendent QB to win the natty, as Auburn had once and Clemson twice).
So if all the possible national title contenders are in the P2, what would the tiers look like?
Super-kings: OSU, USC, Bama, UGa, UF, LSU, Texas, FSU
Kings: UMich, PSU, UCLA, ND, OU, Tennessee, A&M, Clemson, Miami
The SEC would win the majority of national titles in the P2 world regardless, but if the B10 manages to take ND, FSU, and Miami, and Clemson is frozen out in the cold because the SEC can’t find a non-dilutive partner for Clemson, the tally would be much more balanced:
B10:
Super-kings: OSU, USC, FSU
Kings: UMich, PSU, ND, Miami, UCLA
SEC:
Super-kings: Bama, UGa, UF, LSU, Texas
Kings: OU, Tennessee, A&M
The B10 may actually win close to half the national titles in the P2 world (maybe 40%), though granted, probably a majority of those would be due to the new additions.
LikeLike
“You’re making the argument that it’s reasonable to think the ACC can close the gap enough. That’s pointless if you refuse to estimate what close enough is. You’re the one throwing out this theory.”
Your hypotheses (and prediction) is that the ACC is absolutely destined to lose members. Notre Dame has had ample opportunity to join the B1G to date, but hasn’t. Virginia turned down an invite a decade ago. So for some schools at least, that invite and promises of great fortune must not be as enticing as thought. Colin M makes another point that there are a host of factors schools consider when it comes to conference realignment – he’s not wrong. Money is powerful but not the only determinant. We can agree to disagree.
“It’s not reasonable to think it’s possible if there is no number attached.”
Sure it is. Do you think Jim Delaney knew what the number was when he first thought of standing up the B1G network? Of course not. That final number will come eventually, and we’ll see then what schools decide.
“Not a single person has come up with a plausible way for the ACC to do that…. There are things they can do around the edges that have been estimated as worth a few millions dollars.”
You’re right – there is a not a single way to do that… it will take a combination of things. First, to clear up some mis-info: The ACC has yet to get a full year of distribution from Comcast signing up – and that alone is projected at an additional $6M per school. Now let’s assume the ACC can milk $5M each from at least three of the following: sell more content on the ACC Network (ie PAC games), go to a 9th conference game, sign up Amazon Prime or other new carriers, and/or bring the ESPN contract to current market value. That $15M add increases ACC distributions by $21M, dropping the $35M gap to $14M. And with survival on the line, I’d expect the ACC to do all those things and more.
Brian, you argue good points and usually we’re in violent agreement. But you’ve dug in your heels a bit on what absolutely will and won’t happen to the ACC over the next 10 years. All I’ve said in the end is that the ACC needs to remain close and has 10 years to figure it out. Like with UMD, it’s quite possible there’s nothing the ACC can do or say for someone who really wants to leave – we’ll see on that too.
LikeLike
Notre Dame has had ample opportunity to join the B1G to date, but hasn’t. Virginia turned down an invite a decade ago. So for some schools at least, that invite and promises of great fortune must not be as enticing as thought.
Yes, when the numbers are close, other factors influence the decision. The only real question is what constitutes “close.”
Notre Dame is universally understood to be in a category into itself. But their AD conceded recently that there is some number so large that they would be unable to turn it down, though he did not say exactly what it is. When ND last had the opportunity to join the Big Ten, the gap was not very significant, and perhaps was not even a gap at all when all revenue sources are considered.
I would be very surprised if UVA would make the same decision today, if they were free to choose again. They guessed, and guessed wrong. They are now paying for their mistake.
All I’ve said in the end is that the ACC needs to remain close and has 10 years to figure it out.
I am not going to argue too hard about what could happen in a decade. Yes, they have 10 years to figure it out. The GoR is both a blessing and a curse in that regard. Right now, they are massively underpaid, but their members are also unable to get out.
The trouble is, the financial levers you have identified are available to other conferences too. While the gap should not be as large as it is, it can never be zero and it can never be particularly close. Even if the ACC could tear up every contract today and rewrite it at market value, they would still be way behind.
And it’s not as if Florida State has a 70-year relationship to the conference: they are in the ACC primarily for convenience, which means they will also leave for convenience. But sure, let’s give them 10 years and see what they do. Due to the Swofford Swindle, they are so screwed up now that any move they make has to be an improvement.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree.
“The Swofford Swindle” – LOL ya made me chuckle on that one!
LikeLike
It’s a good point to say that UMD and UVA show that when the differences are close, other things can matter.
In 2012, UNC was expecting a $20 million difference per year by 2017 between the Big Ten and ACC distributions according to Bubba Cunningham’s emails that got FOIA-ed.
For UMD given their financial situation, they had to take the leap. Sports had to be cut, they needed financing for their fieldhouse project, etc.
For UVA, that wasn’t enough of a financial difference back in 2012 to justify leaving their relationships in the ACC despite having a Big Ten invite in hand.
Would they make the same choice knowing what the projected payout differences would look like in 2022 or 2027 or 2032?
As you point out, the bigger issue perhaps is what other schools will do. Tobacco Road and those NC/VA relationships may hold those schools together, but Florida State and Miami are not held by those.
Clemson looks worryingly at UofSC and what their SEC branding does for them.
FSU looks at UF the same way; they have to be in a comparable position.
Miami looks at UF and FSU and wants to be on that same tier and will make moves to get there if needed. (Of course there has to be an option for them, but given the Big Ten blowing up geography by going for USC, they can position themselves as the USC of the East Coast).
The same thing happened with Texas(/OU) and Texas A&M. That SEC branding for A&M was a huge differentiator and not one that Texas/OU could idly sit by and watch when you compare the Big 12 schedules to the SEC schedules.
LikeLike
UVa is an atypical animal. Founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819, it didn’t admit women as full-time undergrads until 1970 – about the same time Princeton did. For generations, its Old South heritage often made life difficult for black students. And many UVa students and alums not only recognize its uniqueness, but cherish it; I recall seeing a letter to the Cavalier Daily student paper complaining about the creeping presence of “state U-ism” on the Grounds (as Cavs call their campus). Athletically, culturally and educationally, UVa has far closer ties to UNC (a relatively small “public Ivy”) than it ever did to the traditionally more plebeian UMd, a Big Ten-style land-grant state flagship.
LikeLike
“its Old South heritage often made life difficult for black students.”
For Asian students too. A good friend of mine is a Korean-American who grew up in NoVa and graduated from UVa. When I told him recently about my plan to eventually get a WFH (really work-from-anywhere) job and move to one of VA/GA/MI (for the in-state tuition and easier in-state admissions to UVa/GTech/UMich) as the Ivies/equivalents these days
1. Cost too much
2. Are too insanely hard to get in to even for a good student
He recommended against UVa. Evidently, he did not feel comfortable there.
LikeLike
HooBurns,
Your hypotheses (and prediction) is that the ACC is absolutely destined to lose members.
Unless something structural changes the landscape in such a way as to prevent it, yes. I don’t think FSU and Miami have deep ties to the ACC like UVA and UNC do. I don’t think the ACC is guaranteed to fall apart, but losing at least a few members seems very likely.
Notre Dame has had ample opportunity to join the B1G to date, but hasn’t. Virginia turned down an invite a decade ago. So for some schools at least, that invite and promises of great fortune must not be as enticing as thought.
I’ve never thought ND was joining the B10, nor will they ever do it. ND will always be independent. They may get pulled into an NFL-lite league, but they wouldn’t join a conference in the traditional sense.
UVA has options outside the B10, and I’ve never said they would leave the ACC for sure. But FSU has made a lot of noise about looking to leave to chase the money. They were considering the B12, so the SEC (or B10) doesn’t seem like a stretch. Miami doesn’t have deep ties to the ACC either.
Colin M makes another point that there are a host of factors schools consider when it comes to conference realignment – he’s not wrong. Money is powerful but not the only determinant.
It’s all about the what’s in the long term best interests of the school. Money is a huge factor, and almost everyone has taken it when offered. Next is probably academics. Is UVA going to say the B10’s academics aren’t good enough for them? I doubt that. The SEC’s? I doubt that, too. Then is probably “fit,” being a small, elite public school.
It will come down to if UVA feels they need or want the money. If they do, they’ll be fine with the fit in the B10 or SEC. If they don’t, then they can stay in the ACC. They’ve never been nationally competitive in CFB, so if they can stay competitive in MBB that may be enough for them.
UMD needed/wanted the money, so they left. FSU will want the money, and they’ll leave. UVA and UNC really prefer the ACC, but they may need/want the money at some point.
Sure it is. Do you think Jim Delaney knew what the number was when he first thought of standing up the B1G network?
I think he had projections based on certain price points, because he certainly knew how many cable homes were in all the relevant areas. He didn’t just blindly tell the presidents this might work and then commit them to it.
Your theory to this point amounts to “something will happen.” That’s a wish, not anything reasonable.
Here you finally get to your theory:
You’re right – there is a not a single way to do that… it will take a combination of things. First, to clear up some mis-info: The ACC has yet to get a full year of distribution from Comcast signing up – and that alone is projected at an additional $6M per school.
Correct, but they did get several months of it last year, and as you say people know what to expect it to be. I don’t know about the $6M number, as I’ve seen a range of projections. Here’s one of $3.7M from a Cavs fan:
https://virginia.sportswar.com/mid/16440564/board/football/
Something in that “a few million” range seems accurate.
Now let’s assume the ACC can milk $5M each from at least three of the following: sell more content on the ACC Network (ie PAC games), go to a 9th conference game, sign up Amazon Prime or other new carriers, and/or bring the ESPN contract to current market value.
This is all I was asking for – a plan with some numbers attached. I don’t see how these ideas are all worth $70M+ each (14 * $5M), but it’s not impossible.
A 9th game slightly improves the inventory, but it doesn’t add much (if any) inventory. Since ACC games don’t average high viewership, I’m not sure how much more ESPN would pay for this but I think it’s less than $5M per school.
I also don’t know if the ACC will approve a 9th game. UL, Clemson, GT and FSU all have locked SEC rivals already, so they’d have 10 scheduled games (11 if they play ND). To get 7 home games, they could only play buy games – will they agree to that? Will the other 10 force them to do it?
ESPN owns all of the ACC’s rights as far as I know. ESPN could sub-contract to Amazon or others, but the ACC has nothing left to sell them.
I don’t know why ESPN would feel inclined to unilaterally increase the contract, but they could. Nobody knows exactly what that would be worth, though we’ll find out soon as the P12 and B12 get new deals. The ACC should be a little more valuable than either of them with Clemson, FSU and Miami on board. The projected numbers are around $35-40M, which isn’t all that far from the current ACC deal.
Here’s a great story on the topic from a NC station. It includes some wonderful graphs to track the past and compare conferences:
https://www.wral.com/the-acc-s-future-is-uncertain-the-money-tells-you-why/20413637/
From the article:
In the weeks since the Big Ten announced its expansion, there have been reports of a possible ACC partnership with the remnants of the Pac-12 to generate additional revenue. ESPN will not have any part of the Big Ten’s soon-to-be-announced next agreement, the Associated Press reported. That could free up better game times for the ACC and, for the dreamers, more money. It would behoove ESPN, the thinking goes, to keep the ACC together and successful.
“If I’m sitting in that chair today and I know I have an agreement that allows for stability and also a revenue stream that is consistent, I don’t know that I’m thinking, ‘Oh, I now need to change this.’ Because a contract is a contract,” Garson said. “I would certainly be willing to work with the conference on how to better monetize rights if there are certain areas that aren’t making as much money as they could on behalf of both the conference and the network.”
…
But each year moves the ACC closer to the end of its grant of rights agreement and each year may bring a larger revenue gap, changing the calculus for schools.
Back to you:
That $15M add increases ACC distributions by $21M, dropping the $35M gap to $14M. And with survival on the line, I’d expect the ACC to do all those things and more.
Of course, we don’t have true final B10 or SEC numbers yet. Nor do we know how the CFP will split revenue. We’ll need to see how things actually play out. A lot of things are still projections right now. I’d like to think the ACC will try to do whatever they can, and I hope it works.
Speaking of projections, this is Navigate’s projection from before USC and UCLA agreed to join the B10:
https://nvgt.com/blog/p5-payout-estimates-12-team-cfp-expansion/
They had the ACC $39.6M behind the B10 and $56.3M behind the SEC by 2029. Even if the ACC closes that gap by $25M, they would be $30M behind the SEC (which matters to FSU and Clemson).
All I’ve said in the end is that the ACC needs to remain close and has 10 years to figure it out. Like with UMD, it’s quite possible there’s nothing the ACC can do or say for someone who really wants to leave – we’ll see on that too.
All I wanted was for you to put some sort of numbers to “close” and how they might get there, which you finally did here. Now it’s something people can discuss rationally. We don’t have to agree on what will happen – reality will prove us both wrong in various ways most likely.
LikeLike
Assuming that UVa and UNC even are given a choice to leave for the SEC/B10 or not. To be sure, the SEC may add UNC&UVa for academic prestige, basketball, and to recreate the Confederacy while the B10 may add UNC&UVa for demographics/recruiting and academic prestige, but they both would be dilutive to both the B10 and SEC.
And dilutive schools are added only in special circumstances. Mizzou because adding A&M was more than enough to pay for an even-number school. RU & UMD possibly dilutive but the B10 felt an urgency to protect it’s Eastern flank, keep PSU happy, and sure, for demographics/recruiting too.
LikeLike
RU & UMD possibly dilutive but the B10 felt an urgency to protect it’s Eastern flank, keep PSU happy, and sure, for demographics/recruiting too.
RU & MD have not turned out to be dilutive. I would love to know what the projections were.
LikeLike
Yeah, in the case of RU and UMD, its really hard to say. When they were brought in, their BTN subscriptions paid for themselves but the significance of that revenue stream is fading over time. And those teams themselves do not draw viewers. On the other hand, the B10 definitely has seen an increase of viewers for its biggest games since they joined so arguably they increased the pool of casual (East Coast) fans who now pay (more) attention to big B10 games.
LikeLike
In addition, RU and UMD allowed the B1G to be a coast to coast conference with NYC to Chicago to LA. That is unique in college football and cannot be repeated, as there are on other teams in NYC or LA. Whatever viewers RU or UMD individually draw, the B1G now goes from NY and DC to LA.
Speaking of LA, CBS Sports chairman Sean McManus said
“The addition of those two schools really cemented the national footprint of the Big 10 coast to coast. There’s going to be plenty of really good games to go around.”
Would CBS and NBC be in this new contract without the coast to coast footprint?
And if ND is relevant, this is also interesting.
Notre Dame AD Jack Swarbrick said in 2020: “I still believe that the opportunity to play in New York regularly, the opportunity to play on the West Coast every year. No school has ever played in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York in the same year; we’ve now done it nine times. That’s what independence gives us, it gives us that opportunity. ”
I guess that the independence to play in LA, Chicago, and NY now includes all B1G teams.
LikeLike
Bernie, that’s fair.
IMO, CBS and NBC would still have paid a ton of money to the B10, but yes, being able to almost replicate ND’s national coverage (not quite yet; still have to add FL/SE schools) and being in the 3 biggest media markets*–the very biggest on each coast and also the heartland–is also a plus.
*Actually, the B10 is now in the top 4 media markets. If FSU, Miami, Stanford, and GTech are added in the next phase (with ND playing 8 games vs the B10), the B10 would be in 8 of the top 11 (and 11 of the top 16 and 13 of the top 19) media markets.
LikeLike
The PAC was in denial after TX/OK announced the SEC move. They thought their geography would protect them. It did not go well. The basic problem is that each pair was generating about 250% of a conference distribution. The SEC and B10 captured that excess revenue and in the process decapitated those conferences. It will be hard to prevent the same from happening to the ACC. The top schools just have fewer mouths to feed in the B10/SEC. That will not change if the ACC gets a market level media deal.
At least the ACC has 10+ years to prepare for life after the loss. Unlike some on this board, I doubt that the SEC/B10 will find more than 3-5 ACC schools worthy of an invite by 2032. As long as 9 or more members are left why would anyone want to go to the B12 for the same money?
What can be done (not much)
>> Initiate uneven revenue sharing to minimize the difference between value and payout for top schools. However, this brings its own problems. If the top schools are truly paid what they are worth that just brings in the lower revenue for the other schools by 10+ years.
>> Hope that Clemson has a bad decade and does not get an invite
>> Hope the NC BoR says it is both (UNC+NCSU) or none
>> Hope Miami has another down decade and does not get an invite
>> When ACC AAU presidents talk to B10 presidents tell them how fortunate they are that they do not have to play low lives like Louisville and FSU, just to make that connection. Not likely to work, but worth a try.
>> Extend the GOR (good luck with that). An attempt will identify the schools that might leave; however, the ACC office already knows who they are.
>> Plan for a post realignment Notre Dame deal. Should be able to get 2-3 football games to provide ND with an alternative to the B10.
I agree that FSU may consider how easy the path to the playoffs will be, but only if they have multiple invites (SEC or B10).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m pretty certain FSU is gone. Just a question of who goes with them. SEC would add Clemson with FSU. The B10 Miami with FSU (and possibly some combo of Stanford/GTech depending on arrangement with ND).
LikeLike
IMO, the only way the ACC can prepare for a life after the raid is trying to add some combo of UCF, WVU, Cincy, USF (and possibly Memphis?). If the money is equal, those schools likely would prefer to be in a more academically elite East Coast league, Louisville would finally have some neighbors again, and for the ACC, visiting FL is pretty important.
LikeLike
And the Backyard Brawl would be an annual occurrence again!
The battle for the Keg of Nail!
The War on I-4!
It would be awesome.
LikeLike
I don’t think the ACC can pay enough to cover the exit fees of schools that have already joined the Big XII.
LikeLike
Hmm. The path dependence of conference realignment has/will leave Pitt/WVU, Louisville/Cincy, UCF/USF (heck, even Pitt/Cincy) in similar tier conferences earning similar amounts of money yet unable to play rivals annually in a game that have conference ramifications.
And that’s a darn shame.
LikeLike
Also, it made me realize that when the ACC adds USF (which they likely will after losing their FL schools), every single Old BE member that played football except UConn and Temple will be back in a power conference (though RU and likely Miami will be the only ones to escape to a P2 conference).
LikeLike
Richard: “Also, it made me realize that when the ACC adds USF (which they likely will after losing their FL schools)”
LOL, best laugh I’ve had all day! Not going to happen but thanks for the chuckle
LikeLike
I understand. Laughter is a common reaction of despair.
But! Despite what Marc said about the B12 exit fee, the ACC may yet be able to eventually add WVU, UCF, and Cincy. Do not despair!
LikeLike
Richard, the laughter comes from your prediction that the ACC will expand to include S FL. There’s no despair there, just humor from seeing an absurd statement on the face of it (respectfully).
Neither FSU nor Miami will go to the SEC – both b/c it makes no financial sense and b/c UF will veto the move. There are no reports (none!) that Miami’s phones are ringing off the hook from B1G presidents desperate to see them join. But if you want to believe both those schools are destined for the B1G, more power to you. If you want to believe the ACC will take S FL 10 years from now, then may your skies remain purple or whatever color they are LOL.
On your notes about WV and Cincinnati, who knows? You could be right on those one day.
LikeLike
Hoo – let’s assume that the football schools (FSU, Clemson & Miami) leave at the expiration of the GoR, who does the ACC add?
While not up to the ACC’s academic standards, I would think Cincy, West Virginia, and UCF or USF are the only realistic choices. The ACC has already crossed the academic Rubicon with Louisville. Do they just take West Virginia and hold at 12? Or do they also add Cincy and either UCF or USF? I would think any Eastern time zone B12 school would jump ship to get in the ACC, if they can afford to do so.
A future ACC with VA/NC schools as its anchor is a great basketball conference, fills out the ESPN2 windows for football, and remains viable as the best football conference among the middle three.
LikeLike
There are no reports (none!) that Miami’s phones are ringing off the hook from B1G presidents desperate to see them join.
Where were the reports that UCLA’s phones were ringing off the hook?
LikeLike
Or heck, USC. Or Texas. Or OU. Or even RU or UMD.
LikeLike
HooBurns,
Neither FSU nor Miami will go to the SEC – both b/c it makes no financial sense and b/c UF will veto the move.
Doesn’t make financial sense for the SEC you mean? Brands = viewers. The SEC doesn’t need to sell more SECN subscriptions as much as they want even more big brand games. ESPN’s Magnus stated the importance of rivalries (FSU/UF) to them.
Reports say UF wanted to invite FSU before, and was told by Slive to wait. If FSU joins, then UF plays them as a conference game and frees up an OOC slot for scheduling.
There are no reports (none!) that Miami’s phones are ringing off the hook from B1G presidents desperate to see them join.
McMurphy and Dodds both reported interest from the B10 in Miami, so the B10 has probably at least kicked the tires.
LikeLike
Little 8: “I doubt that the SEC/B10 will find more than 3-5 ACC schools worthy of an invite by 2032.”
I doubt that the SEC/B10 will find even one ACC school worthy of an invite by 2032. Clemson, FSU and Miami are not AAU, FL/GA/SC are already within the SEC footprint, either the SEC or Big Ten adding Clemson, FSU or Miami will dilute their TV revenue and will also dilute their chances of current members getting an at-large berth in the CFP.
Plus Clemson, FSU and Miami will be walking away from a high-probability automatic conference champ bid to a low-probability at-large bid in either the SEC or Big Ten.
LikeLike
Erm, no. FSU is definitely additive. Clemson and Miami probably too.
It’s amazing how you can sound so sure about stuff you’re clearly ignorant about, Colin.
LikeLike
Richard: “It’s amazing how you can sound so sure about stuff you’re clearly ignorant about, Colin.”
Oh, the irony.
LikeLike
If all ACC schools are unattractive to the SEC and/B10 that is probably the only way to keep from losing members. However, it comes with a catch: the media companies will also find the ACC less attractive. The ACC may get slightly higher bids than the PAC and B12, but still be in the same neighborhood.
With NIL, pay for play, and the transfer portal it will get harder for the ACC schools to recruit and retain star players against SEC/B10 schools so the ACC schools may not be as attractive in 2032 as they are today. However, it is still likely that at least a couple of ACC schools get invites.
ADs and coaches may prefer easier access to the playoffs. The president is likely to take the higher annual payout. Both GT and FSU let former coaches lead conference membership, but neither decision turned out well.
LikeLike
I recall that post nearly a decade ago. I believe you even attached a statistical probability to how often a team “should” win a national championship, based on its position in the hierarchy.
I had some skepticism about Georgia and still do. They are the reigning national champions as of today, but it took them 41 years since their last one. In those four decades, Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Florida State, Miami, LSU, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Penn State, each have more than one. (Going by the AP list.)
So, based purely upon empirical results, Georgia has performed more like a King than a Super-King. Maybe they will start churning out NCs at the rate they are supposed to. Historically, they have not.
LikeLike
There’s always overperformance and underperformance relative to your resources.
I’d say that in the Playoff era, Bama (under Saban) has overperformed and Texas (and UF) have underperformed. UGa, LSU, OSU are around par, having won a CFP national title apiece.
Note that not a single regular king has won a CFP national title yet (only super-prince Clemson, both times with transcendent QBs; in the BCS era, that was also true; super-prince Auburn won the natty with a transcendent QB and of the old-line traditional kings with relatively poorer local recruiting grounds, only OU and Tennessee won it early in the BCS era over 3 decades ago now).
UGa definitely is a super-king in the current era even if they (and LSU, heck, even UF) weren’t decades ago.
LikeLike
BTW, I know you really like to think UGa and UMich are on the same tier (just like Brian really really wanted to think that UMich was as competitive as OSU a decade ago; I believe the past decade has vindicated me and showed how flawed his thinking is), but take a look at my latest post (below).
There are a few over/underperformers (Texas an underperforming super-king; OU an overperforming king), but I believe the Athletic shows my tiers are pretty spot-on. If anything, the superkings have been pulling away from everyone else (though money mattering more would help the traditional kings in the B10/SEC).
LikeLike
MI is still a peer of OSU and likely always will be. Success goes in cycles, and MI suffered through some coaching problems (EX. RichRod) in the recent past, but OSU suffered through it before that (Cooper). MI beat OSU thoroughly just last year – it’s an odd time to claim they aren’t competitive with OSU. Many of OSU’s recent wins over MI havc been close.
OSU is overperforming now, and it won’t maintain that forever.
LikeLike
Brian, I know you really want to believe that (even though, even with the most current UMich victory, OSU has won 15 of the last 17 games in the series; I can’t think of another rivalry that lopsided).
Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, I do believe that the gap between the traditional kings and super-kings in the B10/SEC (who differ really only in the richness of their local recruiting grounds) will close in the era of NIL and super-bountiful B10/SEC money (recruits will say “show me the money!” instead of “show me who’s closer to home”.
LikeLike
It’s only 14* out of 17 thanks to the NCAA. But it was 9.5 out of the previous 28, so 23.5* out of 45. The rivalry goes in big streaks, but overall is quite balanced.
Rivalry streaks are not uncommon.
OU has won 10 of the past 13 vs UT
AL has won 15 straight vs TN
AL has won 10 of the past 14 vs AU
AL has won 10 of the past 11 vs LSU
LikeLike
Though I also don’t consider Tennessee or Auburn to be peers of Bama. LSU isn’t a traditional rival either.
LikeLike
Richard – to be fair Saban at Alabama hasn’t lost many games.
Here’s a list of all his losses while at Alabama.
5 – Auburn
4 – LSU
2 – Clemson, Ole Miss, A&M, and Georgia
1 – Florida State, Miss State, ULM, Florida, Utah, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Ohio State.
Regarding the LSU/Alabama “rivalry”, the Tigers and the Tide have played every year since 1964. LSU didn’t perform very well against the Bear, but nobody did. LSU hasn’t performed well against Saban, but nobody else has either. But from the Bear’s last season (1982) through Saban’s first season (2007), LSU was 13-12 against Alabama.
Ask anybody from Louisiana or Alabama is the LSU/Bama isn’t a rivalry.
LikeLike
Alan, my understanding is that LSU considers Bama their top rival but Bama considers Auburn and Tennessee to be more traditional rivals than LSU.
I understand as I rank Iowa as NU’s top rival (UNL in the battle of NU’s is also a keen one while some Wildcats consider Wisconsin a top rival but while I enjoy causing the Badger faithful heartbreak, they’re not a traditional rival; UIUC is somewhere below there), but the Hawks probably have NU 4th on their rivals list (even though we have a winning record against them over the last 5, 15, and 25 meetings; NU and Iowa have battled every year but 2 since 1971).
LikeLike
Richard – you are correct that UTk and Auburn are Alabama’s more traditional rivals. LSU’s top rival fluctuates as to who the Tigers need to beat to win the SEC. For much of the post-Bear/pre-Saban years, it was Auburn and Florida. The most historical hate is reserved for Ole Miss. Ole Miss really hates LSU, but they hate Miss State more. The SEC tried to make Arkansas LSU’s rival and while Arkansas really hates LSU, LSU doesn’t really reciprocate the hate. The A&M/LSU games are getting a little feisty.
It will be interesting to see what the SEC does with the nine game schedule and three annual games. I would assume LSU gets Alabama, Ole Miss and Texas A&M. Will they keep they keep the LSU/A&M on rivalry weekend or will UTx play A&M on Thanksgiving weekend? If that happens, LSU may get Arkansas instead of Alabama, with the Tigers and the piggies playing, and Oklahoma and Mizzou matching up for Thanksgiving weekend.
I think the nine game schedule is a given at this point, if for no other reason than to play catch up with the B1G in TV revenue. It will be very interesting to see how the 3-team annuals work out.
LikeLike
Alan, I would think the SEC still keeps UF-LSU as an annual game. They probably want to match up the conference powers as often as possible (like the B10 did) for TV ratings (it also makes it a little more even for the SEC programs with fewer resources).
So I would think:
UGa: UF, Auburn, SC
UF: UGa, LSU, Auburn
Auburn: Bama, UF, UGa
Bama: Auburn, Tenn, LSU
LSU: A&M, Bama, UF
A&M: Texas, OU, LSU
Texas: OU, A&M, Arkansas
OU: Texas, A&M, Mizzou
Tenn: UK, Vandy, Bama
UK: Mizzou, SC, Tenn
Mizzou: OU, UArk, UK
SC: UGa, UK, Ole Miss/MSSt.
Vandy: Tenn, Ole Miss, MSSt.
UArk: Texas, Mizzou, Ole Miss/MSSt.
Ole Miss: MSSt., Vandy, SC/UArk
MSSt.: Ole Miss, Vandy, SC/UArk
The top 9 SEC powers all tied to each other except for
UGa-SC (UGa is the only SEC school SC is adjacent to)
Texas-Arkansas (long history and rivalry in the same conference together)
OU-Mizzou (long history in the same conferences together)
Tenn-Vandy (rivalry game even if lopsided)
Tenn-UK (rivalry game)
I think it’s fair as Tenn is barely a SEC power any more.
LikeLike
Richard – the SEC scheduling discussion has centered around the first tier playing two other first tier schools and one second tier school. Under the 3-6-6 format, one school would still playing all non-annual schools every other year or twice every four years.
I can see LSU playing Alabama every year and I can see LSU playing Florida every year, but not both along with A&M.
For LSU, Ole Miss and A&M are a must, with either Florida or Alabama.
Here’s what I’ve come up with:
TIER 1 schools:
Alabama – Auburn, Oklahoma, Tennessee
Auburn – Alabama, Georgia, Vandy
Florida – Georgia, LSU, Kentucky
Georgia – Florida, Auburn, South Carolina
LSU – Texas A&M, Florida, Ole Miss
Oklahoma – Texas, Alabama, Mizzou
Texas – Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Arkansas
Texas A&M – LSU, Texas, Miss State
TIER 2 schools:
Arkansas – Mizzou, Miss State, Texas
Kentucky – South Carolina, Tennessee, Florida
Mizzou – Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma
Miss State – Ole Miss, Arkansas, Texas A&M
Ole Miss – Miss State, Vandy, LSU
South Carolina – Kentucky, Mizzou, Georgia
Tennessee – Vandy, Kentucky, Alabama
Vandy – Tennessee, Ole Miss, Auburn
A couple are a little clunky (Vandy/Auburn and Alabama/Oklahoma) but it preserves the Tier 1-2/1, and the Tier 2-2/1 split. If it’s more important for LSU to play Alabama then you can swap Oklahoma out and OU can play Florida annually. I like that either way Oklahoma gets a traditional (original) SEC power. I don’t like that Texas doesn’t, but it just works out for them to keep Texas with OU ( a requirement), A&M (a no-brainer) and Arkansas (traditional SWC rival). maybe after eight or twelve years, they move a few games around.
LikeLike
The problem with locking Texas against a traditional SEC team is they have not played them often. LSU is the highest at 16; all others are 10 or less with many games from the distance past. That compares to 73 for Arkansas and 100+ for A&M and Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Wow. LSU really needs to work on their special teams.
LikeLike
Drama!
I like it!
(Sorry, Alan)
College football is such a wonderful sport.
LikeLike
That was a crazy ending. A mix of excellent play and boneheaded errors.
LikeLike
CFB always features some crazy games (ask Northwestern fans), but when you’re a national power, the whole country sees them. And LSU has been involved in some insane ones:
–The 10 trillion overtimes game with A&M
–The shoe game with UF
–And now this wacktastic one with FSU.
LikeLike
They had their 2 triple OT losses in 2007 (to UK and Arkansas) while ranked #1.
And yet they still ended in the BCS title game!
LikeLike
Or the Auburn Earthquake game in 88. Or the 4 for 4 on 4th down against Florida in 07. I could go on and on.
Being a Tiger fan is never dull.
LikeLike
Yes – very tough to watch. Kelly inherited a mess with only about 40 scholarship players and put a team together with duct tape and transfers. LSU will be a work in progress this year. Losing the best defensive lineman for the season will only make matters more difficult. But – long term – the Tigers are in much better hands and will be contenders again very soon.
On to topics more related to this board. My thoroughly unscientific survey of Florida State fans yesterday on conference realignment:
Move to the SEC ASAP – 75%
Hope things work out for the ACC, if not move to the SEC -25%
Move to the B1G – 0%
Frank – I know we are supposed to think like a college president, but the UTx & OU move taught us to also think like boosters, recruits & fans as well. UCLA & USC’s move to the B1G was like revenge of the college presidents and fans and student athletes be damned.
Florida State is much closer to OU & UTx than they are USC & UCLA. College boards consist of political appointees. If FSU had a choice between the SEC & the B1G, they would choose the SEC 99 times out of 100. And the one time they chose the B1G, the president and AD would be fired and then they would join the SEC.
The Magnus podcast interview told us what Disney values: Rivalries and compelling games. If that’s what matters in this and the next round of realignment, if the ACC suffers defections, Clemson and Florida State and most likely Miami go to the SEC.
Clemson’s main rival is South Carolina and they love to play UGA a lot. Florida State’s is Florida and they have history with many SEC schools. Miami’s are Florida State and Florida. Imagine what that would do for season ticket sales, if Miami had one of Florida State and Florida ever year on their home schedule?
The SEC has the high ground in the South.
LikeLike
I can see FSU or Miami joining the SEC, but not both; too much conference competition for Gainesville. Miami’s private nature and more national student population make it more of a Big Ten target, assuming academics progress.
LikeLike
Yep, not to mention that the SEC would need to find a suitable pair to bring in with Miami.
Honestly, that would be tough for the B10 too. Possible that only extracting ND’s surplus value would make that work.
As for FSU to the SEC, yep, FSU is a lot like Texas. Though it may come down to dollars.
LikeLike
I meant “partner” to pair with the U, but you know what I mean.
LikeLike
Richard – If the SEC could land FSU, Clemson and Miami as new members, any other school would be a suitable fourth. Assuming the NC/VA schools all stay in the ACC, Kansas, OK State, Texas Tech or TCU would work. I doubt the SEC would ever take GA Tech back. Personally, I’d take Kansas. The Jayhawks give Mizzou a rival, they give the conference another basketball blueblood, and – most importantly- everybody could use a sure win on their schedule with one emperor (Alabama-6 NCs), five Kings (LSU -3, Oklahoma-1, Texas-1, Georgia-1 & Clemson-2), four former Kings, now Barons (Florida-2, Tennessee-1, Florida State-2 & Miami-1) and a Baron with a BCS title in Auburn. That’s 21 BCS/CFP titles out of 24.
I know some people are using super-kings and super-princes, but I prefer Mandel’s rankings and terminology.
LikeLike
Alan, arguably, but just like the B10 was willing to pass up the Bay Area schools, UW, and UO when they could simply take the LA pair by itself, If the SEC can land FSU and Clemson, I don’t see why they would then try to add Miami and a dilutive 4th school.
Even for the B10 (with more pressing demographic/recruiting reasons to add Miami), to add Miami would require somehow capturing a decent amount of ND’s surplus value (either as a full member or a scheduling arrangement to pay for a partner with Miami like Stanford).
LikeLike
Richard – you may be right, the SEC may not want Miami in that scenario. My point is that if Miami has the choice to play FSU & UF every year in the SEC, they take it. Having one of those two at home every year will really help season ticket sales and donations, which are still very important for athletic department budgets.
I do think that Miami in the B1G is by far the most workable situation for the B1G with regard to any southern ACC team. Florida is really three states: Redneck Riviera, I-4 corridor, and Miami. Miami is certainly the most easy to separate from the other two.
LikeLike
I will say, the discussions that we have come from all viewpoints which is why I find so much of this informative to my own thinking.
It’s good that views get challenged from all sides; it really lets us focus on where things will go next.
Frank has driven the discussion for more than a decade getting us all to think like college presidents (and a bit more recently like TV execs) and much less like fans.
We have arguments from the SEC viewpoints coming from folks like Alan and bullet.
We have Hooburns arguing the ACC viewpoint; I don’t think vp19 was ever on that side of things as our UMD guy, always was on the UMD->Big Ten train well before that happened.
We have a Big Ten traditionalist-realist in Brian who wants to halt and roll back the past 20 years but acknowledges the realities of what is driving the changes and how things will continue to change.
You have traditional expansionists like me, Marc, and many others arguing for expansion where financially appropriate or for efficient expansion in a sense.
You have super expansionists like Richard, vp19, and others arguing for an AAU superconference.
All of that when you combine it, is why I think we’ve managed to get to a point where we can see these things coming. 12-15 years ago, we were sort of just throwing things at the wall and seeing what stuck. Now, with the past 10-12 years as evidence and seeing what the timelines look like, you can see the endgame appearing here.
And given that most of us expect a potentially “final” major round of realignment in the early 2030s, we still have another decade to go (even though things will slow down until the next Big Ten deal is announced in 2029).
LikeLike
Thanks from the former vp19.
LikeLike
Norvell really is trying to lose his job. After the fiasco at Jacksonville State last year, one would hope for more this year. If LSU had come back and won the game last night, the biggest story would now be the pitch by FSU that was fumbled and gave LSU life.
Nutso call that almost resulted in disaster.
LikeLike
It’s amazing what a win can do, though. Now the focus will solely be on LSU’s pathetic edge blocking on special teams while Norvell and his team will be hailed for their toughness, grit, and never-give-up attitude.
LikeLike
I didn’t see the blocked FG, but I remember thinking as I saw the XP live, that the kicker was moving real slow to the ball. I haven’t studied kicking, but I think he waited until the ball was set, while most kickers start earlier. And he just seemed to move slow, both live and as I replayed it. ECU, LSU and UT all have serious kicking game problems. ECU missed an XP and FG and lost by 1. UT had a botched short FG and a botched punt.
I think a lot of coaches neglect recruitment of kickers, especially punters. Seems like a big blunder.
LikeLike
It’s a bit crazy. Maybe because it’s such an esoteric skill (in the world of football) that is outside their wheelhouse. But the kicking game definitely has an effect on wins and losses.
LikeLike
https://nvgt.com/podcast/?ppplayer=98f56b6dd6dca41729f186d12a4d1251&ppepisode=b85061c576629eb368517f53b165c619
A 40 minute podcast with Kevin Warren from 8/24. I don’t think anyone linked it before.
LikeLike
Nice data from the Athletic showing how often teams would have made a 12-team playoff if it had been in place since the start of the BCS era (24 seasons; using the BCS rankings for playoff determination during the BCS era):
https://theathletic.com/3565760/2022/09/05/college-football-playoff-12-teams-bcs/
Only 3 schools would have made the CFP a majority of the time: OSU, OU, and Bama (barely; hard to remember now but the Tide weren’t very good in the early part of the BCS era). UF would have made it exactly half the time.
5 of the 6 super-kings (OSU, Bama, UF, UGa, and LSU) have the most CFP appearances. To no one’s surprise, Texas is the super-king that underperforms. OU the only regular king that overperforms.
Next come the tweeners FSU and USC (they’re between super-kings and kings solely because of money but would firmly be super-kings in the B10/SEC) as well as overperforming non-king UO and regular king ND.
What this data shows is that most of the regular kings besides OU and ND (UMich, PSU, Tennessee, Miami) and even super-princes Clemson and Auburn aren’t all that special, being only as successful as many non-kings. A&M (and UCLA) too, though granted, A&M really should only be regarded as a super-prince in the SEC (same with UCLA in the B10).
LikeLike
*Have the 6 most theoretical CFP appearances.
LikeLike
I don’t have a subscription, but what you are saying doesn’t make sense. I show Auburn would have made the 6+6 six times since the start of the BCS era. A&M only 3 times. UCLA would only have made it in 1998.
But including Georgia and LSU as super-kings, but leaving out Michigan and USC sounds like a pretty weak analysis, with way too much recency bias. And Notre Dame as a “regular” king????? Is the guy who did this 15? His metrics make no sense if those are the results he got. He needs to throw it out and start from scratch.
LikeLike
It begs the question of what exactly is meant by a “king”. I think everyone familiar with the term would know that Michigan has not performed like a king on the field. They are a king in other metrics like attendance, revenue, and TV ratings.
Now, you could ask whether it is chronic underperformance (like Texas) or whether Michigan really is not on the same level as the others. I am not suggesting an answer.
LikeLike
The difficult thing with Michigan is recruiting.
Only Ohio State is recruiting at the level required to win national championships outside of the South right now.
Most believe USC can get there.
ND and Michigan are the two that are harder to judge.
Theoretically as “pay for play” becomes used in recruiting in some fashion, they should be able to up their recruiting given only a handful of schools have their resources levels.
Question is whether and when that happens.
So much of this comes down to whether the schools can get the talent needed to be #1.
LikeLike
https://247sports.com/LongFormArticle/Blue-Chip-ratio-2022-college-football-15-teams-who-can-win-the-national-championship–190039196/#190039196_6
According to the blue chip ratio (% of roster that were 5* and 4* recruits), MI and PSU both recruit well enough to have a chance at a title. You need 50% and they have a little over that. They just also need all the pieces to come together (good QB and good OL at same time, for example).
LikeLike
Yeah, it comes down to a whole bunch of factors coming together.
LSU and Auburn are good examples of where things can just come together for a specific year or two and then unravel.
Everything came together for Dabo/Clemson for a couple years as they made their run.
Alabama’s been at peak form for seemingly ever but Ohio State’s also been in the top 4 regularly as well.
Just feels like we have to see where things go with the expanded playoff and whether that plays a role in where recruits go (and then of course the eventual pay for play discussions underway using potentially conference distributions to pay players).
LikeLike
Yeah, UMich and PSU do have a shot at the natty. I mean, I did say they were kings, not peons. They just aren’t super-kings. To win the natty, those schools pretty much need a transcendent QB with the talent level that they have.
It’s possible 1 or both of them have one on their roster now.
LikeLike
We KNOW the 4 team playoff has had an impact on where recruits go. Year before last, Alabama got 4 of the top 11 in Texas, Ohio St. got 1 and Clemson got 1. Ohio St. got 2 of the top 5 in the state of Washington. The regulars have had a huge advantage in recruiting around the country, not just in their own region. Commissioners and ADs have commented they didn’t know how much of an impact being in and being out would have.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is #4 all time in win % (Boise is #3). Michigan is #5. Texas is #7. USC is #8. Michigan is not a “chronic” underperformer. They have simply been on a downcycle like Alabama was before Saban and Oklahoma was in the 90s.
BTW Georgia is #13 and LSU #14.
LikeLike
Bullet, while I appreciate college football history, I don’t believe ND and UMich’s legendary exploits in the leather helmet era (or even pre-BCS era) will impress recruits much these days.
LikeLike
Michigan has one AP national title in the past 74 seasons. That’s a bit long to be considered a downcycle. It is true that Alabama went through a trough before Saban got there, but that big of a trough.
LikeLike
Marc – in the 25 year period between the Bear and Saban, Alabama did manage to win three SEC titles and on natty.
LikeLike
Going back to 1968, Ohio St. has won or shared 27 Big 10 titles. Michigan has 22. That’s not underperforming. MNCs depend a lot on luck. That’s not a measure of “underperformance.” Michigan was 23rd in win % in the last decade, but ND was 21 and USC 24. They were 22nd in the 2000s, but that was ahead of Penn St. and FSU. They were 7th in the 90s when they won their most recent MNC.
LikeLike
But they did win 25 B10 titles, and were in the AP top 5 heading into the Rose Bowl 12 times. They were close to multiple titles along the way. And who knows what they might’ve done if they didn’t have OSU in their way so often, especially before the B10 allowed multiple bowls. 1997 worked out, and 2006 was close. Then RichRod happened. Now Harbaugh has them competitive again.
MI’s problem was that Bo was the king of 10-2 seasons. He was too good to ever fire, but couldn’t quite get over the hump. His success in the 10 Year War gave him job security and got his former assistants hired.
1-tie team:
1973*
1-loss MI teams:
1970**, 1971***, 1972**, 1974**
* – no bowl due to tie with OSU and losing B10 AD vote
** – no bowl due to loss to OSU
*** – only loss was the Rose Bowl
LikeLike
Bullet, I know you love your college football history, but again (and even though I’m actually bullish on the Wolverines in the near future), all that history means about zippo to 17 year-olds being recruited when UMich has won the B10 once in their lifetime.
LikeLike
Marc – in the 25 year period between the Bear and Saban, Alabama did manage to win three SEC titles and on natty.
My post was garbled—I was trying to explain why the Bear–Saban interregnum is not comparable to Michigan’s most recent period. People say Alabama had down years, and that is true by their standards. Still, most teams would love to have down years that include three SEC titles and a natty.
LikeLike
Going back to 1968, Ohio St. has won or shared 27 Big 10 titles. Michigan has 22. That’s not underperforming.
How much of that history is too remote to be considered predictive anymore? That is a sincere question. I mean, no one seems to think Nebraska is a king today, even though since 1968 they have as many AP national titles as Michigan and Ohio State combined.
My feeling is that Ohio State now has structural advantages that put them in a different category than the rest of the Big Ten. That was not true in 1968, but seems true today. That doesn’t mean Ohio State cannot lose occasionally, but they have an ability to recover from it that currently no one else has.
LikeLike
Yep, I agree with Marc here: OSU has structural advantages that give them a leg up on PSU and UMich (same structural advantages that UGa/Bama/UF/LSU all have over Tenn). It also helps that they currently have a coaching staff with a reputation that attracts top receiving talent and QB talent.
But!
I expect UMich/PSU to be able to close the gap a bit more in a world where money matters more (if UMich can stop lying to itself about using money to put together a championship team). I’m actually the most bullish I’ve been about UMich in decades.
LikeLike
Marc,
Going back to 1968, Ohio St. has won or shared 27 Big 10 titles. Michigan has 22. That’s not underperforming.
How much of that history is too remote to be considered predictive anymore? That is a sincere question. I mean, no one seems to think Nebraska is a king today, even though since 1968 they have as many AP national titles as Michigan and Ohio State combined.
MI is #2 in B10 W% and #12 in overall W% since 1993.
MI is #3 in B10 W% and #15 (#11 among P5) in overall W% since 2011.
NE is below 0.500 in the B10.
NE may just be in their RichRod phase now, but MI recovered from that and hasn’t been that bad. If NE got back to where Pelini had them , they’d be talked about more favorably.
My feeling is that Ohio State now has structural advantages that put them in a different category than the rest of the Big Ten. That was not true in 1968, but seems true today. That doesn’t mean Ohio State cannot lose occasionally, but they have an ability to recover from it that currently no one else has.
MI self-imposes many of the advantages OSU has over them. Harbaugh doesn’t recruit OH very hard, so MSU does instead. Harbaugh has been late to NIL. MI could be more focused on CFB, but they choose not to be. MI has always been able to recruit nationally. If QB guru Harbaugh could consistently develop good QBs, MI would be really good again.
LikeLike
Alabama 1997-2007 (Saban’s first year)
7-6 (2-6 after forfeits), 6-7 (0-7 after forfeits), 10-2 (0-2 after forfeits), 6-6, 4-9, 10-3, 7-5, 3-8, 10-3, 7-5, 4-7. That’s 74-61, but 53-61 officially. That isn’t making anyone jealous.
LikeLike
Michigan last 11 years;
12-2, 2-4, 9-4, 10-3, 8-5, 10-3, 10-3, 5-7, 7-6, 8-5, 11-2 for a total of 92-49. Far superior to Alabama’s pre-Saban even without Alabama’s forfeits.
Are you sure you just aren’t trolling Michigan fans?
LikeLike
Bullet:
“I show Auburn would have made the 6+6 six times since the start of the BCS era. A&M only 3 times. UCLA would only have made it in 1998.”
That’s why I said A&M should only be counted as a super-prince since the time they joined the SEC (and UCLA when they join the B10).
Since the start of the BCS era, UGa and LSU would have made the 6+6 11 times. USC 9 times (that’s why said USC and FSU are tweeners who will be full-fledged super-kings in the B10/SEC). ND 9 times. UMich only 7 times (behind powerhouses Boise, KSU, and TCU).
LikeLike
Ok. Now I understand what you were saying. But UCLA and A&M would have to prove it first. One of A&M’s 3 was when they were in the Big 12. They’ve been a pretty consistent 3rd or 4th place finisher in their division in both the Big 12 and SEC since they fired RC Slocum.
LikeLike
It’s possible that 18 is a “long-term” stable number for both the Big Ten and SEC (as a nod to HooBurns). Everyone’s thinking 20 if there’s a jailbreak in the ACC, but 18 is a possibility:
16 technically is long-term stable, but I think there is too high a likelihood that FSU forces another round of realignment in the early 2030s for anyone to call 16 an endpoint.
The interesting thing is this notion of pairs of 2 that has typically been the mode of modern realignment (excepting the Big Ten’s move to 11 with Penn State) in the modern era.
For a variety of reasons such as stability and integration as well as the rarity of “valuable” schools being available, realignment of the Big Ten and SEC has moved in pairs.
Well, what if UNC and UVA commit to keeping the Tobacco Road/NC+VA schools together. Let’s say UNC’s board wants NC State taken care of and boosters or other interests at the schools or in those states don’t want them breaking up with the various schools in NC/VA.
Realistically we could see just 3 schools bolt the ACC then:
FSU would have its choice, and let’s say they choose to go to the SEC. The SEC (if rejected by UNC/UVA) could then take Clemson in a move to 18.
Perhaps they consider Va Tech to try to get into the DC market area (in terms of Va Tech’s fan support in Eastern Va, but maybe they don’t want to force UVA and UNC to the Big Ten if they take one of the NC/VA schools).
The Big Ten could then go for Miami and attempt to pair them with UVA (or Va Tech), but assuming neither is available, the obvious +1 is Washington.
Maybe the ACC would consider adding USF to try to replace Miami and at least get a trip down to Tampa, just as the Pac-12 is considering SDSU.
The big picture would actually look pretty long-term stable with the Big Ten and SEC each at 18. The Big Ten could claim it’s a national conference with Miami/Washington bringing it to every region, while the SEC would have all the football brands in the south/southwest except Miami.
ND would also probably be happy to keep their relationship with the ACC (which will be even more desperate to have ND’s deal continue); though I would question whether that deal is really all that great for ND’s TV value if you remove FSU, Miami, and Clemson from that rotation.
Just interesting to think about what happens in the 2030s if UNC/UVA (and Va Tech) commit to the ACC.
LikeLike
z33k: “It’s possible that 18 is a “long-term” stable number for both the Big Ten and SEC . . .”
That assumption is bogus. The “long-term” stable number for both the Big Ten and SEC is 16.
LikeLike
FSU is almost certain to bolt the ACC in 2036.
Just a question of where they’re going and how early they announce it.
It’s best to prepare for that when their president is talking about being aggressive in realignment in 2022.
LikeLike
z33k: ” . . . their (FSU) president is talking about being aggressive in realignment in 2022 . . .” before the 12-team playoff was announced. As I said previously, this changes everything.
LikeLike
…before the 12-team playoff was announced…
You think he didn’t know that announcement was coming???
LikeLike
Colin thinks everybody is as ignorant as him.
LikeLike
Yeah, that could happen.
The possibilities are
1. B10 adds FSU & Miami
1a. B10 also adds Stanford and GTech and enters in to a scheduling Alliance with ND (who pay for the 2 dilutive additions that are great in all other respects).
1b. B10 also adds dilutive UVa & UNC for reasons.
2. SEC takes FSU and Clemson (and possibly dilutive UNC & UVa/Duke for reasons).
B10 then takes Miami and 1 more. Could be UW. Could be Stanford and then a scheduling Alliance with ND. Could be UVa though it’s hard for me seeing how that pays enough.
LikeLike
Richard: “The possibilities are
1. B10 adds FSU & Miami
1a. B10 also adds Stanford and GTech and enters in to a scheduling Alliance with ND (who pay for the 2 dilutive additions that are great in all other respects).
1b. B10 also adds dilutive UVa & UNC for reasons.
2. SEC takes FSU and Clemson (and possibly dilutive UNC & UVa/Duke for reasons).
B10 then takes Miami and 1 more. Could be UW. Could be Stanford and then a scheduling Alliance with ND. Could be UVa though it’s hard for me seeing how that pays enough.”
None of that is happening. You live in a fantasy world.
LikeLike
I’ve seen enough Virginia/North Carolina politics to know that for N.C. State to be “taken care of” if UVa and UNC head to the Big Ten (and for all my earlier thoughts about the differences between them and the B1G, their academics would still make them better cultural fits there than in the SEC), State (and Virginia Tech) will have to join the only conference whose funding is similar to the B1G’s — the SEC. Neither State nor Tech have the AAU membership to qualify for the B1G, but both could thrive in the SEC. If both conferences don’t agree to this split, I see none of the four being allowed to leave the ACC.
LikeLike
That’s an interesting scenario matches what I was thinking.
Might be a situation where all those schools in NC+VA stick together because both conferences want UNC.
If that does happen then another round of pairs: FSU+Clemson to the SEC and Miami+Washington feels like an obvious move to 18.
LikeLike
z33k: “FSU+Clemson to the SEC and Miami+Washington feels like an obvious move to 18.”
There is no obvious move to 18. It is internet forum fantasy.
LikeLike
Zeek, it really depends on what ND wants that that point. Only FSU is definitely additive. Clemson probably and Miami borderline/breakeven.
So I see the SEC taking FSU and Clemson. B10 likely would still want Miami for demographics/recruiting. ND could finally see the handwriting on the wall. Would the B10 take Stanford and GTech too? Those schools/markets are appealing in all ways except for their TV value, but ND could cover that.
BTW, with 5-6 Sun Belt schools, the B10 could give all northern B10 members something akin to the ND, schedule, with everyone playing 1 game in the last 3 weeks in a warm-weather location even if not everyone can end the season in CA. In fact, the B10 could only stage games in warm-weather locales+7 rivalry games the last 3 weeks of the season. That may well help with both recruiting and ticket sales.
LikeLike
VP, if what you say is true, then most likely, all the NC/VA schools stay in the ACC.
I see zero possibility that the SEC takes dilutive NCSU and dilutive VTech to allows UVa/UNC in to the B10, and vice versa.
LikeLike
(1) UVA/UNC and maybe GA Tech to the B1G , and (2) VA Tech/NCSU to the SEC are scenarios that have been discussed often over the years, particularly in this area (NOVA). Duke is nowhere in the picture, except it appears, in internet blogs. To date, FSU/Clemson appear to me speculative fantasies.
I tend to think FTT has it right that we’re now in the era of Conference Whales – where the promise of new markets may no longer be enough to further split the pie from 16 to 18 (let alone 20-24) different ways.
LikeLike
Sorry for the typo: To date, FSU/Clemson to B1G appear to be speculative fantasies.
LikeLike
I don’t see anyone proposing FSU + Clemson to the B10. I do see proposals of FSU + Clemson to the SEC or FSU + Miami to the B10.
The bald fact of the matter is that now, outside of the B10/SEC, only ND, FSU, Clemson (probably), and Miami (borderline) are additive.
LikeLike
HooBurns: ” . . . the promise of new markets may no longer be enough to further split the pie from 16 to 18 (let alone 20-24) different ways.”
This is true for both the Big Ten and the SEC. There is no combination of UVA, UNC, Clemson, FSU, Miami or Pac-12 teams that justifies further expansion of the P2. Only ND moves the needle and they are staying independent.
LikeLike
@Colin
You’re severely underestimating the value of FSU here. FSU carries the whole state of Florida. They travel well (sold out a 30k allotment to New Orleans just this past weekend).
They are additive in every sense whether TV value or otherwise.
And the Big Ten has 0 footprint in Florida; FSU + Miami would be even more additive than USC+UCLA in all likelihood since both are top football brands while UCLA is a bit off the top tier.
@Hooburns
The Texas/OU and USC/UCLA moves did change the game. The schools most likely to be targeted are schools like that, high value schools in terms of as national TV properties. Other schools are likely to move with those as +1s.
I just don’t see how any calculation for FSU works that doesn’t increase the size of the pie.
Miami and Clemson are near that level imo. And demographically, the Big Ten needs to be in the South in some fashion (or attempt to be there).
LikeLike
I’ve seen enough Virginia/North Carolina politics to know that for N.C. State to be “taken care of” … [it] will have to join the only conference whose funding is similar to the B1G’s — the SEC.
I do not claim to know the politics in those two states. I do know that it was previously stated here that Texas could never leave Texas Tech behind, nor could Oklahoma leave Oklahoma State behind — and both happened.
The former UNC president said recently that he believed the school could have had invitations to either the Big Ten or the SEC. He mentioned the political issue of leaving N.C. State behind. UNC chose not to move then, but he did not appear to be saying that it was flatly impossible.
Given what happened in Texas, Oklahoma, and now California, I am never going to believe that such moves cannot occur. Which is not the same as predicting the N.C. or VA schools will, in fact, move.
LikeLike
The interesting twist with UNC is that they share the same oversight board as NC State.
UCLA and UCB were in the same situation with the shared UC board of regents.
It didn’t matter then, and given that these types of decisions are typically able to be made at the campus level, it may not matter for UNC either.
Also, given the ACC deal is relatively undermarket; they can make the case that NC State’s payouts won’t be hurt since the ACC deal may continue at the same $ figures past 2036 without FSU/Miami/Clemson/UNC since it’s somewhat undermarket.
On the other hand, rather than just 2 schools leaving like USC/UCLA; if UNC leaves, it’s more like 5-7 schools are bolting, so the conference may actually collapse.
Issue is just that there’s a lot more moving parts in the ACC than the Big 12 or Pac-12 where just 2 schools bolted each.
LikeLike
Strategically, it makes a lot more sense for the SEC to add FSU and Miami first if it wants to go to 18. It can always grab Clemson later when it figures out who to choose for #20.
LikeLike
Redwood:
Maybe? I wouldn’t count on the B10 ignoring Clemson (because of academics or whatever) in that case, however.
LikeLike
z33k – I can guarantee you that over the next ten years the NC board will address that to ensure that UNC & NC State remain joined at the hip. After seeing what’s going on in California – and to a certain extent in TX & OK – there will be a pre-emptive strike from the NC politicians. Its a lot easier to address the theoretical now, when no offers are on the table.
LikeLike
The differences between Texas and Texas Tech, or Oklahoma and Okie State, are substantially more considerable than that between UNC and NCSU (or UVa and Va. Tech). Remember, Tech’s promotion to the ACC came when the Big East was in its death throes and it appeared Tech’s then-powerful football program would have no landing spot in a major conference… until Virginia politicians insisted UVa vote for the Gobblers, thus effectively bumping Syracuse from the 12th spot. (Also, Blacksburg had sought ACC membership for decades and came close to joining in the mid-sixties.)
LikeLike
When FSU Pres. McCollough said they had a lot of help regarding realignment, was that a reference to the State of Florida? Could the State of Florida be a participant in a law suit to reopen the GOR or even its initiator? After all, FSU is a state agency, and there is some appearance of fraud and collusion in the GOR negotiations.
Aren’t UNC and Clemson in the same position? State agencies possibly the victims of fraud? Might not South Carolina and North Carolina join Florida in a law suit?
LikeLike
McCollough’s comment is a real head-scratcher. The courts don’t award bonus points just because the state joins as a plaintiff. They still need a good legal theory, and the fraud/collusion one is weak. I am not saying it is guaranteed to fail, but it is not a sure thing to succeed either.
As FTT has pointed out, the entire reason for challenging a GOR would be to make more money. And yet, the outcome is a big unknown, since nobody has challenged a conference GOR before—successfully or otherwise.
LikeLike
The fraud in the inducement theory has one major advantage. It would not be nearly as risky as testing the GOR. It would be an attempt to negate the ESPN deal, ab initio, with no risk of hundreds of millions in damages. Lose the case and life goes on.
I think that there is zero chance of a court ever ruling a GOR invalid as some sort of declaratory judgment without the team actually attempting to withdraw and risking total financial catastrophe. The fraud case does not require actual withdrawal.
Another issue is the ACC network. Even if the GOR is successfully challenged, would that vitiate the contract with the ACC network? The fraud case would avoid that problem also, if successful.
Of course, none of us have a clue whether the fraud case is even potentially valid, since we did not know who knew what, and when they knew it.
Assume for a moment that the fraud case is actually possible. It might be different for each team. Perhaps the president of Clemson knew exactly what was happening, while pres of FSU did not . Again we have no way to even guess.
Further assume that Tobacco Road is very content to stay in the ACC with the ACCN. A bunch of schools will be happy to stay – BC, Syracuse, GaTech, Pitt, Louisville, and the six VA and NC teams. They could pick up USF just to stay in Florida.
Rather than seeing the fraud case go forward, could FSU (or maybe Clemson or Miami, or any grouping of them, that arguably were really defrauded) make a deal with the ACC and the network to leave peacefully for $50 or $60 million or so each. It could potentially work. And Clemson would need to be sure of an SEC invite. FSU and Miami almost certainly would be invited into one or both of the big 2.
Of course to reach this point, it is necessary to make about 5 or more unlikely things all happen to be true. The odds are small to say the least. Please do not tell me that it probably totally impossible. I agree.
LikeLike
LOL that the first half of responses were to what I thought was a long running troll bit mimicking Monty Python’s Ministry of Silly Hot Takes. But no, just aggy instead…
This just in: Texas is not reneging on its SEC membership, and never considered such.
LikeLike
Has that been confirmed or is it coming from unspecified sources within the B1g 12 or ACC offices? Perhaps it is from Brett McMurphy sources in the B1G?
LikeLike
Texas/OU to the SEC and USC/UCLA to the Big Ten are as committed as any move in the past 20-30 years.
The notion that these moves would be undone by CFP changes is folly.
And the likelihood of FSU following them (along with possibly Miami and Clemson) is also very high (probably 90+% at this point).
These are permanent decisions. No short term changes will affect those decisions.
LikeLike
I think Bernie was being sarcastic. . . .
LikeLike
Yup
LikeLike
Ah he got me. (To focused on responses to Hooburns/Colin and taking these things seriously).
LikeLike
Another thought on the 12-team playoff with 6 auto bids:
It would ensure that the cream of the PAC/B12/ACC won’t combine to try to challenge the supremacy of the P2.
Though I suppose a Bracket Busters style scheduling alliance is possible between 2-3 of those leagues.
LikeLike
BTW, when the FL schools (+ likely Clemson, possibly GTech) leave, the ACC will be back to being the elite basketball conference that also plays football that it was roughly 1972-1990 except without UMD, probably Clemson, and maybe GTech but with a bunch of good basketball schools in Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse (also VTech and BC; probably USF, maybe Cincy/WVU/UCF).
The circle of life.
LikeLike
Yeah I think the endgame here depends on UNC/UVA more than anything.
If they do stay in the ACC, then it’s very possible that there’s minimal movement outside of another 4 schools moving to the Big Ten/SEC.
(There’s a part of me that probably prefers realignment stopping at 18).
I think you end up with an ACC that’s basically a semi-fusion of the old ACC and old Big East. Maybe they add USF for Florida exposure.
The Pac-12 may be able to stay intact as a 10 team league with SDSU in the place of Washington.
The Big 12 stays at 12.
All those schools end up getting around $30 million a year in TV money per year and most years each of those 3 leagues gets 1 slot in the CFP. The SEC ends up with around 4 slots each year and the Big Ten around 3 slots each year.
1 slot to the top G5 champ; that brings you to 11. That leaves 1 more slot for the highest non-champ in the ACC/Big 12/Pac-12 if there’s a 4th team worthy.
ND can probably keep its deal with the ACC going.
Could probably keep a 12 team playoff going indefinitely with that kind of setup; though SEC/Big Ten would want at least half of that playoff money.
LikeLike
CFP money likely will be shared (at least in part) based off of appearances/games/bids like how the MBB tourney money is shared.
And ND _could_ keep its deal with the ACC going, but without FSU, Clemson, and Miami, ND would have a fairly unattractive schedule and no FL exposure (well, though the ACC probably would add USF when they lose their FL schools).
LikeLike
ND _could_ keep its deal with the ACC going, but without FSU, Clemson, and Miami, ND would have a fairly unattractive schedule and no FL exposure (well, though the ACC probably would add USF when they lose their FL schools).
In that scenario, the likely endgame is that ND offers to remain an ACC member for the Olympic sports but no longer plays 5 football games. Maybe they drop down to 2–3 games, which gives still gives the ACC something, while allowing ND to find non-ACC opponents to beef up their strength of schedule. (And I have no doubts the Irish could find those games.)
The current ACC was in a position that it could demand 5 games; the weakened ACC would no longer be able to. They could kick ND out, but what do they gain by that?
LikeLike
Marc – the whole reason Notre Dame plays five ACC opponents is because Notre Dame was having trouble filling out their schedule once conference games kick into gear. With all conferences likely going to a nine game schedule, Notre Dame’s ACC scheduling agreement will be even more important. If the ACC loses FSU, Miami & Clemson, maybe Notre Dame quits scheduling UNLV and Marshall and tries to pick up a couple more P2 or M3 schools early in the season.
BTW – there was discussion last week about Notre Dame possibly going to an eight game scheduling agreement with the B1G. I can’t see that happening. Let’s say the Irish go 8-0 against B1G competition and the B1G CCG participants are 8-1 and 7-2. With the Irish playing that many games and going undefeated, the B1G champion risks being viewed as illegitimate. What if the B1G champ didn’t play the Irish, or worse, lost to the Irish. At most, I think a Notre Dame scheduling agreement with a conference that plays a nine game schedule would be six.
LikeLike
Hmm. Possible. And NBC may schedule games between ND and the B10.
LikeLike
Alan, in the 12-team playoff world, I’m not sure stuff like “how legitimate a conference champ looks” matters all that much as that team will be able to prove whether it’s legitimate or not in the CFP.
BTW, in 2021, BYU went 5-0 against the Pac, including beating the Pac champ yet Utah still was the one who went to the Rose Bowl as the Pac rep.
And fair point about ND’s 5 game arrangement with the ACC, though now that NBC has both ND and B10 games, don’t be surprised if NBC helps arrange ND games with the B10 (including late-season games).
LikeLike
Richard – BYU & Utah are apples, and Ohio State & Notre Dame are oranges. Plus, you made my point. There’s a difference between 5-0 with a nine game schedule and 8-0.
I just can’t see the B1G agreeing to an Olympic sports membership with a football scheduling arrangement with Notre Dame. Notre Dame would be nice, but certainly isn’t necessary. The B1G has been fine without Notre Dame for 100 years.
Further, if the ACC implodes, Notre Dame could go back to the Big East and play all the other Catholic schools. Any other P2 or M3 conference would work out a 5-6 scheduling alliance with Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Marc – the whole reason Notre Dame plays five ACC opponents is because Notre Dame was having trouble filling out their schedule once conference games kick into gear.
That isn’t how I remember it. When they were in the old Big East, ND typically played about two ACC teams per year. They went up to five ACC teams—but dropped Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue. It was a push. The three Big Ten teams were willing to keep playing ND annually (or near-annually) for years to come. The Irish moved to the ACC because they considered the new Big East too weak a conference for their Olympic sports.
Now imagine the scenario where ND wants to remain independent, but needs other leagues to cooperate with filling out a schedule. I suspect they will have no trouble finding the games they want — because the alternative is that ND joins the Big Ten, an outcome that nobody (except the Big Ten) wants.
Let’s say Swarbrick offers Sankey two ND vs. SEC games per year, with the proviso that they are later in the season, when open dates are harder to find. I bet Sankey grabs that deal in a flash, because he does not want ND in the Big Ten if he can avoid it.
LikeLike
Though my opinion is less than irrelevant, I agree that it would be nice to see all five leagues survive, with the SEC and B1G (including FSU in one of them) having permanent advantages.
Since I root for Rutgers, FSU and Wisconsin, that would work fine for me.
LikeLike
The more I think about it, the more I can see UNC & UVA staying in the ACC. Neither school has ever made a serious commitment to football. Their basketball programs will be fine remaining in the ACC as will the Olympic sports.
While VA/NC is potentially the only great land battle between the SEC and the B1G, I question their value to either conference. VA Tech is the dominant program in Virginia, and UNC – at best – enjoys only a plurality of support in NC with seven FBS schools in the state.
Since they have never been really good at football, it may be easier for them to de-emphasize football and be content in the middle tier of FBS. Lacrosse and basketball will be fine under this scenario.
The West is really the best place for the B1G to grow. I know that the remaining PAC schools are like the girl that had a crush on you in high school that is really trying to hard to get your attention, so she’s kind of a turn off, but there are great markets out west full of Midwestern transplants in fast growing states that the B1G could own.
If the BTN carriage is still a thing in 2030, maybe the B1G slugs it out with the SEC over states with schools that aren’t great in football and may not even deliver their states, or maybe the B1G picks the girls that already love you and will do anything for your affection.
LikeLike
I tend to agree, there is a potential path for UNC/UVA to try to keep the NC/VA schools together and go on a separate track from the Big Ten/SEC.
There will be a lot higher chance of success for those schools as part of a conference that could still regularly get a bid though the resources won’t be at the level of the SEC or Big Ten.
It’s partially why I think a move to 18 by the Big Ten and SEC is a potential multi-decade stopping point.
LikeLike
Tech the dominant program in Virginia, Alan? Tell that to people in Norfolk (where Old Dominion beat the Gobblers for the second time in five years). The Frank Beamer years are long gone in Blacksburg.
But Tech, UVa, UNC and NCSU still have big-time conference value, even though many here only view them in a football-brand context. If the B1G and SEC ignore them because they can’t be broken up, they do so at their own peril.
LikeLike
Vincent – the Beamer era was the greatest time in the football history of state. You’re making my point though, that no school delivers the states of Virginia or North Carolina. Maybe VA Tech only delivers a plurality like UNC may in NC.
If UDub, Oregon, Colorado or Arizona State are in the B1G, they will deliver their (albeit somewhat apathetic) states. If UNC or UVA are in the B1G, its debatable how how they actually deliver, especially if the SEC counter-strikes by taking VA Tech and NC State.
LikeLike
But people fail to realize Virginia and North Carolina don’t have the football-centric culture of SEC states (Clemson may be in a “Carolina,” but in this case, South and North are completely different). Tech and State would certainly be helped by being part of the SEC, but UVa and UNC would remain superior brands.
LikeLike
Vincent – I don’t see VA Tech/UVA and UNC/NC State splitting up, but if they did, with the B1G getting UVA/UNC and the SEC getting NC State/VA Tech, the masses would gravitate to the SEC schools because:
1. UNC & UVA aren’t football schools and don’t have much more of a following (if any) than the NC State & VA Tech;
2. NC & VA are still mostly “Southern” states that collectively border four SEC states; and
3. SEC schedules would present more compelling matchups.
If a 24 team super conference is the end game, the SEC could make the VA/NC schools an offer they couldn’t refuse and the B1G couldn’t match: take all four and throw in Duke for a little basketball fun, to go along with football schools Clemson, Florida State and Miami.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the SEC would take 8 ACC schools. In the new world of expansion that would be too dilutive. Some combination may be additive for the B1G and/or SEC. During our long wait until the GOR is ended the landscape will change as a result of NIL, transfer portal, TV revenue, NCAA changes, CFB expansion, etc. Trying to predict what the ACC teams look like then from a competitive perspective is tough. Will the big brands (FSU, Miami, UNC, Clemson) hold some degree of TV value when they are far behind Purdue and Ole Miss in dollars? Some of the ACC schools may be content with being in a competitive Middle 3 league, and others will not. Even those that are more focused on basketball and Olympic sports (and don’t aspire to win a CFB title) may find they’ve lost too much ground to P2 schools to stick with the ACC if they have the option to leave.
LikeLike
I think Alan is correct in his estimation of VA/NC.
Va Tech is arguably the strongest football brand in either state, but even that has dimmed a fair bit in the past decade. Their recruiting has fallen off to basically being nothing special and any edge over UVa in that area has eroded.
Their edge if they have any left on UVa is simply in the size of fanbase due to the Beamer era winning over large parts of Eastern Va to their side and their much larger fan support on gameday.
NC is split many ways; UNC might be the strongest brand by a smidge (though NC State has more local sport in the Triangle and surrounding area).
ECU is exceptionally strong in the East part of the state. App State has its fanbase. Duke and WF have their small fanbases.
There’s a ton of football fans in both states (those states regularly produce very strong college football tv ratings), but their allegiances are split many ways.
Without success in either league, none of those schools can capture that support. Yet none of those schools is particularly likely to be successful in the SEC. Maybe a higher chance of success in the Big ten, but not enough to have a run of 10+ win seasons that really puts a school on the map like Va Tech’s run under Beamer.
Those football fans will watch plenty of SEC and Big Ten football even without a local school in those leagues.
LikeLike
You know, Alan (and others), all that’s keeping conference realignment from moving to its final stable state is that ACC GOR stretching out conference realignment for another decade.
Otherwise, we’d already know where FSU, Clemson, Miami (and possibly ND; possibly others due to ND) are headed and we could get on with our lives.
After the ACC issue is settled, I don’t see any expansion by the P2 before near mid-century at the earliest when demographic changes may finally make UW/ASU/CU attractive enough to the B10.
LikeLike
Richard – I agree. The question is do FOX and Disney keep throwing lifelines to the M3, because it’s cheaper to keep them alive than to have all the brands in the P2?
The bigger questions are what will Clemson, Miami & Florida State look like in a decade after being lapped in revenue by the Vandys and Purdues of the world several times? Will the B1G/SEC still see value on these downtrodden former kings now living in the slums? Will the potential be there for a Marshall Plan to re-build the fallen?
Also, I see more and more middle and upper- middle class families not allowing their sons to play football, and that’s in Louisiana where football is a religion. I can only imagine what’s happening in more sophisticated and civilized states. NOTE: I can talk about my state like this because it’s my state, y’all (northern translation as you’s guys) can’t!
Will football just be a gladiator sport that poor kids play in a generation or two? If I’m a college president, this is a 100 year question I’m thinking about.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All those are important questions:
2 people have talked a lot recently about paying players: Kevin Warren and Jim Harbaugh.
The biggest aggregate question that touches many of your own is “when will financial resources directly impact recruiting?”
The Big Ten and SEC are likely to directly pay players out of conference revenue.
The writing is basically on the wall for that to happen at some point.
If Northwestern and Vanderbilt and Miss State and Purdue can pay significantly more to their players from conference distributions as FSU then it will directly impact recruiting.
NIL alone won’t be enough because the big brand programs will have NIL + stronger conference distributions.
And at that point, it may be about grabbing the bag for kids in Florida deciding FSU/Miami versus programs like Michigan or LSU or whoever which will be giving each player hundreds of thousands more simply for being in the SEC or Big Ten.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s tough to tell. Would the B10 (and especially the SEC powers) really want to raise up FSU/Clemson/Miami by that point? FSU at least has big enrollment and is in a very big state.
I still think FSU gets snapped up by someone. In a decade, their situation would likely be identical to USC now (faded power in a huge market filled with football talent that is lagging behind in large part because of money).
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten would (and as a result the SEC will). The SEC doesn’t really need to take anybody else. With Texas/OU, they’re going to be a fair bit ahead in football strength.
But FSU is too valuable to leave out on its own. Almost definitely somewhere in the top 10 of programs by TV value.
And Miami isn’t too far behind.
Given the Big Ten has 0 footprint in the south, it’s too valuable to not take a Florida based school for TV value/demographics/recruiting/etc., so I think both of them find landing spots for sure.
And if the SEC only wants FSU, then Clemson would likely be next to go to the SEC.
It’s why I’m struggling to see a scenario where those 3 schools announce exits in the early 2030s. It just makes way too much sense for all involved.
LikeLike
Should have phrased that with a “don’t” in the last line.
“I’m struggling to see a scenario where those 3 schools (FSU, Miami, Clemson) don’t announce exits in the early 2030s.”
I know Colin and others oppose it but very hard to see realignment stop here.
LikeLike
zeek: “I know Colin and others oppose it but very hard to see realignment stop here.”
I don’t oppose it. I simply don’t believe that it’s going to happen. Let’s review what has transpired.
Several posters here have declared that UT, OU, USC and UCLA knew the 12-playoff was coming before they jumped conferences. There is no evidence of that at all. It was a thunderbolt from nowhere as evidenced by Frank’s declaration of “Halleluiah”. No one knew it was coming in the near future. The proposal had been kicked around for years with no consensus.
The reason no one knew it was coming is because, back then, it wasn’t coming. UT/OU to the SEC and USC/UCLA to the Big Ten are the events that CAUSED the commishes to get together to stop the B1G/SEC feeding frenzy. Now we have a scenario in which we have a new incentive for M3 schools to stay where they are and P2 schools to stop accepting more football heavyweights. The M3 heavyweights will have a much better chance of making the playoffs if they stay where they are and the P2 schools have a better chance of getting at-large bids if they keep the M3 heavyweights out of their conferences.
LikeLike
Colin – the working group, of which the SEC’s Sankey and the B12’s Bowlsby were members, had put together the 12-team format before someone with A&M leaked the OU/UTx to the SEC news to the Aggie Houston Chronicle beat reporter. The plan went public soon after. I think its fair to assume that OU and UTx heard about the proposed playoff expansion from either Sankey or Bowlsby, but probably from both.
LikeLike
Alan: ” . . . the working group, of which the SEC’s Sankey and the B12’s Bowlsby were members, had put together the 12-team format before someone with A&M leaked the OU/UTx to the SEC news to the Aggie Houston Chronicle beat reporter.”
Got a link for that? It’s well known that A&M leaked UT and OU to the SEC but nary a word about moving to the 12-team format. I’m calling BS unless you can document your claim.
LikeLike
Colin – I can’t… well, maybe I can but I don’t feel like researching it. It’s not that big a deal to me. But, I believe, the timing of the OU/UTx leak and the roll-out of the expanded playoff plan is too close together for OU and UTx not to know. Call BS if you want, but I think it’s a logical assumption and you apparently don’t. That’s OK. We can disagree.
LikeLike
Alan: ” I believe, the timing of the OU/UTx leak and the roll-out of the expanded playoff plan is too close together for OU and UTx not to know.”
As I previously said, the timing of the OU/UTx leak and the roll-out of the expanded playoff plan is solid evidence that the OU/UT move to the SEC was the CAUSE of the expanded 12-team playoff format.
LikeLike
Colin – despite your certainty, we will have to agree to disagree. We have conflicting opinions that neither of us can prove with certainty. Again, that’s OK.
LikeLike
Alan: “I believe, the timing of the OU/UTx leak and the roll-out of the expanded playoff plan is too close together for OU and UTx not to know. Call BS if you want,”
Alan, can’t you see that the timing of the OU/UT move to the SEC and the expanded playoff plan is confirmation that the realignment caused the expansion?
LikeLike
Colin – obviously I don’t. I fail to see how you can think that a plan as detailed and well thought out, and that had some appeal for every conference was just thrown together in a couple of weeks to cover for some Aggie leaking a realignment story about UTx & OU. The working group had been discussing what an playoff would look like for months.
It’s obvious that you didn’t convince me and I can’t convince you. Again, that’s Ok. Agree to disagree and move on.
LikeLike
Alan – If Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA all knew that a 12-team playoff was imminent then we can presume that every other school in Division 1 also knew. It was the best-kept secret in college football. Not one leak among over a hundred athletic departments.
LikeLike
As I previously said, the timing of the OU/UTx leak and the roll-out of the expanded playoff plan is solid evidence that the OU/UT move to the SEC was the CAUSE of the expanded 12-team playoff format.
Let us make the absurd assumption that OU/TX totally believed the playoff was going to stay at 4 teams forever, even though their own commissioner was on the subcommittee tasked to expand said playoff.
By the time USC/UCLA moved, every commissioner had stated publicly that they were in favor of expansion. The no votes 9 months ago were not fundamental opposition to expansion; the details just had not yet been worked out to their satisfaction.
So perhaps OU/TX were stupid enough to believe the playoff was staying at 4. USC/UCLA would have had to be moronically stupid. Even lobotomized presidents would not have believed that.
LikeLike
If Texas, Oklahoma, USC and UCLA all knew that a 12-team playoff was imminent then we can presume that every other school in Division 1 also knew. It was the best-kept secret in college football. Not one leak among over a hundred athletic departments.
It is actually quite the opposite. Everyone knew. The existence of the committee that was looking at expanded playoff formats was public knowledge before Texas and Oklahoma moved. And they probably knew of it before the public did, since their own commissioner was on it.
Now, when a committee is formed to “look at X,” it tends to mean that X will eventually happen. Sure, it was possible that they would say “never mind,” and stay at four for the next 30 years. But not very likely.
By the way, the history of every playoff I can think of is that they expand.
LikeLike
Marc: “It is actually quite the opposite. Everyone knew.”
“The College Football Playoff’s executive board on Friday approved an expansion to 12 teams, bringing to an end a more-than-three-year endeavor and delivering the most significant change to the postseason in college football history.
“In a meeting that was cloaked in secrecy before a report from Sports Illustrated on Wednesday, the 11-member CFP Board of Managers, composed of presidents from each of the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame, voted unanimously to approve the 12-team format and implement it no later than 2026, sources tell SI.”
https://www.si.com/college/2022/09/02/college-football-playoff-approves-expansion-12-teams
LikeLike
That in no way contradicts what I and countless others have already told you.
LikeLike
Marc: “That in no way contradicts what I and countless others have already told you.”
It directly contradicts what you said and the “countless others” are two other guys on this forum who parrot the same fabrication.
LikeLike
I said that everyone knew—and they did. You think Texas and Oklahoma did not know about a playoff expansion committee their own commissioner was sitting on?
LikeLike
Marc: “I said that everyone knew—and they did. You think Texas and Oklahoma did not know about a playoff expansion committee their own commissioner was sitting on?”
Exactly. Texas and Oklahoma did not know about a super-secret playoff expansion committee meeting that was hurriedly called after OU and UT and USC and UCLA had announced they were leaving for the SEC and Big Ten. In fact, the last people on earth that the Big XII commish would confide in would be the two schools that had just stabbed him in the back.
LikeLike
Everyone in college sports knew the existence of the CFP expansion committee because all 10 FBS leagues approved it even before the pandemic. Individual schools may not have been privy to the detailed discussions as they went along, but they definitely all knew a committee that was made up of that subset of commissioners plus ND AD Jack Swarbrick was discussing CFP expansion as a general matter.
LikeLike
Of course. Frank, we all know that. What’s your point?
LikeLike
Of course. Frank, we all know that. What’s your point?
That no sentient university president could have been surprised that the playoff expanded. When people form a committee to look at X, then X tends to happen — for more often than not.
LikeLike
Marc: “That no sentient university president could have been surprised that the playoff expanded.”
Marc, you just moved the goal posts. You previously claimed “everyone knew” this was going to happen and that it was imminent. Now you’re saying that no sentient university president could have been surprised that the playoff expanded. We can readily agree on that.
LikeLike
@Colin
Now that the CFP *has* expanded (to the surprise of most ADs) and being in M3 conference with an easier path to the playoffs is more valuable than being paid more in a P2 conference do you think UT and OU will announce their rescinding of the SEC membership to go back to the BigXII in a joint press conference, or separately?
LikeLike
Nathan: “…an easier path to the playoffs is more valuable than being paid more…”
I didn’t say that an easier path to the playoffs is more valuable than being paid more. As often happens on this forum, I am being challenged to defend some position that I did not make.
I have repeatedly said that there are a host of factors that schools use when deciding to realign with another conference.
LikeLike
@colin but I do believe you said that the recent big moves (UT, OK, USC, UCLA) *wouldn’t* have happened if there was a 12 team playoff was in place. So, membership in their old conferences was more desirable than in their new *under a 12 team playoff format*. Well, we now have that format. So why aren’t those 4 schools backing out of their commitments?
Assuming the ACC didn’t have a GOR issue how many M3 teams would turn down an invite from a P2 conference *today*? I’d say less than 5%, and that’s stupid conservative (I think the real number is 0%). How many P2 teams would leave for a M3 conference today? 0%. P2 teams are going to get the lions share of money, national news coverage and the best time slots and channels for their games for the foreseeable future. Any M3 team that doesn’t want that is insane, and their AD / president should be fired immediately
LikeLike
Colin, you said FSU/Clemson/Miami wouldn’t leave the ACC even if they had the chance to join a P2 conference, did you not?
So if that is not saying “easier path to the playoffs is more valuable than being paid more”, then clarify why they would choose to stay in the ACC to be paid less.
I have come to Brian’s viewpoint that indeed, you are actually a troll as you engage in trollish behavior.
LikeLike
@Colin: I was replying to the following statement by you:
Several posters here have declared that UT, OU, USC and UCLA knew the 12-playoff was coming before they jumped conferences. There is no evidence of that at all. It was a thunderbolt from nowhere….
It appears you now agree that the playoff expansion was not “a thunderbolt from nowhere,” and indeed the presidents of those universities knew it was coming. QED.
I added further that everyone knew it was coming, and so did FTT. You are free to debate exactly how far down this goes, but as long as we have established that the presidents knew, it really does not matter who else did.
LikeLike
Marc: “It appears you now agree that the playoff expansion was not “a thunderbolt from nowhere,” and indeed the presidents of those universities knew it was coming.”
Marc, you seem to be obsessed with playing some kind of “Gotcha”. Let’s look at the timeline of what transpired.
-A year ago – Texas and OU announce they are going to the SEC.
-July 2022 – USC and UCLA announce they are going to the Big Ten.
-Sept 2022 – After super-secret unscheduled emergency meeting, playoff committee announced expansion from 4 to 12 with six autobids for top conference champs.
Now, after the B12 commish was stabbed in the back by OU and UT and the P12 commish was stabbed in the back by USC and UCLA, do I believe that those two commishes were all kissy-huggy with presidents of the universities that had betrayed them and kept them up-to-date about the forthcoming super-secret unscheduled emergency meeting? No. In fact, I imagine their attitude was “Chuck You Farley”.
LikeLike
obvious troll is obvious. don’t engage.
LikeLike
https://apnews.com/article/college-football-sports-mark-keenum-college-sports-football-3b4c4b2f43473b8c84bc1812e226d540
Super secret meeting? This article is from June 3.
By this time next year, the university leaders who oversee the College Football Playoff want the next format for determining a champion settled.
Mississippi State President Mark Keenum, the chairman of the CFP Board of Managers, said Thursday the conference commissioners in charge of building the postseason system for the 2026 season and beyond will restart the task in the coming weeks.
“I’ve sent a note out to all my colleagues, the presidents and chancellors, to try to get us together sometime towards the end of the summer, hopefully by sometime before the end of August, just to continue the dialogue,” he said.
https://www.on3.com/news/cfp-board-of-managers-discusses-potentially-expanding-before-2026-expansion-college-football-playoff/
They met again in mid-August.
Talks of College Football Playoff expansion stalled over the offseason. However, the idea reportedly came up at the CFP board of managers meeting Wednesday.
The 11 members of the CFP board discussed “the next iteration” of the playoff before the contract runs out in 2025, ESPN’s Pete Thamel reported. Conversations about potential expansion stalled over the summer and the plan was to keep the CFP at four teams until the deal expires.
“A source told ESPN that the general feel among the presidents and chancellors on the call was that the college sports leaders have left too much money on the table by not implementing a new playoff before 2026, perhaps as much as a half-billion dollars,” Thamel wrote.
Then they met again to have the final discussion and vote. How secret is a series of meetings discussed in the press over months?
LikeLike
“In a meeting that was cloaked in secrecy . . .”
https://www.si.com/college/2022/09/02/college-football-playoff-approves-expansion-12-teams
LikeLike
Every meeting college presidents have is secret, and the relevant results from this one got reported on immediately. What’s super secret about that? The CFP board meets regularly. How many details have we ever heard from any of those meetings? We hear what they plan to talk about, and we hear about any votes. That’s it. It’s like complaining about a school’s BoT having a closed session meeting.
LikeLike
Every previous meeting of the playoff committee was pre-announced with location, date and time. The latest one was not.
LikeLike
The question is do FOX and Disney keep throwing lifelines to the M3, because it’s cheaper to keep them alive than to have all the brands in the P2?
I have not seen any evidence that the networks are willing to perpetually prop up weak leagues because they would rather not see more realignment. Yes, I know ESPN agreed (for a time) to pay the 10-team Big XII as if it still had 12 teams. You know how that story ended. None of them threw the Pac-12 a lifeline either.
LikeLike
Well, in the case of the Pac, there wasn’t much that made sense to do as there would be no way for USC to make as much staying. Also not much they could do to keep Texas/OU from leaving.
The B12 (and ACC with the football powers gone) promise to be a competitive league that anybody could win, however.
LikeLike
ESPN will prop up weak leagues since they need the inventory to show. The SEC or B1G have no incentive to aggressively grow if each additional school reduces the income of the incumbent teams.
So if the SEC and B1G do not wish to pick up a number of teams and lose income, what happens? If the ESPN does not prop them up, then what? How does ESPN fill its windows without the weaker leagues?
What is a lifeline to the PAC, if the B1G is not taking more PAC schools now? Would the existing PAC schools turn down $26 million per year? Then what? Join the MWC conference en mass and get $6 million?
If a pipeline is $40 million per team to the PAC, it is not happening. Will the PAC threaten to go out of business if they get less than $35 million each? What are the options?
If ESPN agrees to increase ACC income to $32 million and not a penny more, can the ACC say no? Is that propping them up?
LikeLike
Perhaps a definition of terms will help. It is not “propping up” a league to pay a negotiated fair value for its inventory. Even UMass was able to sell its games to ESPN. There is always a price that a provider will pay.
I took “propping up” to mean paying more than fair value, simply to ensure that the Big Ten or SEC won’t poach schools they might otherwise have taken. If there are no more schools worth expanding for, those leagues will still get something for their TV rights.
LikeLike
I used the term “propping up” with regard to the M3. In the context of the sentence, I thought it was easy to understand what I meant. I guess I was wrong.
If there are only two conferences with all the CFB brands, they will be able to name their price – within reason – similar to the NFL, but certainly not at NFL figures.
It may be cheaper for FOX & Disney to pay slightly above market value for the M3 and avoid more defections to the P2, than to pay top dollar for the P2 with all the marketable brands in college football. If they don’t, and Notre Dame, FSU, Miami & Clemson all join a P2 conference, then the remainder of the M3 will be relegated to ESPN2, ESPNU & FS1, with many games on Thursdays and Fridays. The P2 can then name their price – within reason – and it may cost FOX/NBC/CBS and Disney more to televise P2 games in their six best windows than to overpay for B12/ACC/PAC. I hope that clears up what I meant by using the term “propping up.”
LikeLike
@Alan
I feel like that may have been possible before Texas/OU and USC/UCLA bolted.
The Big Ten and SEC were already so far ahead in terms of ratings without those moves, but now the gap is a chasm from those 2 to the remaining Big 12/Pac-12.
And their gap with the ACC has grown, so it’s hard to see a way for FSU or Miami or Clemson to get fair value in the ACC.
That brings up the other problem, which is that the ACC is locked into this undermarket deal through 2036.
By 2031-2032 when the Big Ten/SEC are talking to ACC schools, it’ll be hard for ESPN to somehow bridge that gap unless they promise unrealistic figures for 2036 and beyond (but they won’t do that 4-5 years early when they’re negotiating with the NFL).
All that is why I feel almost certain that the Big Ten/SEC will invite ACC schools around 2031-2032; that’s the perfect moment where the ACC will be at maximum weakness given the NFL negotiations/SEC negotiations taking up all the oxygen. ACC will be too far away from its next deal to save itself.
The cake feels baked imo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Z33k – for the most part I agree. The one variable is a TV offer somewhat above market to the ACC and a disproportionate Playoff revenue split allowing the ACC playoff participants to keep -maybe- half of the money. Even if that happens, given FSU and Miami’s recent performances, they may not be able to take advantage of such a sweetener because they’ll be playing in the Duke’s Mayo Bowl or the Sun Bowl instead of the playoffs.
LikeLike
If Tobacco Road stays ACC, there are at most five or six schools left that would appeal to the B1G or SEC. ND, Stanford, Washington, Clemson, Miami, FSU and ??? Even that might be too many. Would the B1G take Washington and Stanford as a pair to claim the west coast? If not would they take either without a request by ND?
I guess that is why “overpay” did not mean anything to me.
I just do not see the need for ESPN to “overpay” other leagues to stop defections when there are not likely to be any, so that does not seem to be a major issue. If anything, it is just as likely that schools would move around between the M3. WVa to the ACC to resolve its ridiculous travel situation? If WVa stays in the Big 12, would Pitt or Louisville be invited there? Etc., etc., but those are not big money moves.
If all of the few schools went to one of the P2, the M3 would still be needed to fill ESPN slots. There are simply not enough games if there are 38 or even 40 teams in the P2.
Inventory will be needed and there will still be good games, though obviously not Alabama v Florida, or Ohio State v. Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Yeah Alan that’s ultimately why most of us disagree with Colin on this.
It’s irresponsible for any college president/AD to assume that their football program will always be in peak performance. It’s the critical problem with unequal revenue sharing based on playoff performance.
You almost have to take a “guaranteed” payday from the Power 2 as opposed to staying in an ACC where maybe you can get a similar share if you’re going to the playoff every year.
But nobody can budget for that because any football slump and you’re getting $10+ million less.
LikeLike
zeek: “You almost have to take a “guaranteed” payday from the Power 2 as opposed to staying in an ACC where maybe you can get a similar share if you’re going to the playoff every year.”
You’re not looking at the other side of the equation. Let’s say FSU and Clemson each get four playoff spots in the next ten years. You seem to believe that both the SEC and Big Ten will want them but what happens if they join either P2 conference? Let’s say they join the Big Ten.
All of a sudden a school like Pitt, Wake or VA Tech will get an automatic qualifier bid instead of FSU/Clemson. But of course we still have only 12 playoff spots. FSU and Clemson are now added to the pool of schools in the Big Ten that want at-large bids, so the chances for the Michigans, Penn States, USCs, Wisconsins and Michigan States is diminished proportionally.
Even if adding FSU and Clemson bring in enough additional TV revenue to break even, that doesn’t benefit any of the Big Ten schools. Their revenue remains the same. And that same scenario is valid in FSU and Clemson join the SEC instead of the Big Ten. Actually, it’s even worse for the SEC because they have already captured the SC/GA/FL TV market.
LikeLike
Yep, good points by Zeek and Bernie.
The M3 will always make some money and get some exposure because Fox will need inventory after their Big Noon B10 game and the WWL won’t be able to fill all their slots on ESPN2 (and definitely not ESPNU) as well as ABC and ESPN with solely SEC games.
Plus, with the top football powers gone, the playing field is much more level in those leagues, likely meaning fewer blowouts, exciting games, lead changes, etc.
But no school in those leagues can get what they would in a P2.
So a few top games on Fox/ABC/ESPN. A bunch on ESPN2/ESPNU. Definitely on Th night, Friday (heck, possibly even Friday After Dark), and possibly even Wednesday night.
LikeLike
WVa to the ACC to resolve its ridiculous travel situation?
The Big XII’s exit fee might become an obstacle. Any school would pay it happily for an invite to the B2. But the ACC might only be a lateral move.
LikeLike
@Colin
This playoff system isn’t permanent.
When schools bolt the ACC, don’t be surprised if there’s fewer AQ spots.
LikeLike
z33k: “This playoff system isn’t permanent. When schools bolt the ACC, don’t be surprised if there’s fewer AQ spots.”
So you’re saying the the commishes of the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12 will all show up at some future playoff committe meeting and vote to exclude themselves from the playoffs. Is that what you’re saying?
LikeLike
There is some merit to Colin’s point. Once they have agreed to 6 AQ slots, they are unlikely to reduce it. It’s just not worth the regulatory headaches that come with such a move.
Future playoff formats will not require unanimous approval, so they could ram through a system that reduces access for everyone else. I am predicting they won’t.
LikeLike
@Colin
I’m saying any playoff contract only exists for the extent of that contract.
Don’t be surprised if the Big Ten and SEC push for a reduction of AQs down to 4 from 6 whenever a future CFP contract comes up in the 2030s.
LikeLike
z33k: “Don’t be surprised if the Big Ten and SEC push for a reduction of AQs down to 4 from 6 whenever a future CFP contract comes up in the 2030s.”
That isn’t going to happen. If anything, the playoff will further expand to 16 teams. After years of frustration since 2014, there is no way that the the M3 and G5 reps will vote to reduce their access to the playoff.
LikeLike
@Marc
That is a fair point, I suppose they might just add 4 more non-AQs in a move to 16 if a bunch of Big Ten/SEC teams miss the playoffs while finishing above a bunch of the conference champs.
Worth seeing how this plays out I suppose.
LikeLike
I suppose they might just add 4 more non-AQs in a move to 16 if a bunch of Big Ten/SEC teams miss the playoffs while finishing above a bunch of the conference champs.
I had not even thought about that. The history of playoffs in all sports is they tend to expand. During the BCS era, one of the anti-playoff arguments was the slippery slope theory that there was no way they could stop at four. And here we are.
The easiest expansion is the kind that does not require the season to get longer. All you do is eliminate the four first-round byes, and force those teams to play a game. They will not be able to leave that money on the table forever. It is a matter of when it happens, not if.
LikeLike
College players on NFL Rosters
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/college/
65 – Alabama
57 – LSU
56 – Ohio State
48 – Georgia
40 – Oklahoma
39 – Notre Dame
38 – Michigan
36 – Penn State
33 – Florida & Iowa
32 – Clemson
You can look up the rest.
LikeLike
Again matching up pretty well with my super-king and king tiers.
Top 4 are super-kings. Of the other 2, UF and Texas lag.
OU the best of the regular kings (which would surprise no one).
Iowa+Wisconsin+Washington doing best amongst non-kings/non-superprinces.
I actually have Wisconsin as the non-king/non-superprince that is most likely to win a national title. Odds are still very low, though, and they kind of need a perfect storm with a transcendent QB.
5 B10 and 4 SEC in the top dozen (other 3 are OU, ND, and Clemson). If you count current and future members, B10 and SEC with 6 each in the top 15 (ND, Clemson, and Washington the others).
LikeLike
BTW, Stanford at #19 (just ahead of USC and ahead of UO too). The Cardinal won’t be all that dilutive of an addition because (IMO) they’ll always be able to get enough talent to be pretty good. The B10 still would need to extract ND’s surplus value to make the addition make sense, though.
ND+Miami+Stanford+UW in a decade?
LikeLike
Oh, and note that Cal isn’t that far down (just below FSU, Miami, and UO). Cal definitely has enough local talent around to be good.
LikeLike
Yeah there is plenty of talent to go around in California as far as competitive concerns go.
Issue we’re all at is just TV value.
If you have to choose between Cal and Stanford, I think you just wait for ND and add Stanford as their partner for SF visits.
Competitively, there’ll never be an issue given Stanford wins over a significant number of blue chip recruits that want the most prestigious degree in FBS.
LikeLike
Cal definitely has enough local talent around to be good.
Bad programs tend to stay bad, even when the facts say they ought to be competitive.
LikeLike
Marc, I definitely disagree.
We’ve seen most of even the king programs cycle between good and bad in the last 2 decades.
Did Wisconsin’s performance 1963-1992 (zero B10 titles in 30 years) at the start of 1993 tell you how the Badgers would do 1993-2022 (6 B10 titles and another 4 divisional titles in 30 years)?
At the start of 1995, did Northwestern’s performance over the previous 26 years predict how well the Wildcats would do over the next 26 years?
LikeLike
Richard,
I think Marc does bring up the fair point that historically, very few programs trend away from their long-term mean for long periods of time.
Many programs have 10-20 year runs that are “above average or below average” but then revert back to their historical mean before that run.
Virginia Tech has reverted back to its pre-Beamer historical average of late in terms of recruiting; still has the brand and fanbase built during the Beamer era across Virginia, but that doesn’t bring in recruits or win football games. (Many Va Tech fans have complained about UVa winning over 4-5 star Virginia recruits over them on their Sportswar forums).
Could argue Northwestern has just reverted back to its pre-Dark Age historical average over the past 30 years. The 20 year Dark Age there was a period of 0 (maybe even negative) institutional commitment to football as opposed to what they’ve done over the past 30 years (which looks pretty similar to their 1920-1970 football level) with a return to a high investment approach to football that’s at a Big Ten level.
Programs generally can’t escape their 30-50 year average for too long *as long as everything else is equal*. Maybe Oregon can permanently without USC/UCLA in their conference, but the next 20-40 years are the test.
Of course recruiting grounds, resources, institutional commitment, tradition, fanbase, brand, etc. are all factors here. And that in part is why Oregon is a tough bet. They have the Nike brand, but how long does that keep them as a cool brand as they’ve been over the past 2 decades?
It’s why Nebraska (and Va Tech) probably can’t reach the peaks that they had in the past easily. Nebraska at this point is very similar to Wisconsin in its ceiling unless something changes (like Urban Meyer goes there and makes them a national recruiting power); the way the sport has changed and recruiting has changed, they can’t go back to what they were in the 90s.
LikeLike
Programs generally can’t escape their 30-50 year average for too long…
Yes, z33k has given a more fulsome explanation, but that is what I was attempting to say. College sports programs tend revert to their their historical norm, even if they go through a few years, or even a decade plus, that is much higher or lower.
LikeLike
Even if teams have reverted to their long term norm, we may be entering into a new era for B1G and SEC teams. For example, Nebraska is about to be receiving unheard of amounts of funding, simply by being in the B1G. Will that allow a resurgence that otherwise was impossible?
There may be other teams that have traditionally been underfunded, who suddenly will not. Does that change things or is it irrelevant, since another 35 teams will have the same extra money?
LikeLike
Bernie – with every P2 school making about the same in new TV money, the difference makers will be allocation (football v Olympic subsidization), ticket sales, donations, and corporate sponsorships.
Looking at Sportico’s College Athletic Departments Financial Database is a good guide, but it doesn’t tell the whole story as not all schools categorize revenue and expenses the same way.
https://www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2021/college-sports-finances-database-intercollegiate-1234646029/
I would expect donations and corporate sponsorships to take a bit of a hit due to those same businesses being asked to contribute to NIL deals.
The other questions is how much of this new TV money will trickle down to Olympic sports. I would expect just enough to not get in Title IX trouble.
LikeLike
Reversion to the norm is only a tendency. Sometimes a program’s trajectory changes permanently. Joe Paterno at Penn State created a king where there previously wasn’t one. Minnesota was once a king (or would have been if the term had existed), but no longer is.
LikeLike
Bernie, I don’t think it’s irrelevant. Though it also shouldn’t change the relative pecking orders in the SEC and B10. But it would make it virtually impossible for any school outside the P2 to win the national title. A Cinderella run would just be making it to the national title game (akin to a mid-major crashing the Final Four).
Here’s the list of non-P6 basketball schools to win the MBB championship since 1990:
1990 UNLV
2014 UConn (when it was in the AAC)
In the new world, a non-P2 winning the football national title will be as rare. After FSU, Clemson, and Miami join the P2, it may happen once every 3 decades (even if ND stays independent).
LikeLike
It’s kind of like my Dad used to say: “If you’ve never been, you can’t go.” The last time a first-timer won a football national championship was Florida in 1996. The 80s and 90s did usher in some new blood, but with four one-hit wonders and five multi-winners.
Here’s a list of first-timers since 1980.
1996 Florida (06 & 08)
1993 Florida State (99 & 13)
1991 Washington
1990 GA Tech
1990 Colorado
1984 BYU
1983 Miami (87, 89, 91 & 01)
1982 Penn State (86)
1981 Clemson (16 & 18)
1980 Georgia (21)
Note: No newbies were admitted in the 70s.
LikeLike
Alan: “The other questions is how much of this new TV money will trickle down to Olympic sports. I would expect just enough to not get in Title IX trouble.”
Alan, that would be rational, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. It seems that a good number of P5 programs pour more money in to non-revenue sports than “required”, whether for ego boosts, because they work with those people every day, or something (building new revenue streams for the future?)
As P5 schools have gotten richer relative to other schools, their non-revenue programs have started to dominate other schools’ non-revenue programs even if those other schools were powers before.
A few examples: Hawaii and Long Beach State use to win titles in women’s volleyball in the ’80’s and ’90’s. Now, even though Hawaii still has one of the highest attendances for women’s volleyball, B10 and other P5 schools dominate.
You see the same thing in college baseball. In 2003, when Rice won the whole thing, Rice, CS Fullerton, and SW Missouri St. made the CWS. However, a non-P5 school hasn’t made the last 4 CWS’s. A B10 program has made the CWS more recently.
LikeLike
Alan, the next first-timer to win the national title (counting only those awarded by the (AP or Coaches Poll) will be a member of a P2 conference.
Wisconsin or possibly one of the MS schools or SC. I’m not holding my breath, though (so many things would have to go right for them to win it).
Once the SEC and B10 divvy up FSU, Clemson, and Miami, outside of ND, all of the schools who won 3 or more AP or Coaches Poll national titles will be in the P2 (and ND may be in a P2 conference by then too). All who won 2 or more besides Army and Pitt (3 of those came during and pre-WWII; the other when Johnny Majors recruited Tony Dorsett and roughly 5000 new players to the Pitt football team).
LikeLike
Richard – I use the NCAA website for reference – 1936 (AP 1st champion) forward, that includes the Coaches, Football Writers Association of America, the National Football Foundation, BCS and CFP. I think that’s safe. Aside from AP & Coaches, that only adds Ole Miss (60 FWAA) nd Arkansas (64 FWAA).
Correction to earlier post: Nebraska was the only member to join the club during the 70s.
https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs
LikeLike
The 80s and 90s did usher in some new blood, but with four one-hit wonders and five multi-winners.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this is a lot less likely to happen anymore. If a team like BYU had a season today like the Cougars had in 1984, they wouldn’t face a 6–6 team in the Holiday Bowl. They’d be in the playoff and would have to beat Alabama. Georgia Tech and Colorado (1991) obviously would not share a title; they would both be playoff teams and one would lose.
LikeLike
Yes, all first-timers pre-date the BCS.
Now, if you’re not in the club, you can’t join.
LikeLike
The next first-timer to win the national title (counting only those awarded by the (AP or Coaches Poll) will be a member of a P2 conference.
I am not making any predictions, but every once in a while, the teams that “should win” won’t. I would argue that we are perhaps overdue for a chaos year in college football. Despite the built-in advantage that the major powers have, it is not impossible for someone else to crash the party.
LikeLike
Marc:
Yeah, it’s possible, like the Kellen Moore-QB’ed Boise teams.
They’d have get key talent in the space force positions (Edge, Tackle, CB, and WR) by unearthing diamonds in the rough and also a smart accurate QB.
LikeLike
Richard, I do not think that UConn men’s 2014 basketball title counts as an exception. It was their 4th title, including one just three years earlier in 2011.
The AAC status was sort of an accident between Big East stints. The Huskies were a major basketball power in 2014. Whether they will ever return to that is a different issue. And, of course, if they still played football in the AAC, they would probably be one of the weaker teams in that G5 league.
The Big East has consistently been one of the major basketball powers.
I wonder what the money differential will do with SEC and B1G basketball. Since 2000, FL and KY have won bball titles. Zero B1G teams since then.
Of course, with basketball, three or four players in a couple of recruiting class can win a title. For the upcoming class, Duke has four 5 star recruits in the national top 20. If they stay a couple of years (??) and Duke has another class like this, there is no excuse to not win a title.
LikeLike
Bernie, it’s simply much cheaper to be competitive in basketball. The money top basketball programs spend tends to be a fraction of what top football programs spend.
And sure, you could argue 2014 UConn is like where Clemson(/FSU/Miami) will be in the near future before they join the P2.
So ACC (and B12) schools outside the P2 will still be capable of challenging for the MBB national title (just like BE teams do now).
LikeLike
Georgia and Georgia Tech were only semi-newbies. Georgia has long claimed 1942 when they were #2 in the AP Poll but won most of the computer rankings. Georgia Tech claims 1952 (unbeaten, 2nd in poll, won many computer rankings) and pre poll championships in 1917 and 1928 where they were about as close to a consensus MNC as you could get in that era.
LikeLike
Alan, a number of ADs and conference commissioners have talked about getting rid of the partial scholarships in the non-revenue sports. Also, raising the caps. There will be significant money going to non-revenue sports. I don’t know that we will see many sports added, but we will see better funding of existing sports. Texas and a number of SEC schools have specifically mentioned baseball.
LikeLike
Bullet – yeah, I didn’t really think that “hot take” out.
LikeLike
Bullet & Alan:
Yeah, it seems that the ADs will do what they often do: Use the money from the revenue sports to give benefits to (typically higher SES) student-athletes in non-revenue sports.
Though if that becomes only a FBS requirement, it would also be a way to squeeze out and shrink FBS.
LikeLike
Right, the polls were very much a beauty contest with idiosyncratic effects (so when you lost often had a big effect on final placement).
LikeLike
Even by the standards of the polling era, BYU’s 1984 national championship was crazy. Five of their 13 wins were by one score or less, and they played just one ranked team — Pittsburgh in the first week of the season. (The Panthers eventually went 3–7–1, so BYU’s win over them is perhaps less significant than it felt at the time.)
LikeLike
Just for kicks, I decided to look at some comments from last summer (after the SEC took Texas and OU):
Tyson: “I’ll admit the Mizzou to B1G is a stretch, though not as big as you suggest; however I think it is very possible that KU gets a B1G invite”
Richard: “Unlike Frank, I disagree.
KS is a small-population non-growing Midwestern state like Nebraska and is a marquee brand in the less popular sport.
Either the B10 will poach the top brands that are academic fits from either the Pac or ACC (or both) or will do nothing.”
Frank: “@Richard – The argument for Kansas is the basketball corollary for adding Nebraska for football: large passionate fan bases that are legi blue bloods in their respective sports. I’m not saying that’s the right move for the Big Ten, but it’s at least a colorable argument if the current belief is that the media shift to streaming puts more of a value on passionate fan bases and national brand names compared to larger markets for cable TV households.
The challenge is that Kansas looks like a pretty good expansion choice when paired with another school like UT or OU, but adding KU alone is probably a tough sell for the Big Ten and it’s hard to find someone to pair them with outside of attempting to poach ACC or Pac-12 schools or adding Notre Dame, all of which are exponentially more difficult (and may not be financially feasible when the ACC has a long-term grant of rights agreement in place).”
Richard: “I’d have to disagree, Frank. I don’t think bringing solely a basketball brand is enough (unlike bringing solely a football brand, as in the case of UNL or OU). UNC, UK, and Duke (as well as UCLA) offer more than solely basketball (some combination of decent football, population/demographics/recruiting, and academic brand). KU doesn’t.”
—-
Colin: “Frank, you forgot about the “Gentlemen’s Agreement”. For decades we have been told of a handshake agreement by the university presidents of Florida, UGA, South Carolina, Kentucky and now Texas A&M to vote together to block FSU/Miami, GT, Clemson and Louisville from joining the SEC.
I believe the Gentlemen’s Agreement is real and I believe A&M will use it to keep UT out of the SEC. FYI, I was on the faculty at A&M at the time that they joined the SEC and there was much contempt for DeLoss Dodds and his asinine Longhorn Network.”
Richard: “I don’t think it’s real.
If A&M is unhappy, what are they going to do? Leave the SEC?”
“To be precise, I don’t think it’s real for A&M.
UF and UGa have options (the B10 would gladly add them) if the SEC pisses them off and the SEC would not trade either of those 2 for FSU or GTech. (SC just isn’t a big enough state for anyone to get bothered about either way).
The SEC would happily trade A&M for Texas, though.”
——
Richard: “I think the B10 will look West, not East.
1. All of SoCal/Bay Area/Seattle/Denver have either a lot or a ton of B10 alums (really only Atlanta is the same in the footprint south of DC and north of FL).
2. Unlike the ACC, the Pac has TV rights coming up for negotiation soon.
3. Because the better UCs are so insanely difficult to get in to now, CA sends out a ton of OOS students (and there is a lot of money on the West Coast).
4. Plenty of athletic talent there (in all sports).
Only concerns are
1. Folks on the West Coast are pretty tepid about college sports.
2. West Coast is really far from anywhere else with people in the US. Though folks there are a bit use to flying long distances if they leave the state).”
Brian: “But the P12 schools have to want to split up, be allowed to leave little brothers, and be wiling to travel all their sports teams to the east coast every year. The CA 4 won’t split up, so at a minimum you’d have to add 4 schools. Is 18 schools really a conference, or is it 2 conferences put together? With weak college sports fans out west and the cost of travel, I’m not sure expanding to the west coast makes sense.”
—–
Brian: “In terms of athletics, I agree UNC is the only big brand. But for demographics, UVA is also strong (and adds a rival for UMD). UVA could bridge to UNC, too, and the B10 would also take Duke if that helped UNC decide. The fourth could be KU (all the hoops powers but UK), or it could be GT.
Clemson and FSU aren’t academic or cultural fits and they would have zero interest. UVA, UNC and Duke would be good academic fits but might feel out of place culturally.
The west coast is so far away that I struggle to see that happening. I think the B10 would rather stay at 14 than stretch from NJ to CA.”
Richard: “In pretty much all aspects besides distance, the Pac CA schools are equal too or offer more than the UNC/UVa/Duke (and GTech/KU) combo.
Especially in terms of potential eyeballs, wealth, OOS recruits, and media centers.
And unlike the ACC, the Pac’s TV deal is ending relatively soon.”
Brian: “I agree the CA4 offer a lot as well, but they are farther away. Distance, and the costs that come with it, is a very real thing that has to be weighed in this decision. And the time zone difference is a problem for football. Also the cultural differences in terms of fan interest.”
Richard: “The cost from distance is overblown, IMO.
For the original B10 schools, it’s an extra football game out west each year. As I mentioned, for the CA schools, it’s about 2 extra games out east each year. Everyone could just cut down on long-distance OOC games of they cared enough.
For the non-revenue sports (and even for basketball), nothing says you can’t just have geographic pods and play teams in your own pod more often.”
Brian: “It’s not a conference if you don’t play each other. If this is just for CFB and MBB playing each other, that’s a scheduling arrangement. And many sports play too often to just stick in your pod.”
Richard: ““It’s not a conference if you don’t play each other”
Every team in the NFL use to play every other team in the NFL.
They don’t any more. It’s still one league.
Times change.”
-Brian: “Richard,
Yes, the NFL is a professional sports league. It is NOT a college athletics conference. The schools have other considerations beyond CFB.”
Richard: “Brian:
Sure, there are always other considerations.
But after COVID, there will be a lot more rationality to college sports. So if it was rational for the NFL to expand from it’s Midwestern/Northern/frozen tundra footprint to become a national league, it will be rational for the B10 to do so too.
Remember that the world won’t stand still even if you choose to do so.”
“BTW, re: “It’s not a conference if you don’t play each other.”
In that case, I don’t want to hear you refer to the ACC as a conference from now on, as ACC teams play some other ACC teams only twice in 14 years.”–
Pete Thamel: “There has long been a notion in college athletics that the Big Ten and SEC were pulling away from all the other leagues because of the financial success of their networks and the corresponding success on the field. Now, the Big Ten will go to market without the adrenaline jolt that the SEC got in its deal. The only corresponding move the Big Ten could make would be a play for Notre Dame, but that remains unlikely because of how secure Notre Dame’s future is in the new football playoff.”
Richard: “ND isn’t the B10’s only potential move.
So is taking the cream of the Pac.”
——-
Richard: “BTW, I don’t think people on here are thinking long-term enough.
Adding the Pac 6 to the B10 and creating a national conference that includes 2 of ND’s rivals eventually unlocks ND.”
Richard: ““ND wants (among other demands) to play a national schedule.”
Which they would get if they joined a conference that was national.
“Beyond their ACC schedule, ND plays Stanford, USC, and Navy every year. ”
Check, check, and check. In the B22 (I’m envisioning 5 protected rivals and the other 16 rotation across 4 slots), ND would play USC and Stanford every year in conference as protected rivals. They could schedule Navy as an OOC opponent.
“The remaining four are two buy games and two premier P5 opponents.”
Check and check. They’d get Michigan every year as well as each of PSU/OSU/MSU/Wisconsin/Nebraska/Iowa/Oregon/Washington/UCLA once every 4 years.
They could fill out the last 2 slots OOC with buy games (though I would expect them to mix in some Shamrock Series games as well).
“There is no way they could do that as full-time members of any conference”
Not as of any current conference but yes as a member of the P22.”
—
Richard: “There would be 2 super-conferences called the “SEC” and “Big 10/22/24”.
Maybe at some point, they’ll merge.”
—
Richard: “I don’t think the ramifications of becoming the only national conference should be underestimated.”
—
Andy: “Okay, well, in your very unlikely hypothetical situation, yes, a 20 team B1G that goes from Los Angeles to New Jersey might be able to command a media rights deal that was similar to the SEC + UNC/Duke/UVA/Whoever. So they both make tons of money. Fine. So then we have two super conferences with 20 teams each. Except they aren’t really conferences. They’re more like conglomerations where half the teams hardly even play each other most of the time. Yeah, hypothetically it could play out that way. Seems pretty pointless though, other than maybe as a money making exercise.”
Richard: ““other than maybe as a money making exercise”
Kind of important. Hard to pay the bills (or anything else) without money.
COVID has shown colleges how much money matters (if they didn’t realize before).”
Andy: “We’ll see if they’d create those monstrosities just to make money. I doubt it. Time will tell.”
Narrator: Time told.
—-
Richard: “So if the B10 does anything, they will take the cream of the Pac (and try to entice ND).”
LikeLike
Richard: “While true, Miami will be under water within decades.
Being a smallish private, the part of their fan base that is dedicated is tiny (support is mostly a mile wide and an inch deep, as they say).
Nevertheless, I would add Miami if I thought Miami wouldn’t be submerged (they’re a smaller USC).”
(BTW, I’m now in favor of adding Miami. If Venice can survive using canals, so can Miami.)
Frank: “@z33k – Florida State isn’t a perfect fit with the Big Ten, but it’s a bit better than what a lot of people are giving it credit for. I actually think it would fit in better culturally with the B1G compared to, say, Texas A&M and a lot of other Southern schools.
A lot of people are neglecting to mention the Florida school that would fit in the best culturally: Miami. While it’s private, it has a significant academic research base (one of those schools on the cusp of AAU status) and in reality a Northern school that happens to be located in the South when it comes to its student body.
As the saying goes, the further south you go in Florida, the more northern you get.”
—
Brian: “I think it’s asking for trouble to add poor cultural fits into a conference of 18+. At that size you’re losing the connections that a real conference has. You need something to hold it all together besides money.”
Richard: “I agree with Brian. Hence, if you go that big, add the good cultural fits in the Pac.”
—-
Alan: “The SEC will have kings Alabama, LSU, Florida, Texas & Oklahoma, and barons Auburn, Tennessee, A&M & Georgia. All of these teams have won a national championship since the beginning of the BCS/CFP era, except for A&M and Georgia. And I know, I know, Tennessee isn’t what it once was and probably never will be. Neither will Nebraska.
In contrast, the B1G has kings Ohio State, Penn State & Michigan with barons Michigan State, Wisconsin & Nebraska.
Going forward, I think there will be a larger gap between the SEC & the B1G than currently exists, but in the SEC’s favor.”
Richard: “The B10 has roughly the same number of top-drawing football games as the SEC each year (no other conference is close to the Power 2).
It’s not as if Fox and ESPN are the only networks (and ESPN isn’t going to not bid for essentially half of the most-watched college football games each year).”
—
Richard: “Honestly, none of the ACC schools move the needle that much (otherwise, their TV deal wouldn’t be so much worse than the B10’s). Certainly no more than the cream of the Pac, and the top Pac schools are a better cultural fit.”
LikeLike
I was all on board the Pac raid for 4-6 back in 2021, but now I think full attention should be on FSU and Miami. They should be ahead of everyone remaining in the Pac-12.
Big Ten targets:
Financially should be additive:
1) ND (obvious invite)
2) FSU (obvious invite)
3) Miami (obvious invite)
4) Clemson (lack of cultural/institutional fit means unlikely)
Other potential fits depends on one or some of above coming:
5) UNC (I still think Big Ten presidents really want UNC for their academic + athletic + demographic region since NC is so strong for college athletics)
6) Washington (natural +1 for moves to 18 or 20)
7) UVA (possible +1 to other moves)
8) Stanford (natural +1 for ND)
9) Oregon is a wildcard. No idea how Big Ten presidents view Oregon’s lack of research expenditures and potential loss of AAU. Hardest school to travel to…
Other potential schools that may come depending on above:
10) Duke (only with UNC)
11) Ga Tech (only with both FSU+Miami for ATL access for FSU)
12) Cal (I don’t see it, only Stanford makes sense, bad market to double dip)
13) Va Tech (maybe if SEC gets UNC+UVA but I am skeptical regardless)
14) Arizona State (if Big Ten presidents want access to Phoenix)
Everyone else is too far out of the picture now. I don’t see the case for Colorado or Arizona or Utah.
This is basically the endgame now.
Obvious moves ahead are FSU/Clemson to SEC and Miami to Big Ten.
Beyond that will depend on UNC/UVA. If they commit to ACC, I think Big Ten just takes Washington in a move to 18.
If UNC/UVA choose Big Ten, go to 20 with Duke or Washington. If they choose SEC, I think Big Ten may just stay 18 with Miami+Washington while considering Stanford+Oregon for a move to 20.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think (in the ’30’s) FSU and Clemson will go to the SEC too.
Then the B10 adds Miami and 1 other. Problem is that really nobody else is additive besides ND. But the B10 would add Stanford if it can capture ND’s surplus value even if ND doesn’t join as a full member.
Then the P2 stays at 18 until close to mid-century when the B10 might possibly add 2 of UW/ASU/CU if demographic growth actually grows their fan support enough. Same with UNC/UVa heading to a P2 at that point (it’s possible the SEC adds them for non-financial reasons even though dilutive because of academic prestige, basketball, and completing the Confederacy, but we haven’t seen the P2 add a dilutive pair for no strong reason yet; for example, the B10 didn’t add the NoCal schools this round).
LikeLike
I just have a hard time seeing the finances for going beyond 20 and the desire by the presidents and ADs to cease being a conference. At 16 its still a conference. At 22-24 it really isn’t. Its a TV consortium. If the SEC and Big 10 add Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson, Miami and North Carolina, what is the purpose in going further? The only national champions since 1960 left out would be Pitt 77, BYU 84, CU AP and Georgia Tech Coaches 90. They would also have 47 of the last 54 #2s in the final AP poll and 48 of the last 54 #3s and overall 224 of the 270 top 5 teams in those 54 years.
LikeLike
Financially it gets really hard to move past 20.
Once FSU/Miami/Clemson move, it’s just ND that brings net added TV football value.
The 2030s round of realignment will basically be the last major round.
LikeLike
Bullet and Zeek, despite personal preferences, I agree. The B10 and SEC will stay at 18-20. At least until demographic changes may lead to more changes chose to mid-century.
LikeLike
LOL Colin: “Frank, you forgot about the “Gentlemen’s Agreement”. I believe the Gentlemen’s Agreement is real and I believe A&M will use it to keep UT out of the SEC.
LikeLike
Marc: “LOL Colin: “Frank, you forgot about the “Gentlemen’s Agreement”. I believe the Gentlemen’s Agreement is real and I believe A&M will use it to keep UT out of the SEC.”
What did I tell you about Marc’s “Gotcha” obsession?
LikeLike
Canzano: Latest Big 12 expansion jab falls flat in Pac-12 footprint
Big 12 Commissioner Brett Yormark was previously the co-CEO of Roc Nation.
Brett Yormark, the former co-chief operating officer at Jay-Z’s Roc Nation, has emerged as a polarizing figure in the college football realignment discussions. The Big 12 commissioner been on a “listening tour” but this week he decided to do some talking.
Yormark was visiting the University of Cincinnati on Wednesday. Yormark told reporters that when it came to potential expansion targets, his conference wants to go “out west” in the fourth time zone.
“A program that has national recognition,” Yormark said. “One that competes at the highest level in basketball and football, stands for the right things, is a good cultural fit.”
The Big 12’s commissioner declined to get more specific. When he says “out west” is he talking about San Diego State? How about Fresno State? Or maybe Utah, Colorado, Arizona or Arizona State?
Said one “four corners” Pac-12 ADs: “I have no idea what he’s talking about. He just continues to throw stuff out to disrupt. Seems like some level of desperation.”
I’m fascinated by the 180-degree difference in strategy between Yormark and Pac-12 commissioner Georgia Kliavkoff. Outside of Kliavkoff’s spicy Media Day appearance in July, he’s remained silent.
In fact, the Pac-12 commissioner was in Atlanta for the Oregon-Georgia game and didn’t do interviews. Presumably because the Pac-12 is amid a media-rights negotiation. On the same day, SEC commissioner Greg Sankey conducted a lengthy impromptu news conference in the Mercedes-Benz Stadium press box.
The Big 12’s Yormark was also asked on Wednesday about his conference’s media rights negotiations. There’s some confusion about whether the Big 12 is — or isn’t — in the exclusive negotiating window.
“That process has started,” Yormark told reporters. “I met with ESPN last week… I’ll be meeting with FOX in the next week… My gut tells me that both FOX and ESPN would like to (negotiate early) but I’ll know for sure…in the next week.”
Some interesting semantics at play here. I bounced Yormark’s quote off two TV-industry insiders. They agreed that it sounds like all Yormark has is an indication from ESPN that they’d like to talk outside the exclusive-negotiating window. Per the contract, the Big 12 can only talk with ESPN and FOX at this point. The networks like it that way, too. If they’re not in an exclusive, 30-day negotiating window, there’s no ticking clock.
LikeLike
Yormack isn’t a polarizing figure. Its all the insecure people in the Pac offices bashing the Big 12. Yormack has never mentioned Pac 10 schools by name.
Conzano is pretty full of it. Kliavkoff has been calling out Yormack and the Big 12. He’s been very vocal. He actually talked about raiding the Big 12. Just really classless. He grew up in the New York metro, so he seems to have that New Yorker in your face mentality.
Jason Scheer speculated that Conzano’s AD quote was Utah, saying he knew the ASU and AU AD didn’t talk to Conzano. Utah has been pretty vocal and dismissive of the Big 12.
LikeLike
I don’t know that a B12 fan is well-placed to make that judgment. I’m pretty sure the P12 and its fans have some strong feelings about him and his statements this summer. I think he’s come across as a bit of a jerk, and I don’t have a dog in this fight. It doesn’t mean he isn’t good at his job, but I think polarizing is a reasonable description.
But most neutral CFB fans don’t care what he says or does, so there’s a limit to how polarizing he can be.
LikeLike
Its their own insecurity. He has never once mentioned the Pac 12 or particular schools, unlike the Pac 12 commissioner and some of its presidents and ADs.
And he’s been pretty quiet when compared to Warren, who actually has taken Pac 12 schools, is talking about specific numbers he wants to get to and has probably been one of the leaks of the schools the Big 10 is interested in.
LikeLike
Keep telling yourself that.
https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/34544151/commissioner-brett-yormark-says-big-12-expansion-strategy-going-west
“Obviously, going out west is where I would like to go, entering that fourth time zone,” Yormark said Wednesday.
He added of the Big 12’s wish list: “A program that has national recognition, one that competes at the highest level in basketball and football, stands for the right things, is a good cultural fit.”
The Big 12’s strategy to target potential Pac-12 members for expansion has set off friction between the leagues, especially in the wake of the Pac-12 losing USC and UCLA to the Big Ten beginning in 2024.
Technically he didn’t name the P12 or any of its schools. Technically. But neither did Kliavkoff (except when accusing them of reaching out), who you keep trying to cast as the villain.
LikeLike
SI’s Ross Dellenger (former Baton Rouge Advocate LSU beat writer) has some required reading for you. I provided a condensed version below. For the whole article, see link directly below.
https://www.si.com/college/2022/09/07/12-team-college-football-playoff-issues
Six Major Issues That Need to Be Resolved for a 12-Team College Football Playoff
***
In January 2019, the CFP Board of Managers, composed of presidents from the 10 FBS conferences and Notre Dame, tasked the conference commissioners to create and agree on an expanded playoff. Final tally: it took three years and eight months. Or, 1,333 days. Or 32,000 hours!
Now that expansion is agreed to, the real challenge begins: attempting to implement an expanded playoff before the current CFP contract ends. It runs through the 2025 playoff. While presidents agreed to expand starting in 2026, they are hoping commissioners can agree on the intricacies and cross the hurdles on expanding early. That means the same fractured group that couldn’t come to consensus during a year of negotiations will be back at the bargaining table.
***
Many of those unresolved details were at the center of negotiations last fall, the same negotiations that ended in the Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 resisting expansion for various reasons. They officially voted against the 12-team proposal in February. Because of the six-month delay, the CFP finds itself in a predicament—hurriedly having to agree on a number of unresolved issues to expand early.
***
“We couldn’t make a decision in a year on the exact same format that was approved Friday,” SEC commissioner Greg Sankey says. “I expected us to collaborate to solve problems. That didn’t happen. We have more of a direction now but some of those same issues are in front of us.”
So what are those issues? Let’s get to it.
1. The calendar
***
“We all have to get ready for weekday playoff games,” says one high-placed source within the CFP.
To avoid competing against NFL regular season games—the league plays some Saturday games starting in mid-December—first-round college playoff games could find their way on a Thursday night. The NFL adopted its own playoff expansion two years ago, further complicating matters. For example, the league has scheduled at least one wild-card game on a Monday night in mid-January, a date that might normally be reserved for the college title game in an expanded field.
“It’s complicated,” says one administrator.
In an effort to alleviate the crammed window, one officials suggests turning Week Zero into Week 1, which moves the entire calendar up a week. But that creates issues, too. Rivalry week would move off of Thanksgiving weekend. Instead, Thanksgiving week would feature conference title games.
***
2. Revenue distribution
***
The Big Ten and SEC have not only dominated the event, but the conferences have swelled to 16 teams (or at least they will by the time 2026 rolls around). Why should the 10-team Pac-12 or 14-team ACC get the same cut as bigger conferences? Especially if those bigger conferences are responsible for the majority of CFP qualifiers. The SEC and Big Ten have qualified 16 teams for the CFP. The other three leagues have qualified 14.
***
3. Media rights
***
The CFP is in the midst of a 12-year contract with ESPN that runs through the 2025 playoff. As mentioned above, there is a desire for an expanded postseason to start in 2024 or ’25.
***
There are solutions to this media rights issue, but they all involve ESPN’s willingness to compromise. Will they? Late last fall, CFP sources told SI that the network expressed flexibility on this issue. However, plenty has changed since. There’s been another wave of realignment, the Big Ten signed its new ESPN-less deal and two Power 5 leagues (the Pac-12 and Big 12) have opened negotiations with the network and Fox on reaching a new media rights package.
If ESPN is willing, the network could nix the contract after the 2023 playoff in favor of a new, more long-term deal that would allow the inclusion of other media partners. Why would ESPN do this? The CFP could compromise with the network in negotiations. Maybe they get thrown a bone in some way.
Some believe this is all a non-starter and that ESPN will not budge on its exclusivity to the final two years of the contract. “No way,” says one CFP source. In that case, if they do expand early, commissioners would have to swallow a fact: ESPN will televise the entirety of 2024 and 2025 playoff before the expanded model then goes to market for bid.
However, going to market does not mean that the CFP will include multiple media partners starting in 2026, says Sankey.
“We all said for [2026], we would fully go to market with the media rights. What that conveyed is that everybody will have an opportunity to participate,” he said. “We were always going to market. There’s no guarantee we’d go with multiple media partners. That’s a possibility, but we have to see the actual proposals.”
4. The playoff sites
***
For Hancock and Co., priority No. 1 is the 2024 and ‘25 championship sites adjusting to the new date, likely a week later than originally scheduled. Will Atlanta (’24) and Miami (’25) be flexible enough? The CFP only just announced those cities as host sites for the championship games in January 2025 and January 2026, respectively.
“I suspect the cities will help us however they can,” Hancock said.
However, CFP sources tell SI that Atlanta might not be able to accommodate the CFP title game if it’s pushed back a week later than scheduled. The city’s hotel and convention space is already occupied with another event.
“That’s a big issue,” says one commissioner.
5. The bowls
***
“If the Rose has a unique set-up, so too will the Sugar and Orange, etc.,” says one source.
But enough about the Rose. What about the other bowls? Not the CFP-affiliated bowls, but the other bowls: the Gator, Citrus, Music City, Alamo, Holiday, etc.
Bowl Season, the organization presiding over the bowl system, believes that first-round games should be played at bowl sites instead of on campus. This is not a popular opinion held by the vast majority of college football fans, but one CFP official suggested that the discussion point—on campus vs. bowl games for the first round—isn’t necessarily over.
6. Student-athlete revenue sharing
There are few things in college sports that seem more of a certainty than the aspect of sharing media rights revenue with athletes. It’s coming, if not from college leaders themselves then from Congress or the courts.
Some estimate that a 12-team college playoff could generate a price tag of $2 billion annually, roughly four times its current value. The call to split such revenue with the players playing in the games will only grow louder as time passes. Credit CFP officials for acknowledging this exists.
Asked about it last week, Hancock told reporters that CFP officials “were having significant conversations about some way to provide benefits for the players.”
LikeLike
Alan,
1. The calendar
There are no good options, especially wince the presidents declared a 12 day minimum gap after the CCGs to the 1st games. Conveniently that would be a Thursday night, but against the NFL. So Friday night games – because those are so popular already.
2. Revenue distribution
I expect a big fight about this. A large chunk will go to those who get in each year, but it will be tough to agree on the percentage. The G5 will get more total money, but a smaller share since they will also get a team in every time and that also pays money. I look for the P5 to do payouts on a per school basis, to not favor smaller conferences. Then it’s just how pushy Sankey and Warren want to be about paying the SEC and B10 more than the M3 schools. My prediction is that the P5 schools get equal guaranteed payouts, with ND getting less as they do now. Then each of the 12 entrants get paid – I expect more money for the 4 byes since they can’t host a game.
3. Media rights
There are solutions to this media rights issue, but they all involve ESPN’s willingness to compromise. Will they? Late last fall, CFP sources told SI that the network expressed flexibility on this issue. However, plenty has changed since. There’s been another wave of realignment, the Big Ten signed its new ESPN-less deal and two Power 5 leagues (the Pac-12 and Big 12) have opened negotiations with the network and Fox on reaching a new media rights package.
If ESPN is willing, the network could nix the contract after the 2023 playoff in favor of a new, more long-term deal that would allow the inclusion of other media partners. Why would ESPN do this? The CFP could compromise with the network in negotiations. Maybe they get thrown a bone in some way.
Some believe this is all a non-starter and that ESPN will not budge on its exclusivity to the final two years of the contract. “No way,” says one CFP source. In that case, if they do expand early, commissioners would have to swallow a fact: ESPN will televise the entirety of 2024 and 2025 playoff before the expanded model then goes to market for bid.
However, going to market does not mean that the CFP will include multiple media partners starting in 2026, says Sankey.
“We all said for [2026], we would fully go to market with the media rights. What that conveyed is that everybody will have an opportunity to participate,” he said. “We were always going to market. There’s no guarantee we’d go with multiple media partners. That’s a possibility, but we have to see the actual proposals.”
This will also be a fight, with Fox and ESPN both pushing for votes to favor their stance. I don’t see approval for anyone to have all 11 games.
4. The playoff sites
It’s a pain, but there are plenty of NFL cities to choose from. Heaven forbid the north get a chance to host a CFP title game.
5. The bowls
Another fight. The Rose wants its TV slot, and it wants it all to itself. It has the ratings to justify that, but everyone may need to share in the financial reward. I don’t think any other conferences or bowls care as much, they just don’t like admitting that the Rose Bowl is special.
I wish the tie-ins could be preserved, but that likely won’t happen. It will be a quarterfinal game. Maybe the highest B10 or P12 team left will play there.
Bowl Season, the organization presiding over the bowl system, believes that first-round games should be played at bowl sites instead of on campus. This is not a popular opinion held by the vast majority of college football fans, but one CFP official suggested that the discussion point—on campus vs. bowl games for the first round—isn’t necessarily over.
I thought the presidents settled that. Why let the minor bowls have the money when the college towns could get it? It’s one less trip for fans, too.
6. Student-athlete revenue sharing
They’d have to change NCAA rules first, or break away. I’m not so sure everyone’s on board with paying players, since it will almost immediately force paying them for the regular season.
This whole thing has so much potential to turn into a complete cluster#$%@.
LikeLike
With regard to #6
Sharing more revenue with football players would require taking a sledgehammer to Title IX.
And if the schools were willing to take a sledgehammer to Title IX, we could’ve avoided this mad scramble for MOAR money in the first place by cutting women’s sports.
LikeLike
bill,
It’s not clear that that is true. Title IX is about equal opportunities. If the schools split tournament revenues with the players in each sport that generate them, that might be legal. Of course all but CFB and MBB would be screwed.
The schools can’t avoid Title IX, or they can’t get any federal funding (as in no financial aid for students). Only the US government can take a sledgehammer to Title IX, and they won’t do that.
LikeLike
If you read the actual text of Title IX, it doesn’t say that a school must spend equal dollars on men and women. Also, we now live in an era of transgenders with at least one Supreme Court justice who refused to define “woman”.
Yet another issue, Titlw IX doesn’t mention gender. It speaks of the basis of “sex”.
“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
LikeLike
Not if you run it through NIL with Playoff sponsors. See my treatise on CFP revenue sharing above.
LikeLike
But will they let Bryce Young do a beer commercial?! Have a Dr. Pepper with a beer chaser!
LikeLike
I wasn’t aware that a beer company sponsored a playoff game. Many states that have NIL laws, prohibit a player from endorsing alcohol, tobacco, vaping, and gambling.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-playoff-expansion-issues-including-scheduling-models-revenue-distribution-being-debated/
Dodds also wrote about these issues.
Determining playoff dates
Friday’s release stated first-round games on campus will be played at least 12 days after conference championship games. That would make the start mid-December with playoff games running alongside bowl season. The quarterfinals would be held around the turn of the year. The rub comes with the semifinals beginning 8-10 days into the NFL playoffs. One source ventured a guess: the semifinals could be played across consecutive days in the middle of a week away from NFL games. The CFP National Championship could then be played 10 days to a couple weeks later.
…
The earliest the CFP can begin play in 2025 is Thursday, Dec. 18, which would be 12 days after the projected conference championship game dates. However, the NFL also plays on Thursday through Week 17. That leaves Friday, Dec. 19 as the lone day to play first-round games without potential NFL conflict. The quarterfinals could then be held on Wednesday, Dec. 31 and Thursday, Jan. 1 with the semifinals on either Friday, Jan. 9 or Monday, Jan. 12.
Next would be determining when to play the CFP National Championship once the NFL playoffs are underway. Open dates would include Wednesday, Jan. 21 to Friday, Jan. 23 or Monday, Jan. 26 given there is a desire among some to play the game on its now-traditional Monday night. Another option is the Saturday night before NFL conference championship Sunday; however, playing on Jan. 31 would leave a break of nearly three weeks between the semifinal and title game in this projected 2025-26 schedule.
There is a feeling the CFP could position itself better in the nation’s consciousness — and garner better ratings — by delaying the national championship until the week before the Super Bowl. The idea, if it catches on during discussions in Dallas, would be to make the experience as close to the Super Bowl as possible by playing the game at 6 p.m. ET on the Sunday before the biggest sporting event of the year.
…
Value proposition
Though there was a story this week estimating the worth of a 12-team playoff field at $2 billion, industry sources who spoke with CBS Sports estimated that sum to be a bit high with one indicating it would likely be more in the $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion range. That averages out to $145 million per game.
That figure would probably involve getting a bidder (or a couple bidders) to overpay. The easiest way to make that happen is to get a streamer (Amazon, Apple, etc.) involved in the process. Despite the Big Ten giving eight games to NBC’s Peacock as part of its $1.2 annual deal alongside CBS and Fox, there still hasn’t been the big breakthrough for tech giants becoming involved in college football. Amazon recently picked up the Thursday Night Football package from the NFL, beginning this season.
Navigate estimated it at just under $2B months ago. Is this the media companies trying to drive down the price already?
Revenue distribution
Among conferences, a plan needs to be formulated by the commissioners and approved by the presidents. We broke down how this could look on Sunday. But what about the players? They’re going to have to get something out of this. If each player was to receive, let’s say, a flat sum of $32,000 as a member of a participating team, that would work out to $38.4 million (based on paying 100 players per team). However, that does not take into account some athletes playing in one first-round game and others potentially playing a total of four.
Using $1.5 billion as the total payout, that $38.4 million figure would represent only 2.5% of the total annual media rights revenue from an expanded playoff. That would be perfectly doable but perhaps not enough. If the CFP eventually takes over the FBS or assumes the responsibilities of managing a smaller group of teams, it is going to have to account for the health and welfare of players. That probably includes paying for post-eligibility insurance.
LikeLike
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/how-college-football-playoff-expansion-will-affect-realignment-job-security-and-the-future-of-the-sport/
This is his article about the revenue distribution he referred to above.
Revenue distribution
This is the next-biggest task for conference commissioners and university presidents to tackle, several sources told CBS Sports. It must be determined what fair compensation looks like for the conferences, a task last undertaken when CFP started in 2014.
Basically, whatever kind of weight the SEC and Big Ten throw around the room will be a huge factor. In expansion, those conferences are trading money for access. They’ll get their money, but the remaining eight conferences get a better shot at the playoff. That will be a first.
…
Going forward, here’s one educated guess on the future distribution assuming a doubling of the annual revenue brought in by the CFP from $600 million (four teams) to $1.2 billion per year (12):
SEC and Big Ten combine to get half the total, $600 million ($300 million each). That’s an additional $16.7 million per year for each of those leagues’ schools.
ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12 (depending on membership) split 30% of the pot, $360 million ($120 million each). That’s approximately $10 million more per year for those schools. Another consideration: Perhaps the ACC, given the strength of some of its programs, sits on a tier of its own earning a sum between the Power Two and the Big 12 and Pac-12.
Group of Five conferences split the remaining 20% of the pot, $240 million ($48 million each). That’s an additional $3.9 million per year for each school in the AAC, Conference USA, MAC, Mountain West and Sun Belt.
…
Two-loss factor
Minnesota in 1960 and LSU in 2007 remain the only two-loss teams to win national championships. That’s it. In the history of the game.
In expansion, there will regularly be two-loss — even three-loss — teams in the playoff field. At that point, it might become a situation of who is hot at the end of the season, not who is necessarily the best all year. What does that sound like? You guessed it, March Madness.
The CFP will never have the March Madness factor. 3-loss #12 seed AL crushing opponents is not a Cinderella story.
LikeLike
IMO, it makes sense to split the revenue using 3 criteria:
1. Every conference gets some for each FBS member.
2. Then for past CFP appearances.
3. And for current CFP appearances.
LikeLike
The calendar should take about an hour to solve. There are only so many dates and you know when the NFL plays. You know what nights are good for TV. That should be the first priority.
Bowls should not be a problem. There are easy logical solutions. Maybe a little negotiation, but easy solutions.
Sites are not a problem. If Atlanta can’t do it, give them another year and pick another site.
Student-athlete revenue sharing needs to be within the existing rules, which means you can’t do much. That is a whole different discussion, not directly related to this.
If they want to do this, none of this is hard or time consuming except the revenue distribution and the media negotiations.
They need to get the first 4 done and then sit down with ESPN as soon as possible. That can be done in a reasonable amount of time if both sides are willing, which they should be.
Revenue sharing shouldn’t take that long. They ought to have a few numbers people cranking out the options. Give me a day and I could do a spreadsheet where you can plug and play various alternatives.
As someone said, if people want to get it done for 2024, they can.
LikeLike
“Student-athlete revenue sharing needs to be within the existing rules, which means you can’t do much.”
It can be structured in a way where they can do a decent amount. For instance, the NCAA now allows bowls to give out gifts worth up to $500 per student. They could raise that limit dramatically (to 5 figures; in gift cards). And bowls could pay out NIL to whole teams of players.
LikeLike
First, their various presidents may disagree about how deep into the next year the season can go. Some want the NCG the week before the Super Bowl, while others may want it done well before the end of January.
They lose another week because the presidents forced at least a 12-day gap to round 1, rather than playing when Army-Navy plays. Semester and quarter schools have different finals weeks in December, so that could be an issue.
The NFL has all the weekends and some Mondays and Thursdays blocked, limiting the options. They want the quarterfinals on or around NYD, and that presents more issues in certain years with the Sundays and the NFL.
Long term sites aren’t a problem, but major conventions and events often book years in advance. Many sites may well be booked for several years. I don’t know how many of them could easily be available then. I wouldn’t expect it to be a huge impediment, but they may have to stop obsessing over the same 4-5 cities they always prefer. The games are played indoors, so stop demanding it be a warm-weather location. This isn’t a vacation.
Revenue sharing is 130 schools fighting for existence, so it’s nice to see you just dismiss it. Generating options isn’t the hard part, though it is tougher when it’s all guesswork about what the total value would be. The G5 might accept X% of $2B, but want (X+x)% of $1.5B. It’s not like the P5 will necessarily be in agreement either.
All of it is hard if they have differing viewpoints. Handwaving it away makes no sense.
“If both sides are willing” is the key phrase. We don’t know that they are, without some kind of kickback to ESPN.
Getting it done for 2024 is a bonus from their point of view, but getting it right should be the higher priority. They will be stuck with some of these decisions (like the revenue split – very hard to change later) for a long time. Other decisions are easier to change.
LikeLike
There’s no reason why anything decided for the short term (before 2026) has to carry over to the long-term (2026 and after).
LikeLike
They’re deciding for 2026 on first, then trying to reach back to 2024. Some things (like a deal with ESPN) make sense to be short term, but others would be harder to change for 2026 on (revenue splits, etc.) unless they were specifically tied to the TV deal.
LikeLike
Yeah, nothing makes any of that “harder to change”. People just have to agree to it.
LikeLike
People make those things harder to change. The G5 aren’t going to willingly give up more in 2026 if the P5 agreed to give it to them in 2024. Nor are the M3 going to accept less than they got the first time. People will only accept more, not less. It takes a lot more persuasion to change a plan than to stick with the current one.
The plan has to work well with the 2024 alignment, 2025 alignment, and any future realignment. If they want to base some of the money on history, how does that adjust over time? How do they decide if/when to re-examine the payouts for various game levels (all rounds the same? later rounds pay more?), and the percentage split equally vs given for appearances? How do the money levels change as the TV rights grow? Is there some point where the percentages shift?
LikeLike
Brian – unanimity is required for 23 & 24. For the new deal, it’s majority vote. I can see the P2, Notre Dame, and the G5 voting together on a revenue distribution plan that let’s the M3 know that they’ve definitely moved down into a more middle-class neighborhood.
LikeLike
It is going to be hard to get any agreement in 2024-25 if 2026+ is viewed as unfair. Best to just divide the fixed part by schools (gives more to P2) and push a much higher percentage to playoff appearance payments like MBB. In practice that will push more $$$ to the P2 but does not explicitly exclude M3 or even G5. With 6 autobids all groups will get some of this money.
LikeLike
I agree with Alan here. And here is where it comes down to bargaining positions. The B10 and SEC sit in the best position because they need expansion before 2026 the least. As for “more” and “less”, compared to what? Everybody will make more than they’re making now. There’s likely a bump in total CFP money in 2026 too so that would make it easier to make sure that nobody makes less in absolute amounts.
And if nobody can agree, then base it completely on performance: the schools that appear in the most CFP games get the most. Hard to argue against that. If you want more money, make the CFP and perform better there.
Most likely, something like the formula for the MBB tournament will be agreed to.
LikeLike
Here’s my back of the napkin math on the CFP deal starting in 2026, assuming the TV deal is worth $1.5B annually.
$400m: P2 – that is $12.5m for each member of the B1G & SEC just for having a pulse
$370m: M3 and Notre Dame – that is $10m per school, again just for having a pulse.
[I thought about a larger disparity, but getting a per school rather than per conference split will also be a lift. The P2 can afford to give a little on this based on performance below.]
$200m: Split among all G5 schools and FBS independents not named Notre Dame. I think that’s around 62 schools right now, not counting the FCS schools moving up. This should be around $3m per school.
[This is still better than any G5 conference has ever received, to my knowledge. This amount could go up, but I decided on $200m because I thought it was fair, and (mostly) to keep my math simple.]
$30m: spread out to FCS schools. [I think they get around $3m to split up now, so this would be a significant improvement over their current situation. I also anticipate fewer FCS “buy” games in the future.]
So, I’ve just spend 2/3’s of the money or $1B, or think of it as 2/3s by membership and 1/3 by merit.
$160m: Each participant in the 1st round receives $10M to keep and the conference also receives $10m to split for each participant it places into the playoff.
$160m: Each school that received a 1st round bye receives $20m for a Quarterfinal appearance and their conference receives $10m. The winner of the 1st round game receives $10m.
$80m: Each school in the semi-finals receives $10m and their conference receives $10m.
$40m: Each school in the finals receives $10m and their conference receives $10m.
The remaining $60m would be used as follows:
$6m: for travel expenses, and CFP administrative overhead like reserving Lucas Field in Indy for Northern schools that choose not to play on campus.
$44m: for each player (up to 100 per team) receiving a NIL deal with each game’s corporate sponsor in the amount of $20k per game. To ensure, it wouldn’t be interpreted as pay for play, each player would appear in a group commercial promoting whatever brand the corporate sponsor is selling.
I randomly chose to use the 2019 season for an example of how this will work.
The first round would include the following matchups and assuming chalk:
#9 Florida at #8 Wisconsin in Camp Randall. Too chilly for the Gators!
#12 Memphis (AAC champ) at #5 Georgia. Georgia wins.
#11 Utah at #6 Oregon (P12 champ). Oregon wins.
#10 Penn State at #7 Baylor. Baylor wins.
Every team receives $10m. American & B12 snag an extra $10m each, while while the SEC, B1G &Pac12 pocket an extra $20m each.
Quarterfinals, again assuming chalk:
#1 LSU over #8 Wisconsin in the Sugar.
#2 Ohio State over #7 Baylor in the Rose.
#3 Clemson over #6 Oregon in the Orange.
#4 Oklahoma over #5 Georgia in the Cotton. (all the host sites worked out perfectly that year)
LSU, Ohio State, Clemson & Oklahoma all clear a cool $20m, with Wisconsin, Baylor, Oregon & Georgia receiving $10m. The SEC, B1G, ACC & B12 all get $10m.
Semifinals are based on actual results. Sorry, Brian.
#1 LSU over #4 Oklahoma in the Peach – by a lot!
#3 Clemson over #2 Ohio State in the Fiesta in a nail-biter.
All participants pocket another $10m, as do their conferences.
The championship game in New Orleans between LSU and the Clemson (paper) Tigers culminates with a thrashing at the hands of the greatest team in the history of the Universe, but LSU & Clemson both bring in another $10m each as do the ACC & the SEC.
Totals to be distributed among conference members.
SEC – $50m (divided 16 ways since this is just an example) $3.125m each. Add $12.5m from above and each school receives a total of $15.625.
B1G – $40m or $2.5m each (16 ways) $15m total per school.
ACC – $30m or $2.14m each (14 ways) $12.14m total per school.
B12 – $30m or $2.5m each (12 ways) $12.5m total per school.
Pac12 – $20m or $2m each (10 ways) $12m total per school.
American – $10m or $833k each (12 ways) $3.833m total per school.
Each participant receives the following:
LSU & Clemson – schools $40m each and players $60k each.
Oklahoma & Ohio State – schools $30m each and players $40k each.
Georgia, Oregon, Baylor & Wisconsin – schools $20m each and players $40k each.
Florida, Penn State, Utah & Memphis – schools $10m each and players $20k each.
I think the math is right and I’m sure I left something out, but you guys will find some holes, so shoot away.
NOTE: After going through this exercise, the individual schools might be receiving too much of a windfall. It may be that we keep all the payments the same, but each participating school receives an extra share. Example: The American divides up $20m 13 ways rather than 12 and Memphis receives $3.077m while the other American members get $1.518m each. LSU & Clemson would receive an extra three shares.
LikeLike
Alan,
Brian – unanimity is required for 23 & 24. For the new deal, it’s majority vote. I can see the P2, Notre Dame, and the G5 voting together on a revenue distribution plan that let’s the M3 know that they’ve definitely moved down into a more middle-class neighborhood.
All sides (P2, M3, P5, G5, ESPN) will try to wield unanimity as leverage. It will vary in effectiveness.
Majority vote is fine as long as enough are willing to go along. If the G5 all vote no, the courts/government could get interested in it. That also means the G5 and M3 can overrule the P2 in theory.
I could see the G5 and M3 working together just as easily as the P2 and G5. There will also be some attempt to not appear too greedy (P2 and G5 completely screwing the M3, etc.). I think there could be lots of threats to not participate and potentially ask their congressional delegations for some help. This also could go really smoothly – in part it depends on how reasonable the opening proposals are, and how many fundamental disagreement there are on certain issues.
The presidents told everyone to do this, but they didn’t say how flexible they expect their conferences to be on certain topics.
LikeLike
There’s no reason why anything decided for the short term (before 2026) has to carry over to the long-term (2026 and after).
That is true in theory. In practice, once something is agreed to (even if short term) it becomes the new normal, and might be hard to walk back.
LikeLike
So work on ground rules starting 2026 first.
LikeLike
Which is what I suggested. Get the right plan first, then start it as early as you can get agreements for. Don’t rush the planning just to get agreements for 2024.
LikeLike
As for revenue distribution, I presume they will keep something close to the current 80/20 A5/G5 split. Maybe they go a little higher to the A5 since there are 68 instead of 64 (its not their fault the G5 has gone from 56 to 61 (indies not part of G5)). And other than Notre Dame, a token amount for the indies.
The A5 are going to want some certainty, so a large part will be split equally between the A5. But it will be weighted by number of members. The Big 10 is not going to accept the Pac 10 getting 60% more per school because they have 10 members instead of 16.
Then there will be some incentive, bigger than now, for how many teams you get in and for advancing. That is where the negotiations come in. The Big 10 and SEC have to decide how much risk they want to take in performance payouts. Right now, its just $6 million and $4 million for the teams plus some travel money.
LikeLike
Every part of that is “where the negotiations come in.” The G5 want a bigger piece of the pie, but now they have a guaranteed spot. The M3 want equal pay as the P2. The P2 will at least want payouts per school and not per conference. How much is guaranteed vs based on appearances will be a fight.
Do they follow the precedents from the NCAA tourney and the current CFP, or make changes? What mechanisms do they build in to be able to make future changes?
How many of these decisions depend on the total value for the rights?
LikeLike
The B1G and SEC should hold firm and dispel the notion that the terms A5 of P5 mean anything moving forward. The precedent for unequal distribution between the A5 vs G5 has already been set. The new P2 should demand the revenue distribution moving forward reflects their new status. Make sure everyone has access via the 6+6 CFP format and make sure all the conferences (+ND) get something to keep politicians from getting involved. However, there is not way a leagues that generates 2x or 3x the TV interest and TV revenue in the regular season should accept an equal playoff share with the M3 or G5. Set a minimum and equal share for all teams and award the rest based on participation and success.
LikeLike
Then the A3/M3 just say no. The SEC/Big 10 don’t have absolute power. And for that matter, they aren’t the P2 yet. The performance clauses are how the SEC and Big 10 get bigger shares. Reality is that in football power there is a P1. The Big 10 isn’t even #2 most years.
LikeLike
Yes, equal by number of schools and everything else performance-based. Akin to the MBB tourney distribution method.
BTW, Bullet, what are you talking about? If a 12-team playoff would have existed from the beginning of the CFP instead of a 4-team playoff, the B10 would have gotten as many or more teams in the CFP as the SEC.
LikeLike
#2 in participants definitely. Maybe #1. But in average conference strength, no.
SEC is #1 and #2 has varied, mostly between Big 10 and Big 12, but sometimes ACC. I think the Big 12 was actually #1 in the Covid year.
LikeLike
1. Depends on how you define “average conference strength”.
2. “Average conference strength” is kind of irrelevant anyway as we’re discussing the CFP.
LikeLike
Changes for 2024 and 2025 require a unanimous vote, but 2026 and beyond do not. As long as the P2, G5 and ND agree they’ll have the votes to approve whatever format and revenue distribution they want. The M3 don’t have leverage at that point.
LikeLike
Public opinion is huge leverage. If the Big 10 and SEC get greedy and try to do special deals (instead of earned deals like participation), they will get raked over the coals. It could in turn, harm their viewership by creating negative goodwill.
LikeLike
Hence just split it mostly by participation like the MBB tournament.
LikeLike
Richard,
That isn’t quite how the tourney revenue split works.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristidosh/2021/02/28/ncaa-has-confirmed-its-basketball-revenue-distribution-plan-for-2021-but-impact-of-2020-will-last/
The NCAA distributes about $610M to D-I schools, and only about $170M of that is based on performance in the tournament. Another $54M is for the autobids – all conferences get an equal amount. That’s about 28% for performance, 37% if you include the autobids.
Essentially all of that money comes out of the NCAA tournament. So you could view it as $170M out of $224M (76%) is based on performance, but in the bigger picture a lot more of the money is given for other things.
I don’t think it’s clear that everyone would support the CFP doing a 3-1 split for performance, but 2/3 being given out to everyone also seems out of whack.
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2017/9/20/revenue-distribution.aspx
The current CFP model is $74M per P5 conference, $95M for the G5, and $6M for each entrant ($4M for the non-CFP NY6 games).
That’s basically the G5 getting 20% and the P5 80%, with minor amounts going elsewhere.
Something like a 50-50 overall split seems more likely to me, though I could see a wide range of potentially acceptable numbers.
Breakdown:
50% per game played (with byes counting as games)
35% equally split per P5 school
15% equally split per G5 school
The G5 is promised 1 of the 12 spots, and that’s likely to be the only unit they earn, so I skewed a little more of the shared money to them to get them to sign.
If it’s worth $2B:
* That’s $300M for the G5 to split (almost $5M per school if equally split), plus their 1 unit.
* That’s $700M for the P5 to split, about $10.3M per school.
* Then $41.7M per game played including byes (so top 4 are guaranteed $83.3M) but not the finals, which is $958M for the P5 to split by performance.
LikeLike
Brian, what are those “other things”? The NCAA essentially uses the MBB tourney as a piggy bank to fund everything. But the CFP doesn’t have to find all that much.
LikeLike
The links are right there. Try reading them.
LikeLike
Brian, just like I thought, a big chunk of that money that isn’t based on appearances is for hosting other tournaments and helping student athletes. Of the money that is simply given to conferences/schools, the majority _is_ actually based off of appearances. Now, the CFP could allocate money to student-athletes too, but of the money that is simply given to participating conferences/schools, if they follow the NCAA model, the majority would be based on appearances.
LikeLike
Out here in California I keep reading that the Pac 10 AD’s are strongly in favor of cutting back from 9 conference games to 8 — mainly because it has proven difficult for a team to run the nine-game-gantlet and get into the 4-team playoff. Such a change would seem to run contrary to the conference’s need to provide more attractive content to potential bidders. It may also be less important given the new format, which pretty much guarantees the league access to the playoff every year.
However, if the desire to go to 8 is still real, it would make a scheduling agreement with the ACC both easy and attractive. The ACC is already at 8 games and has traditions/agreements that make 9 difficult (4 season-ending rivalry games with the SEC and 5 games a year with Notre Dame). But the combination of ND’s annual Stanford game and those 5 ACC games means 9 ACC teams would be available each year to pair with 9 Pac-10 teams.
That’s a package which could bring some extra money to both leagues — not BIG/SEC money, of course, but perhaps enough (in combination with other things) to help bring relative stability for a while.
If ESPN really has an incentive to keep the ACC together (and I believe it does), this is one of several moves that could justify improving the league’s payout without jeopardizing their GOR or ESPN’s current sweetheart contract. For instance, I understand the ACC will regain control of a modest annual chunk of games from Raycom starting in 2027. There’s also the move away from divisions, which should greatly increase the frequency of several attractive match-ups.
Pay raises for steps like these, combined with a much easier path to the playoffs (and perhaps a more performance-based distribution of playoff proceeds), might soothe the restive powers on both coasts.
LikeLike
Out here in California I keep reading that the Pac 10 AD’s are strongly in favor of cutting back from 9 conference games to 8 — mainly because it has proven difficult for a team to run the nine-game-gantlet and get into the 4-team playoff. Such a change would seem to run contrary to the conference’s need to provide more attractive content to potential bidders.
Is the proposal to replace a conference game with a buy game? Or to replace a conference game with an ACC game? If the former, I am pretty sure they would make less money. Playoff revenue will not compensate for an entire season of diluted inventory. And as you noted, in a 12-team format they are going to be in the playoff anyway.
If the latter, how does this improve their playoff chances? The ACC game they add would be comparable (in difficulty) to the conference game they give up…except half their members would have to fly across the country to play it.
If ESPN really has an incentive to keep the ACC together (and I believe it does), this is one of several moves that could justify improving the league’s payout without jeopardizing their GOR or ESPN’s current sweetheart contract.
I have puzzled over this. The ACC almost never plays the Pac-12. But if you look at their schedule, they play a steady diet of SEC, Big Ten, and Big XII teams. For instance, this season the ACC has games against: Rutgers, Northwestern, Kansas, LSU, Ole Miss, UCF×2, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Tennessee, West Virginia×2, Purdue, Illinois, and Vanderbilt. (I am not counting the annual rivalry games.)
If the ACC replaces these games with Pac-12 games, why would ESPN pay more? It is simply a like-for-like replacement of one P5 non-conference foe with another.
LikeLike
This is exactly why I was so opposed to the Alliance being anything but a bloc against the CFP 2023-2025 contract expansion.
There is no extra value to be unlocked from extra cross-over games. Realignment is the only solution by taking the most valuable teams.
If the ACC wants to improve its scheduling, add just Washington/Oregon in a move to 16. That’s about all that’s out there for them to consider.
This talk of an ACC moving to 9 games ignores that they’ve got a couple annual SEC rivalries along with the 5 ND games. Replacing a potential 9th ACC game with a potential Pac-12 game (minus USC/UCLA) also isn’t a material improvement.
It helps the Pac-12 a lot more than it helps the ACC I guess since they’d get games with FSU/Clemson/Miami (and more East time zone window games).
It’s a lot harder to see how a 9th game helps the ACC compared to how it helped the Big Ten (when the Pac-12 cancelled the potential Big Ten-Pac-12 crossover deal) or how it will help the SEC when it moves to 9 games.
I could see the case for more compelling matchups for the Big Ten at 9 (lots more Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa vs Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan State and now toss in USC/UCLA) and the SEC moving to 9 is a similar story. Also why the Big Ten moving down to 8 was a non-starter compared to the Pac-12.
But with the ACC-SEC games and the ND games, it’s already like most are playing 9 fixed games + often most play another P5 game.
FSU played Florida + ND last year; Florida + LSU this year.
Clemson played South Carolina + Georgia last year; South Carolina + ND this year.
They’re already playing 10 Power 5 games, and those are 2 of the most valuable TV properties in the ACC. Hard to increase their value with an extra ACC game.
They’re also keeping the FSU-Clemson and FSU-Miami games annually, so those are already there regardless of whether they’re at 8 or 9.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m not seeing where there’s a ton of extra value from a 9th ACC game or an ACC-Pac-12 game.
It’s why I was so strongly in favor of a Big Ten raid for USC/UCLA; that’s the only way to get the value from those schools. Crossover games doesn’t do it.
LikeLike
My FBS TV schedule lists four games on the BTN at 4:00 pm Saturday: Indiana State at Purdue, Iowa State at Iowa, Akron at Michigan State and Wagner at Rutgers. Has that been done before?
LikeLike
BTN has 4 overflow channels, so presumably it has happened before.
LikeLike
TV ratings for Week 0 and 1.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Here’s the 4 million viewers club:
10.53m Notre Dame/Ohio State – ABC
7.55m LSU/Florida State – ABC
6.2m Oregon/Georgia – ABC
4.86m Clemson/GA Tech – ESPN
4.42m Nebraska/Northwestern – FOX
16 games scored over one million viewers. ESPN had 7; ABC- 4; FOX -3; ESPN2 -1; and FS1 – 1.
FYI – the ESPN Friday & Saturday PAC after Dark games(CU/TCU & Boise/Ore St) both drew 1.25m viewers.
LikeLike
Yep, the After Dark slot isn’t some hugely lucrative goldmine. It will draw pretty big viewership only if major teams play there (potentially some B10 CT vs B10 PT teams, for instance).
In the past 4 seasons (2018-2021), only 2 games that started 9PM (ET) or later broke even the 3mm viewers level:
2021 9PM Auburn-LSU = 3.79mm
2019 9PM Tenn-Bama = 4.25mm
LikeLike
You simply don’t get many ET zone viewers. I used to watch a lot of the 10:30 games when I lived in the CT zone, but its just too late now that I live in the ET zone. It doesn’t finish until 2 in the morning.
LikeLike
The discussions about the marginal benefits of adding this or that school to the existing B1G are entirely wrong-headed. The future B1G will be selling a complete set of schools. The value of the complete set depends on its coherence, cultural homogeneity, historical rivalries, geographical spread, and synergies. The ultimate number might be 20, 24 0r 32. It will not be 16 or 18. The B1G will be selling a continental set, not a regional set. The B1G will be (the first) national conference. It isn’t yet.
The historical rivalries of USC and UCLA have to be continued, otherwise the B1G repeats the Nebraska mistake. The inclusion of Oklahoma, or at least Missouri or Kansas or Colorado was necessary to the future success of Nebraska, now a museum school. So, the minimum PAC schools that need to come to the B1G are Oregon and Washington, and likely Stanford and Cal, too. Any so-called economic analysis that excludes them is BS. It weakens the set.
A dozen years from now (but NOT now) Notre Dame and some ACC schools might become available. MIGHT. If that happens, the B1G needs to invite a set of schools compatible with the B1G (and former PAC) culture. It will not be just UVA and UNC or FSU and Miami. It will have to include several schools and the rivalries.
PS. The addition of Penn State did not raise this rivalry issue, because PSU was independent, and like ND, played a national schedule. However, the addition of Pitt with PSU would have been the better choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may be right, but the ADs will ask hard questions about schools that aren’t additive.
Great academics doesn’t win championships and doesn’t make money.
It also doesn’t fill stadiums.
Many of the Big Ten schools will not want to lose 50% of their Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska visits.
So it’s really hard to get past 20-22.
LikeLike
Wow, I have been thinking for years since before USC and UCLA were invited: to go PAC and get out of the woods, so to speak, would require most all the AAU schools to come some how, some way, so whichever school is not an island out west.
Lincoln, NE is 1500 miles away from Pasadena, and I have driven it- half the country away or a 3 hour flight, not 40 minutes around Chicago, Detroit, Cincinnatti extended areas.
To me, it could only be a timing issue once committed.
LikeLike
bob,
I have to disagree.
The discussions about the marginal benefits of adding this or that school to the existing B1G are entirely wrong-headed. The future B1G will be selling a complete set of schools. The value of the complete set depends on its coherence, cultural homogeneity, historical rivalries, geographical spread, and synergies.
I do agree the B10 is marketed as a set, but the marginal value of additions matters. The B10 is already valuable, so an addition that doesn’t help grow the revenue per school in some way is not worth adding. They can help by making others want to join, or through some intangible benefit, but the larger B10 as a whole has to be more valuable to justify expansion.
The ultimate number might be 20, 24 0r 32. It will not be 16 or 18.
We don’t know that, we only suspect it. The M3 may find ways to keep their members, and ND may stay independent forever.
The B1G will be selling a continental set, not a regional set. The B1G will be (the first) national conference. It isn’t yet.
I agree it isn’t now, but it will never be. It will never have the deep south and southeast (TX-SC), for example. The mountains and southwest seem very iffy, and even the PNW is questionable. The AAC has as much of a claim to being national as the B10, maybe more, if you include Sac. St.
The historical rivalries of USC and UCLA have to be continued, otherwise the B1G repeats the Nebraska mistake. The inclusion of Oklahoma, or at least Missouri or Kansas or Colorado was necessary to the future success of Nebraska, now a museum school. So, the minimum PAC schools that need to come to the B1G are Oregon and Washington, and likely Stanford and Cal, too. Any so-called economic analysis that excludes them is BS. It weakens the set.
That paragraph is the BS.
1. Their top rivals are coming along or are OOC anyway. UCLA has 2 rivals – USC and Cal. They are likely to keep playing Cal regularly OOC, it doesn’t need to be a conference game. USC has 3 rivals – ND, UCLA, and Stanford. The first two won’t change, and the third is a much lesser rivalry that can be played OOC every so often in football and regularly in all other sports.
2. NE was on the decline since 2001. Playing MO wouldn’t change anything for them, and nobody has ever cared about playing KU. OU was the only rival they cared about, and OU has gone 6-2 against them since 2000. Playing OU annually would’ve been much like their locked game with OSU – lots of embarrassing losses. How would that help? They need better coaching, not opponents from the 1980s.
3. No P12 schools need to come to the B10. Some might come. Football is the only sport really impacted by this since the others have plenty of OOC games. USC and UCLA fans want big games. They’ve never been all that excited about many of their P12 foes. The fans will adjust and be just as lukewarm about many B10 schools, but OSU and MI and PSU and NE and WI and MSU will mean something to many of their fans. Thanks to the Rose Bowl, these are some familiar faces. USC has played OSU more than UU or CU, with IL, MI, PSU and IA all at 10 or more times. UCLA has played NE, IL, MI and WI more than 10 times, and OPSU and IA 9 times.
4. Those other schools weaken the set unless USC and UCLA can’t survive without them. Which would be odd, since they agreed to move without them. Since they have some rivals with them and have OOC games to play, those others don’t need to be added.
A dozen years from now (but NOT now) Notre Dame and some ACC schools might become available. MIGHT. If that happens, the B1G needs to invite a set of schools compatible with the B1G (and former PAC) culture. It will not be just UVA and UNC or FSU and Miami. It will have to include several schools and the rivalries.
You get an invitation, and you get an invitation, everyone gets an invitation.
FSU’s only other rival is UF – I don’t think an invitation would matter there. The same with Miami. They don’t care about any other ACC schools. UNC has lots of rivalries, but UVA doesn’t. UMD is already in the B10, UNC would be their partner, which just leaves VT which could be an OOC game. UNC could play NCSU OOC in football and MBB, and Duke in hoops. You seem to forget that OOC games exist and that many rivalries are held that way.
PS. The addition of Penn State did not raise this rivalry issue, because PSU was independent, and like ND, played a national schedule. However, the addition of Pitt with PSU would have been the better choice.
PSU played an eastern schedule. Post WWII, their most common opponents were Pitt, WV, SU, UMD, Temple, Army, BC, and RU (all played 20+ times from 1946-1992). They mixed in series against a few major opponents (ND, Miami, AL, NE).
Adding Pitt would’ve been bad then and worse since. PSU’s eastern fan base never cared all that much about Pitt, only the western part of the fan base did. In the 30 years leading up to adding PSU, PSU was #3 in W% while Pitt was #44 and falling. Adding PSU was so contentious that adding Pitt would never have been approved. Once BTN started, Pitt would’ve been dead weight diluting everyone’s payout. Texas is who they should’ve added back then, but the B10 said they were busy getting PSU assimilated. No other major schools were available and possible.
LikeLike
Pitt was falling when PSU was added, but they were one of the top programs from the mid 70s to mid 80s. From 75-83 Pitt was ranked all but one year and was in the top 10 6 of those 9 years, including an MNC.
LikeLike
bullet,
Agreed, Pitt was great. If he had suggesting Pitt before that run, there would’ve been a case. But PSU brought all of PA and they could’ve kept playing Pitt if they wanted to – they clearly didn’t find it that important.
There’s a lesson in that – look how many rivalries realignment has impacted. Some were continued, but a lot weren’t and both sides often seemed okay with that.
LikeLike
Brian, I don’t know where you got the “both sides OK with it” from. Often times, one side was not OK with it.
LikeLike
Brian, some rebuttals to your rebuttals:
1. A “Pac six” wing of Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, SC and UCLA within the B1G would have more legitimacy than one solely under Pac auspices, as the rest of their conference schedules would include the other 14 B1G members.
2. You underestimate the UVa-UNC rivalry, no surprise considering it’s overshadowed by UNC’s longtime in-state rivalries with State, Duke and Wake. However, Charlottesville and Chapel Hill have played football dating back to 1892, with 126 meetings. As recently as 1957, five years into the ACC, Cavs vs. Tar Heels was a traditional season finale.
LikeLike
Er, that last part helps Brian’s point though:
The fact that Duke and NC State have been the Thanksgiving game for UNC the past 60+ years shows where the UVa rivalry is on their pecking order.
If we have to go back to 1957… that’s a problem. We got schools like Oklahoma moving on from Nebraska over the past 3 decades despite that being their Thanksgiving game for 50 years from the 40s to the 90s until the Big 12 broke that annual series.
Oklahoma-Nebraska was a similar rivalry as UNC-UVa. Oklahoma always placed Texas and Oklahoma State above as UNC probably places Duke and NC State above their UVa rivalry.
Doesn’t mean it’s not important, but if they have to try to save rivalries, they’re going to prioritize the Research Triangle.
Partially why I think UNC might have to move with Duke or NC State.
LikeLike
All of this is why I think there’s a reasonable possibility of UNC and UVa splitting up here.
If the Big Ten goes for FSU and Miami; then a natural +1 for either (most likely Miami if FSU goes to the SEC) would be UVa.
UNC + Duke or NC State could go to the SEC in that scenario.
There’s a lot that has to play out here in the early 2030s once FSU makes its choice.
A lot of possibilities here: UNC and UVa could both commit to the ACC and keep the NC/VA schools all together. Or they could move together to either the Big Ten or SEC (with possibly a 3rd school like Duke or NC State). Or they could split up and UNC goes to the SEC while UVa goes to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Z33k – I’m glad to see you’re coming along. The only state I can see the B1G and the SEC sharing is Florida with the B1G going after Miami.
LikeLike
Florida’s really the only state that makes sense to share given the strengths/brands of those programs.
NC/VA are great college sports markets but the loyalties are so divided in those states and there’s no program that brings giant shares of those markets while also having the guarantee of being a strong football brand in 20 or 40 years.
5 or 10 years ago I could’ve seen those states having both the Big Ten and SEC in various scenarios, but it just doesn’t make that much sense now.
Texas/OU and USC/UCLA really changed the ballgame here and moved us much closer to the end of realignment by raising the bar so high for future additions. I even think there’s reasonable odds now of the Big Ten and SEC just moving to 18 and the core of the ACC staying together. ND could permanently attach itself to such a grouping as long as UNC commits to it.
Not at all clear that UNC is as willing as USC to chase dollars and football brand exposure. They knew 10 years ago that the Big Ten/SEC were going to be at least $20 million ahead in payouts now and could’ve projected that further along.
At the end of the day, USC wants to be in a grouping that resonates nationally for football. They wanted to be with Ohio State and Michigan.
Very unclear that UNC wants that or cares to be part of the big football brand groupings. I think the odds are probably near 50% that UNC chooses to keep the core of the ACC intact. A lot will come down to just who’s in charge there.
Money’s important, but basketball schools don’t exactly need infinite money to throw at a handful of basketball players even if pay for play becomes a thing. And those programs like UNC/Duke will always have strong NIL basketball situations.
I’ve come around to the possibility of FSU/Clemson to the SEC and Miami/Washington to the Big Ten as the only major moves of the 2030s.
LikeLike
Zeek, I mostly agree with you. Only difference in my vision is it’s Miami+Stanford to the B10 with ND in an 8 game scheduling alliance (to pay for Stanford). I’m not sure how happy ND would be to stay in a conference with zero football powers and neither ACC FL school (granted, the ACC would then add USF and maybe UCF but they won’t make up for FSU and Miami) and (IMO) NBC would push ND in to a scheduling alliance with the B10 if the Domers want to keep getting enough TV money to make independence possible.
(And Alan, no, I don’t believe the B10 is afraid of ND going 8-0 against it).
LikeLike
UVA and UNC are (and have been) bonded at the hip. We discussed this in FTT’s previous post.
As UVA/UNC go, so goes the ACC. There is not going to be a separate UNC/Duke package deal simply b/c of their basketball game. (Note: Should Jon Scheyer be another Kevin Ollie, Duke’s stock will plummet like UConn’s.)
Both UVA’s and UNC’s preferences are to make the ACC work before leaving for another conference. This too had been discussed previously, and nothing has changed in that regard.
LikeLike
I can see that being a logical response here, at some point for some schools enough money is enough.
Only 20-25 schools are really trying to chase national championships here. Most of the SEC, half of the Big Ten. A couple schools outside that really care about trying to get the most money and winning a national championship.
But the NC/VA group can all stick together if UNC/UVA want it to…
LikeLike
“Only 20-25 schools are really trying to chase national championships here. Most of the SEC, half of the Big Ten.”
In football. Importantly, also FSU, Clemson, and Miami.
LikeLike
vp,
1. A “Pac six” wing of Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, SC and UCLA within the B1G would have more legitimacy than one solely under Pac auspices, as the rest of their conference schedules would include the other 14 B1G members.
Legitimacy? In what sense?
I agree those schools probably have more value in the B10 than they do in the P12, but the numbers say they are still financially dilutive. All of that could’ve been avoided by adding them all at once, so nobody would ever have seen the numbers with just USC and UCLA. The public would’ve believed that’s the only way the schools would agree to join. But now that the numbers are out there, any dilutive addition will be expected to take less money.
2. You underestimate the UVa-UNC rivalry, no surprise considering it’s overshadowed by UNC’s longtime in-state rivalries with State, Duke and Wake. However, Charlottesville and Chapel Hill have played football dating back to 1892, with 126 meetings. As recently as 1957, five years into the ACC, Cavs vs. Tar Heels was a traditional season finale.
I don’t think I did. In his scenario UVa and UNC were both coming so that rivalry was already accounted for, plus UMD for both of them. So I only dealt with UVA/VT and UNC/NCSU. I know UNC/UVA is important in football, probably more important than either in-state rivalry.
LikeLike
From Canzano’s mailbag:
Q: Would Oregon have an easier path to the College Football Playoff in a new Pac-10 or an expanded Big Ten? — @JasonWiegert
A: Oregon is far better off in the Pac-12, where it doesn’t have to get past Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin and Michigan State to get to the playoff. I also think there’s a strong possibility that the Pac-12 rewards its playoff teams by allowing them to keep a larger share of the playoff payout. That would help close the staggering gap between the Pac-12 and Big Ten’s media-rights deals.
LikeLike
Of course, in the PAC Oregon has, what, $30 million per years less? How do you sustain a nationally competitive athletic program, not just football but all the others.
LikeLike
Bob: “Of course, in the PAC Oregon has, what, $30 million per years less? How do you sustain a nationally competitive athletic program, not just football but all the others.”
Exactly. Why would the Big Ten want them?
LikeLike
Sun Belt is going to have a serious argument as the strongest G5 conference after the AAC schools leave for the Big 12.
Appalachian State has been an absolute powerhouse for that league since moving up to FBS. Their claim to fame will always be that Michigan game, but this A&M win is not that far in quality. Knocking off a Jimbo Fisher A&M that loaded up on 5 star recruits last year is a huge statement.
ULL has been a regular bowl participant the past decade plus and challenged App State recently as a 10+ win kind of team.
CCU is very young but has also shown that the past couple of years and had weeks in the top 25.
Marshall gives them another one of those programs that’s been strong the past decade plus. Southern Miss is another one. ODU’s knocked off Va Tech twice now in the past 5 years (and has a bunch more games coming up in the next decade against Va Tech).
Just looking at the roster, that’s a league that can get teams into a 12 team playoff once the AAC loses Cincy/UCF/Houston.
May actually have a power shift over time to the Sun Belt potentially being first among the G5s.
LikeLike
Marshall just upset ND in South Bend.b
LikeLike
Add Georgia Southern to this list.
May be one of the greatest weekends in Sun Belt history; Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Nebraska in one weekend.
LikeLike
While carving up CUSA alongside the Fun Belt, AAC became CUSA. Theres 3 distinct groupings in the latter 2020s AAC that could break off into other existing conferences or form more compact like minded conferences.
Privates and boutique public’s: Rice, SMU, Tulsa, Tulane, UAB, Navy
Younger Regional/Commuter Schools: UTSA, UNT, FAU, UNC-Char,
Older Urban: Memphis, Temple, USF (UAB might fit in any of the 3 also)
The outlier East Carolina is the closest to a traditional mid size city campus, due to it’s longer history in FBS D1A it’s probably closest to the 3rd group but also could be a relegate (or promotee) to the Sun Belt.
LikeLike
UNT is not a new school. And it was top division prior to the I-A, I-AA split. It was a member of the Missouri Valley along with Tulsa, Wichita St., Louisville, New Mexico St., et. al. Its return to FBS was before USF even started its football program. There was even some discussion of adding them to the SWC in the late 70s.
LikeLike
Don’t forget James Madison, which has won multiple FCS titles and won at Virginia Tech in 2010, beating a Beamer team that would win the ACC.
LikeLike
Again, the goal for the B1G is a continental conference. You won’t poach many SEC programs, but not all southern programs are in the SEC. And maybe Toronto and McGill make sense at some point.
LikeLike
Toronto and McGill make as much sense as MIT and Caltech. Their sports programs draw about as many fans.
LikeLike
Why is a continental conference the goal for the B1G? Who made it the goal and when? What is a continental conference, for that matter?
The SEC seems pretty happy and successful with a southeastern US conference.
The networks seem pretty happy with NY to Chicago to LA. I do not recall much demand for Toronto, or Seattle and Portland, for that matter. The demand for San Fransisco seems somehow connected only to South Bend, Indiana.
LikeLike
Well that was an interesting early-season day of chaos.
The Sun Belt East is looking like a P5 division. The B10 West is looking like a G5 division. Is MN going to walk their way into the CCG, or will it be a race to the bottom in the West? The top of the SEC took some hits, but we all knew AL would win that game. ND 0-2. The CFP could finally be facing a chaos season, like 2007.
LikeLike
Caveat that I don’t think one weekend of football changes anything but:
Big Ten should be more likely to do away with divisions in 2023 as a result of today.
This should be the last year of picking title game participants with the East West split for sure.
LikeLike
A great day for the Sun Belt, a better day for Urban Meyer’s agent.
LikeLike
Revisiting an earlier discussion.
Check Dan Wetzel’s Sep 8 column in Yahoo Sports, “How a 12-team College Football Playoff may help stop realignment.” Some excerpts:
“The decision last Friday to expand the College Football Playoff to 12 teams, including six spots reserved for the top six conference champions, will change how the game is played, let alone how its champion is crowned. It will also, almost everyone in college athletics hopes, tamp down on additional realignment.”
“Let’s use the University of Oregon as an example. Certainly, Yormark would jump at the chance to add the Ducks. However, what is Oregon’s incentive to leave the Pac-12? If it were the Big Ten, who can offer maybe $30 million to $40 million or more in annual revenue, calls, then yes, Oregon is gone. The school is actively trying to lobby its way into that league. However, if the Big Ten doesn’t want Oregon (more on that later), then staying in the Pac-12 is far more appealing this week due to the league’s almost certain automatic bid to the playoff.“
“Why crowd into a 20-22 team league in a merger when you can stay and compete against just nine other schools? … Perhaps, for once, everything won’t be about the promise of a little more media revenue. (A lot more, we get.)”
Exactly right. Now others are saying what Colin M and I said early on.
LikeLike
HooBurns: “Exactly right. Now others are saying what Colin M and I said early on.”
Be careful, HooBurns. The Forum Posse might brand you as a “troll”.
LikeLike
LOL. The passions run strong for college football, and that’s no different here.
I think we nudged the discussion forward a bit. The collective wisdom of this group – and I think there is one – seemed to grudgingly gravitate to “it depends on how ‘close’ the financial gap is which recognizes it’s not all about $.
Paraphrasing what some later said above, it didn’t take much for UMD to bolt for the B1G in 2014, but UVA didn’t do that for the same amount of money. Everyone’s circumstances (and decision points) are different – but winning matters!
I agree that Notre Dame is the only school that moves the needle now – and they are definitely not motivated solely by $. Following 3 straight losses in the post-Kelly era, winning matters for them too, and it’ll be interesting to see what they decide to do.
LikeLike
The problem is that last big in Wetzel’s piece and how he addresses Oregon: “(A lot more, we get.)”
Most schools won’t reject a Big Ten/SEC invite. ND and then perhaps the UNC/UVA group (including Va Tech, NC State, Duke) would as well.
Hard to see how or why FSU, Miami, Clemson would reject invites from the Big Ten/SEC though.
Washington/Oregon sure won’t.
Nobody can guarantee that a program will be up all the time, every program (even Alabama) goes through multi-decade slumps at times.
That’s why you join a more prominent grouping, if you’re a big brand that cares about competing for championships, you go to the Big Ten or SEC.
FSU, Miami, Clemson fit that bill as do Washington and Oregon. It’s why I think we still see a move to 18 at least even if NC/VA schools reject the Big Ten.
I think FSU/Clemson to the SEC and Miami/Washington to the Big Ten is a logical stopping point at 18.
The SEC consolidates the southern football powers.
The Big Ten gets to be a national conference with schools in every region.
The ACC keeps its NC/VA core together. Pac-12 probably can hold together around Oregon in that case. Big 12 stays at 12.
LikeLike
It’s understandable that you want to believe that, but FSU and Clemson actually drew more viewers in their 36 most watched games than every single one of Texas, OU, USC, UNL, and A&M (and UCLA and Mizzou) did in their 36 top games 2013-2021. They’ll be gone when the ACC GOR expires. Miami is borderline but desirable too.
But I agree now that after that, there won’t be more conference realignment for a while as you’ll have 3 similar conferences in the eastern, central, and western parts of the country below the P2. The only realignment that may occur afterwards are schools among the M3 that move to a conference that makes more geographical sense to cut down on travel costs (WVU, UCF, and maybe Cincy to the ACC if they can escape their exit fees). Also the M3 potentially pulling from below.
LikeLike
I think your figures are wrong. Not that FSU and Clemson aren’t good TV draws, but I suspect you got your info from a fan blogger who pulled it out of thin air.
LikeLike
Bullet, it was a (Baylor) fan blogger but he didn’t pull those numbers out of thin air. At least, he laid out the numbers with charts and everything. I can’t vouch for whether he made a mistake or made numbers up or not, but those numbers are out there on the internet, so I’m inclined to believe they’re real.
They seem believable to me too because your viewership really goes up when you are in the national title race (ranked in the top 5 or so) and both FSU and Clemson were for at least part of that period while in the comparison group, really only OU has been during that period.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is the only school that moves the needle now – and they are definitely not motivated solely by $. Following 3 straight losses in the post-Kelly era, winning matters for them too, and it’ll be interesting to see what they decide to do.
Like every other school, Notre Dame will fire a losing coach. Four of the last six ND head coaches have been fired (Gerry Faust, Bob Davie, Tyrone Willingham, and Charlie Weis), including at one point three in a row (Davie, TW, and Weis). I think Brian Kelly will be remembered as a successful coach, and yet, the Irish had four or more losses in five of his 12 seasons.
But through it all, people never stopped watching, which is why ND has been able to remain independent.
LikeLike
Besides its fans Notre Dame has plenty of haters. That helps the ratings in the down years.
LikeLike
Little, that’s what you need.
That’s in part what is driving the crazy high ratings Bama and OSU pull now and why UMich, USC, and Texas ratings enter the stratosphere when they’re really good (and why Miami had crazy high ratings when they were challenging for national titles).
You don’t want people to feel blase about a football program.
LikeLike
You’re not a troll for saying that expansion is likely over for this round (I said the same thing two months ago: https://frankthetank.org/2022/07/22/dissolution-is-not-a-solution-to-break-a-grant-of-rights-agreement/#comment-373761). The trollish behavior is the continued and ill-argued instance that if there was a 12 team playoff in place UT, OU, UCLA and USC would not have jumped to the SEC/B1G, respectively / access to the playoffs is more desirable than a MASSIVE raise in revenue.
As I asked before, if that was true why haven’t the aforementioned teams reversed their decisions? As everyone says here, conference decisions are 100 year decisions then, if you’re right, it would be a no brainer to stay with their current conferences (who would accept them back with open arms, and may even tweak things so they get a bigger share of conference money). Why haven’t we seen that?
Also, Wetzel’s article doesn’t state that the 12 team playoff stops realignment, just among the M3. He concedes that if the B1G offered Oregon membership they’d be gone from the PAC-12 like a fart in a duststorm.
LikeLike
Nathan: “The trollish behavior is the continued and ill-argued instance that if there was a 12 team playoff in place UT, OU, UCLA and USC would not have jumped to the SEC/B1G, respectively / access to the playoffs is more desirable than a MASSIVE raise in revenue.”
Nathan, you are somewhat confused. It was the little voices in your head telling you that.
LikeLike
Now others are saying what Colin M and I said early on.
Wetzel said that Oregon should not jump to the Big XII, but it would gladly take a Big Ten invitation. That seems to be pretty much in line with the almost universal consensus here.
LikeLike
Marc: “Wetzel said that Oregon should not jump to the Big XII, but it would gladly take a Big Ten invitation. That seems to be pretty much in line with the almost universal consensus here.”
I have repeatedly said that the expansion of the playoff to 12 teams does two things to diminish realignment.
(1) It provides an incentive for M3 schools to stay in the M3 rather than move up to the P2.
(2) It reduces the rationale for the Big Ten and SEC to further expand with strong brands. If they do, their current members have a proportionally lower opportunity of getting an at-large bid with no substantial increase in revenue.
Oregon might jump at a chance to join the Big Ten but the Big Ten now has even fewer reasons to invite the Ducks.
LikeLike
1. Repeating something doesn’t make it more true.
2. It might provide that incentive if a lot of other things are also true, but none of which are known to be true today:
a. That school knows it will win it’s conference at least a plurality of years
b. The conference agrees to let CFP entrants keep the vast majority of that payout
c. The CFP revenue split keeps the M3 from falling too much further behind financially
d. TV deals aren’t shifting to be valued more on ratings, or networks want to significantly overpay to keep the M3 closer to the P2 financially
e. That the financial gap doesn’t lead to further on the field separation of the P2
But since those aren’t true, it doesn’t offer sufficient incentive to stop realignment.
3. No, it doesn’t reduce that rationale. P2 expansion now seems to be about capturing brands in order to maximize TV revenue. CFP expansion encourages P2 expansion, because the 2nd and 3rd (and even 4th) placed teams in the P2 will still have good chances of making the expanded CFP. They know they can absorb 2-3 losses and be okay. The current format demands only 1 loss, which is a disincentive to joining a large and powerful conference.
LikeLike
There’s no B1G invite coming.
Risk is just a board game. The countless hours fans like us spend divvying up the college football landscape is just that.
In the end, finances really do matter. We all know the math doesn’t work for Oregon, and even less so for bringing in 4 more schools into the B1G.
I have yet to hear/see one person here (or anywhere for that matter) explain the financial benefits for the SEC to take in FSU or Clemson, given those states are already in the SEC’s media footprint. For the SEC at least, those are not the whales FTT has hypothesized are needed for further expansion.
LikeLike
Footprint doesn’t matter as much financially as it used to: when the Big Ten Network started, yes Tier 3 was as much as 30% of the TV revenues being derived.
Now that figure is significantly less to the point that the footprint value of schools is a bit overrated as far as media value goes. That was the 2010-2015 mindset, but going forwards the value has shifted towards active viewers engaged.
FSU, Clemson, and Miami all have net added value to the Big Ten for sure (because they also bring footprint value, so Tier 1-3 across the board), and likely FSU/Clemson have net added value to the SEC from the perspective of Tier 1-2 deals.
FSU-LSU delivered 7.6 million viewers; FSU brought 30+k people to that game (including according to an FSU beat writer another 10k+ that showed up for the environment in New Orleans outside).
There aren’t more than 10-15 schools that can do that.
I think those 3 at least add value. The Big Ten for sure will take a look at FSU/Miami and if it gets either will happily pair them with another school.
SEC is not likely to want a school as prominent as FSU taken out from under its nose given its location in the heart of the SEC footprint. So they will likely get invites from both conferences.
Maybe the NC/VA schools stick together, but it’s very hard to see FSU, Miami, and Clemson in the ACC past 2036.
LikeLike
Hoo – go listen to ESPN’s Magnus on that podcast from a few weeks ago. He said networks value rivalries and big games.
In 2011-12, realignment was a land war about cable subscriptions. Now and in the future, it’s an air war. What schools can best help their conference fill their best three (maybe 5 or 6 in the future) TV viewing windows with blockbuster ratings wins each week is the most important question.
That’s why Florida State & Clemson are valuable in an air war and why UNC and UVA would have been more value in a ground war.
LikeLike
Right. The SEC/WWL could have offsetting windows noon/3:30/7:30 and 2/5:30/9 (ET) with games hosted in the CT (11 SEC schools) filling the 9PM slot.
B10 could have noon/3:30/7 and potentially 10:30 (easily if hosted by PT schools; more problematic if hosted by any of the 6 CT schools, though each of them could potentially host a West Coast school once a year in the first 6 weeks of the season).
None of the SEC or B10 powers want to host Friday nights after Labor Day (because of HS football), but a handful of the smaller programs might. Possibly a handful of SEC games hosted by smaller programs Th night after Labor Day too.
Bur before Labor Day (as well as Labor Day Monday and Sunday), Th and F games featuring major programs are a possibility.
That, plus the P2 having 72 conference games soon (potentially going up to 81) is why I believe the P2 will push the CFB season to what is now Week Zero most years, at least guaranteeing 2 bye weeks a season.
Push the season start to Week Zero and a lot more scheduling slots are possible. Besides Labor Day Monday, Sunday, Friday, and Thursday, also Week Zero Monday, Sunday, Friday, and Thursday. Heck, also Tuesday and Wednesday between Week Zero and Labor Day.
LikeLike
There is an excellent chance the VA-NC schools stay together in the ACC. If cord cutting continues through 2033 there may not be enough territorial value to combine with limited football brand value for any of these 6 schools to get an invite. What was a certain invite 10 years ago may become a certain pass 10 years from now.
Oregon to the B12 was always a red herring. The only way this could happen is if the B10 invited 3 or more additional PAC schools. At that point the B12 could invite any 4 of the remaining schools to go to 16. However, the numbers do not work for the B10 so despite some B10 teasers it is not likely to happen. For much the same reasons, the ACC is unlikely to lose more than 3-4 schools in 2036. The remaining schools will be poorer going forward but will stick together like the PAC simply because they do not have better options.
LikeLike
Nobody knows anything. Everyone here has been wrong enough times that we should all have some self-doubt.
I have yet to hear/see one person here (or anywhere for that matter) explain the financial benefits for the SEC to take in FSU or Clemson, given those states are already in the SEC’s media footprint.
Well, the purported benefit is simply that FSU and Clemson are TV ratings kings, and every expansion now is about TV. No sensible person will deny that Florida is a huge state that could imaginably justify two SEC schools, just as Texas and Alabama do.
Many people here have said that Clemson is more iffy, since their historical norm is lower than it has been under Dabo. But if you were starting a brand new conference today, Clemson is probably the South Carolina school the SEC would want, not its in-state big brother.
While nobody has exact numbers, it is not ridiculous to suggest that FSU+Clemson would increase the value of the SEC contract. This is not an argument that the SEC will take those two schools, but I would not scoff at the idea either. Nobody knows anything.
I have seen some ideas here so dumb that you could say for sure they’d never happen. This is not one of them.
LikeLike
There are waaaay more out of left-field ideas that actually took place. Such as UMD&RU to the B10. Even USC&UCLA to the B10, which some people on here foresaw, but pretty much the entire mainstream press didn’t.
FSU& Clemson to a P2 (likely the SEC) would be about as astonishing as UNL to the B10 or A&M to the SEC. That is, not at all.
LikeLike
HooBurns,
There’s no B1G invite coming.
I tend to agree. Maybe in a package with ND, but it seems highly unlikely to me. But at least some in the B10 have considered it, based on the reporting.
In the end, finances really do matter. We all know the math doesn’t work for Oregon, and even less so for bringing in 4 more schools into the B1G.
Just from the P12, I agree. There would need to be a reason for adding them more compelling than the money lost by adding them (or they’d have to take less money). I don’t think that reason currently exists. If ND was one of those 4, though, it would change the math.
I have yet to hear/see one person here (or anywhere for that matter) explain the financial benefits for the SEC to take in FSU or Clemson, given those states are already in the SEC’s media footprint. For the SEC at least, those are not the whales FTT has hypothesized are needed for further expansion.
Go to https://csnbbs.com/forum-637.html and ask JRsec. He’ll give you his explanation. It’s about getting the most brands, so you draw the highest ratings. Make your games so compelling that all CFB fans want to watch them.
LikeLike
All sorts of people have been saying this all along. The P12 and B12 raiding each other never made much financial sense. The financial gap won’t be that large, and travel costs would use up much of it. Plus the B12 has its exit fee.
Wetzel makes it clear the B10 and SEC could still expand, he just doesn’t think the M3 will raid each other. I don’t see how the CFP expanding actually changed that at all. It didn’t make sense before the CFP expanded either.
LikeLike
I do not see how Clemson winds up in the B1G, unless there is a dramatic improvement in academics, or a huge drop in B1G requirements.
Of course the SEC will offer FSU. Is that a serious issue? If not, the B1G could wind up with two of the three major schools in Florida. The SEC would not like that. (UCF is number 4 by a lot).
As far as the Oregon to B1G situation, I think that the majority on this board never believed it, despite the initial rumors. Yes, reporters with “contacts” were all in on their unnamed sources and Warren did not tamper expectations, though his words were totally misquoted.
When asked whether the B1G could go to 20, Warren said that the league might do that. The online story immediately became that Warren said the league was going to 20.
While the expanded playoffs allow Oregon to make more money, no one can seriously say that the expansion is the basis for OR not coming to the B1G. It makes the lack of an offer less painful, but that is it.
Many of us thought, and said, that if the B1G wanted Oregon or whichever other schools, that could have been done easily with the LA pair. There was also the very reasonable rumor from day 1 that USC did not want Oregon getting invited, so that LA recruiting became much harder.
Yes I know that lots of people thought that USC could not do that in the same way that TAMU could not stop UT to SEC. The difference has been beaten to death here already.
LikeLike
Clemson is comparable to Nebraska or Oregon. I don’t see academics being an insurmountable barrier for Clemson to the Big 10, but its not a plus.
LikeLike
I agree that if they admit Oregon, it would be bullish for Clemson’s chances. But they have not actually done that. There were reports—you can decide how credible—that some Big Ten schools don’t want any more members of Nebraska’s caliber.
LikeLike
Yeah it’s impossible to know what the Big Ten presidents think about specific schools.
The presidents change as well; Michigan/Wisconsin leaders that voted Nebraska out of the AAU aren’t involved anymore.
Oregon’s president is coming to Northwestern.
Who knows what the impact of those changes would be.
We know the 13 (now 15) AAU members have knowledge of the AAU metrics for prospective schools given the regular membership votes they’ve had.
We know that schools like Miami (and recently Arizona State) rank very well under those metrics, including perhaps above some Big Ten members. We know that Oregon ranks very poorly by AAU metrics but is still in the AAU despite other members leaving. So it all adds up to “who knows” at this point besides slightly informed speculation.
Miami, Florida State, Va Tech, Arizona State probably easily meet a standard that requires the schools to meet the “Nebraska level” of graduate research metrics and academic prestige. Oregon minus its AAU probably would not.
The past 4 expansion decisions were easy in terms of academic fit/institutional fit. Rutgers, Maryland, USC, and UCLA are all prestigious and gigantic research institutions.
Florida, Texas, A&M fit that kind of mode but they’re all in the SEC.
Washington is the most obvious “fit” out there institutionally and academically, but financially they need a “guaranteed” national football power to join with them.
And the list is short at this point if Washington/Oregon don’t move the needle enough.
LikeLike
Marc: “There were reports . . . that some Big Ten schools don’t want any more members of Nebraska’s caliber.”
I’m not sure what it takes to get it into your head. Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC now have any reason to further expand due to the 12-team playoff expansion. The Big Ten and the SEC will both remain at 16 and ND will remain independent.
There is a pandemic of Realignment Fever on this forum but the vaccine is now available.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what it takes to get it into your head. Neither the Big Ten nor the SEC now have any reason to further expand due to the 12-team playoff expansion.
Repeating it for the 20th time does not make it more true.
LikeLike
Found this interesting set of older TV ratings: ESPN’s highest rated games as of 2009.
ESPN’s most viewed games as of 2009 (note this is # of households, multiply by ~1.5 to get the # of viewers)
9/12/2009 USC at Ohio State (USC won, 18-15) 7,243,000
9/4/2006 Florida State at Miami (Florida State won, 13-10) 6,329,828
9/7/2009 Miami at Florida State (Miami won, 38-34) 5,820,001
11/2/2006 West Virginia at Louisville (Louisville won, 44-34) 4,915,915
9/6/2008 Miami at Florida (Florida won, 26-3) 4,886,206
10/8/1994 Florida State at Miami (Miami won, 34-20) 4,846,320
ESPN’s highest rated games as of 2009 (rating share)
10/8/1994 FSU at Miami 7.70
9/12/2009 USC at Ohio State 7.30
9/4/2006 FSU at Miami 6.86
9/12/1991 Houston at Miami 6.50
10/27/1990 Notre Dame at Pitt 6.50
11/17/1990 Penn State at Notre Dame 6.50
Shows the power of Miami and FSU when when they were rolling and that was a top draw. (Also why I think Miami is a slam dunk like FSU/Clemson).
That was before the peak in cable subscriptions which occurred in 2011.
LikeLike
Yep, Miami might be why, when the CBS first signed TV contracts with the BE and SEC, I believe they paid the BE more than the SEC.
LikeLike
Nebraska has fired Scott Frost. This was inevitable after yesterday’s loss to Georgia Southern, though I expected they would wait until after October 1, when Frost’s buyout would go down from $15m to $7.5m.
LikeLike
Big time donors may have told Alberts to do it now and they’ll cover the cost. You just can’t keep losing that same way every week. The coaching search should be interesting. I’m sure Clay Helton would like to get back to coaching in the P5, and they already know he can win in Lincoln.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL. The Urbs is also available. So are Orgeron and Les Miles and they’ve won natties. Same with Tressel, for that matter.
The UNL administration has really wrecked that program with their quick trigger (Solich was a perfectly fine coach aIni actually won more than Ferentzowa/Ferentz and almost as much as Wisconsin over the same period) and 180 degree turn almost every time they hire a new coach.
The Huskers need to realize that given their location, benig Wisconsin/Iowa is their ceiling these days.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had totally forgotten that they fired Solich. Husker fans would be very happy today with a record like that. Bo Pellini too. Frost, though, really did have to be fired. Nebraska is not going to be a perennial juggernaut again, but Frost’s record would have gotten him fired almost anywhere.
LikeLike
I had totally forgotten that they fired Solich. Husker fans would be very happy today with a record like that. Bo Pellini too.
You can write a textbook on the bad administrative decisions around Nebraska Football in last 20 years.
1. Chancellor Harvey Pearlman hires Steve Peterson to be Nebraska AD after Bill Byrne leaves for A&M. Steve has a vision for Nebraska Football with a modern offense focused on producing NFL talent that didn’t include Frank Solich. Its a big gamble especially since Solich hadn’t lost enough to deserve getting fired. Peterson does it anyway resulting in a split the fanbase and good coaching candidates politely turning him down. Peterson lucks into hiring Bill Callahan who doesn’t win enough and they both get fired to prevent a revolt.
2. Pearlman hires Tom Osborne to replace Peterson to unite the fan base and Osborne hires Bo Pelini. In Pelini, Nebraska gets a dislike of recruiting, a 9-10 win ceiling with one or two blowout losses a year. and an absolutely embarrassing sideline demeanor. No matter how much both sides* want to move on, Pelini isn’t good enough to get a better job and is too good to get fired. Eventually, Osborne retires and Pearlman hires Shawn Eichorst to git rid of Pelini.
3. Eichorst and Pearlman hire Mike Riley. Eichorst meddles with Riley’s team (bringing in consultants to teach tackling, hiring Bob Diaco) with predictable results. A year after Pearlman retires, Eichorst and Riley are fired.
4. Ronnie Green replaces Pearlman, and hires the opposite of Eichorst in Bill Moos. Bill Moos likes to drink and make splash hires. He lucks into Scott Frost and Fred Hoiberg and then moves his office to Eastern Washington. Eventually, Green asks him to retire.
Lots of lessons to be learned about alignment and hiring the right people.
* https://deadspin.com/bo-pelini-on-nebraska-fans-fuck-you-fans-fuck-all-o-1327398903
LikeLike
Can surely write a book, but Perlman/Osborne deserve credit for getting out of the Big 12 and grabbing a Big Ten invite while there was still an opening for a midwest brand.
I don’t mean this in a negative fashion, but realignment is so different right now in terms of what the Big Ten is looking for that who knows if the same exact schools get invites now that got invites 10 years ago.
Nebraska is fixable; regardless of the hiring decisions and records of the past 10-15 years, the school should have potential at the level of Wisconsin/Iowa or maybe above that if they can get a national recruiter that can bring the right type of talent there.
As long as it has that fanbase/support, they should have a higher ceiling than any other midwest school to the West of Michigan/Ohio.
LikeLike
Nebraska does care intensely about college football:
I think UNL’s upside is Wisconsin/Iowa, which. . . .isn’t all that bad!
No national title very likely but if the 12-team playoff had existed from the start of the CFB, Wisconsin would have made the playoffs 3 of 8 years by now.
LikeLike
@zeek –
Can surely write a book, but Perlman/Osborne deserve credit for getting out of the Big 12 and grabbing a Big Ten invite while there was still an opening for a midwest brand.
Absolutely. Pearlman wasn’t all bad. The Big Ten was a huge win.
Steve Peterson wasn’t wrong about where college football was going. He just really struggled to sell and execute his vision. Pearlman signing off on letting Peterson take that chance was a huge loss.
Its no secret Pearlman and Pelini didn’t like each other. Pelini and Nebraska needed to split and he made it happen. A tough choice that had to be made. Hiring Mike Riley is textbook example of hire the complete opposite of the guy you just fired.
Nebraska is fixable; regardless of the hiring decisions and records of the past 10-15 years, the school should have potential at the level of Wisconsin/Iowa or maybe above that if they can get a national recruiter that can bring the right type of talent there.
I would consider it to be higher since Nebraska has better fan support and is willing to spend the resources to go “all in” on football. The longer Nebraska is down the more likely their ceiling approaches Iowa or Wisconsin.
The current configuration of the Big Ten/P2 is a pretty big advantage that is getting overlooked. Nebraska is the closest P2 school to Denver and a lot of western states. Second closest to KC. Nebraska will likely get annual or semiannual trips to Southern California. They’ll be able to bring a bigger recruiting profile to Arizona and Vegas. The more advantages P2 status has, the better it looks for Nebraska.
LikeLike
I disagree with your assessment of Pedersen.
It’s a massive advantage to have high schools all over the state of the Nebraska running the same offense as the Huskers with cheap in-state cost of attendance
If the state of Nebraska has 10,000 high school football players, 2,500 are graduating seniors. If just 1% of those guys pan out as D-1 players, that’s 25 guys that the Huskers didn’t have to spend one of their 25 scholarships per recruiting class on for signing day. And that allows for Nebraska to use the majority of its 25 scholarships per recruiting class on the defense.
Sure enough, from 1991-1999, Nebraska brought in an average of 40 walk-ons each season. From 1993-2001, Nebraska was a perennial top 10 team.
And, even if the walk-on doesn’t pan out, he can get a job as a football coach in the state to keep the system feeding itself.
“HURR DURR, MIDWEST WHITE BOYZ R SLOW!!”
Not really, but even if you’re right, Nebraska has been trying the same thing for two decades with minimal success. Time to go back to what actually worked before.
LikeLike
I agree Mike.
As long as Nebraska has that fan support, there are advantages that they have relative to other Midwest schools. And that is especially true as we transition to a Power 2 era.
Just a matter of tapping into that with the right coach.
There’s no reason why Nebraska shouldn’t be the top performer above everyone not named Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/USC on a regular basis with their fan support and the money that comes with that.
LikeLike
Iowa and Wisconsin also have pretty darn good fan support too.
What really doesn’t help UNL is being located in the Empty Quarter (there’s just not a lot of football talent west of the Mississippi, east of CA, and north of TX & LA) though yes, being in a P2 conference helps and expanding to CA probably helps UNL the most of the original 14. CA is actually as close to NE as parts of OH (OK, while that is technically true, Lincoln is on the east end of NE while the CA population is on the west coast of CA, but play along). And if OSU can develop a TX pipeline, there’s no reason why UNL can’t develop pipelines to CA and TX (TX is about as far from OH as CA is from NE and TX is closer to NE).
But in any case, while we can quibble about UNL’s ceiling, I’m quite certain that for the Huskers to achieve any sort of success, they have to follow the blueprint of Wisconsin and Iowa (and Snyder’s KSU and Campbell’s ISU and heck, also UNL under Osborne). The Huskers simply can not win by trying to go the SEC/OSU route and trying to amass as much talent as possible. They need to find diamonds in the rough, develop, but also really stress the fundamentals and playing mistake-free football. Probably most importantly, utilize the guys in their backyard that have tons of heart, toughness, and football IQ but limited ability and find niche unglamorous roles for those role players that they can really do well. Once you have an army of unselfish role players, you can sell some highly athletic talents on what they can accomplish as a featured player in your system. If you have a reputation for a good O-Line, you might even be able to sell a talented QB on your vision (as Bucky was able to sell to Russell Wilson once). Pretty much every FBS program in that part of the country that has been able to achieve any success in recent decades has had to follow that blueprint.
LikeLike
It’s a massive advantage to have high schools all over the state of the Nebraska running the same offense as the Huskers with cheap in-state cost of attendance.
If the state of Nebraska has 10,000 high school football players, 2,500 are graduating seniors. If just 1% of those guys pan out as D-1 players, that’s 25 guys that the Huskers didn’t have to spend one of their 25 scholarships per recruiting class on for signing day. And that allows for Nebraska to use the majority of its 25 scholarships per recruiting class on the defense.
Sure enough, from 1991-1999, Nebraska brought in an average of 40 walk-ons each season. From 1993-2001, Nebraska was a perennial top 10 team.
And, even if the walk-on doesn’t pan out, he can get a job as a football coach in the state to keep the system feeding itself.
“HURR DURR, MIDWEST WHITE BOYZ R SLOW!!”
Not really, but even if you’re right, Nebraska has been trying the same thing for two decades with minimal success. Time to go back to what actually worked before.
LikeLike
BTW, that’s why I think Campbell, those 2 program builders at the 2 KS schools, or even Chadwell would be good hires by UNL.
LikeLike
Notre Dame and Tennessee and Oregon have had success. There’s no reason Nebraska can’t do the same. None of them have much in-state football talent.
Notre Dame and Tennessee have traditionally done a lot of national recruiting. Oregon focuses mainly on California.
LikeLike
Bullet, only UO is somewhat comparable and even them not really.
I put Tennessee, UMich, ND, OU, and PSU in the same tier for a reason: While they don’t have a lot of in-state talent (actually, that’s somewhat debatable in the case of PSU and UMich), they sit adjacent to a lot of talent. Obviously TX in the case of OU. OH in the case of all those northern schools (and the fertile East Coast isn’t too far away either) and there is a ton of talent immediately to the south and east of Tennessee. Heck, even UO is adjacent to NoCal, which has a decent amount of talent. No only does NE have very little athletic talent, but all the states it’s adjacent to (within a 5 hour drive) have limited amounts of talent. Most of those schools you named (ND, Tennessee, as well as PSU, UMich, and OU, are within a 5 hour drive of a good amount of talent; the Bay Area is about 8 hours away from Eugene). And ND has an “in” with Catholic HS programs nationwide that no one else really has (BC isn’t really competing on the same tier).
LikeLike
bill,
What worked for NE was steroids before testing became common (the famous “strength training” of theirs), accepting and keeping great players who were bad people (Lawrence Phillips, etc.), and taking players who could barely read (Prop 48 players). Once the B12 cracked down on prop 48 players, the dynasty died.
https://vault.si.com/vault/1996/01/15/headed-for-a-fall-nebraska-may-win-another-national-title-but-the-days-when-such-a-colossus-ruled-the-game-are-over
LikeLike
Ian Boyd wrote a terrific article detailing how Osborne managed to create a championship team (specifically, a championship offense) with limited recruiting prowess:
http://sportstreatise.com/2018/01/1995-nebraska-and-the-myth-of-championship-recruiting/
Basically, UNL needs to run a system that can utilize short-armed linemen and blocking tight ends and fullbacks very well (because the odds that the Huskers can get more linemen with the feet and length to pass protect well or TEs who can conflict defenses or wideouts who can blow the top off than the super-kings just aren’t very good).
LikeLike
BTW, while Bucky doesn’t run the option, the Badgers for decades now have followed a strategy similar to Osborne’s in utilizing the (few) strengths of their locale (a surplus of large human beings and under-recruited tough athletic-for-their-size small town kids) to form terrific run-blocking o-lines and LB/TE/FB corps.
Little surprise as Alvarez was a Husker.
UNL needs to relearn it’s history.
LikeLike
Notre Dame and Tennessee have not traditionally stuck to a few hours from campus. They have picked up key players from around the country. Nebraska could do the same thing just like they used to do, picking up key players from California or New Jersey.
LikeLike
TX is about as far from OH as CA is from NE and TX is closer to NE
Once you have to get on a plane, which you do in these cases, nobody is measuring the distance like that.
LikeLike
Bullet, everybody recruits nationally now. Just look at OSU’s and UMich’s recruiting classes. But it’s still easier to recruit kids who grew up dreaming of playing for you and those who are within a few hours drive than kids that are a plane ride away. And that allows a coaching staff more time to recruit talent from far away. Just look at who’s at the top of team recruiting rankings every year. There’s a strong correlation between how fertile the local recruiting region of a school is and where they are on the rankings.
LikeLike
As an aside, Brian linked to the old SI article about Nebraska.
In the article from the late 1990s (the year does not matter) , one of the potential nation champions was Syracuse. That was a period of time in the Big East when Syracuse and Boston College both thrived. They were very successful programs for a while and both had real football histories.
Then they both left the BE to join the ACC, where they have languished. If they had both stayed in the Big East, the league might well have survived as a P6. Yes, Miami and VaTech left to the ACC, but the rest of the league probably still could have been viable.
Neither school has ever made an impact in the ACC, nor or they likely to do so, even if Clemson, FSU and Miami leave.
If the ACC collapses in ten years or so, neither will have anywhere to go, unless they put together a league with Wake Forest and a few other homeless schools to be by far the worst of the theoretical P5, In fact neither Cuse or BC might even be able to stay in the P5, absent a collection of other schools that no one want.
Obviously if Tobacco Road stays together as a P5 with primarily a basketball
emphasis, both schools will stay there.
LikeLike
Bernie: ” If they had both stayed in the Big East, the league might well have survived as a P6.”
The Big East was doomed the day that it was founded. Their refusal to invite independent Penn State is the Mother Of All Conference Realignment Blunders”.
LikeLike
Bernie – I would go a step further and say that since Penn State joined the B1G in the early 90s, no school joining the B1G or SEC has improved themselves from a long term competitive standpoint in football.
Think about it.
Penn State – THEN 2-time national champ in the 80s. NOW No BCS CGs and one CFP semi appearance.
Arkansas – THEN perennial SWC contender. NOW One SEC CCG appearance, up and down and the ups have a ceiling.
South Carolina – THEN inconsistent to bad. NOW 3 11-win seasons under Spurrier, but typically inconsistent to bad.
Nebraska – THEN consistent winner while not quite a king anymore. NOW just a punching bag for Northwestern.
Mizzou – THEN competitive and a once a decade contender. NOW despite two SEC CCG appearances early on, mediocre at best.
Texas A&M – THEN underachieving sleeping giant. NOW underachieving sleeping giant/dumpster fire.
Maryland – THEN inconsistent to mediocre. NOW inconsistent to mediocre.
Rutgers – THEN inconsistent to mediocre. NOW inconsistent to mediocre.
Texas – THEN/NOW fallen king hoping to rebound. FUTURE ?
Oklahoma – THEN/NOW competitive king that can’t win the big one. FUTURE ?
USC – THEN/NOW fallen king hoping to rebound. FUTURE ?
UCLA – THEN/NOW underachieving sleeping giant without nearly as much potential as A&M. FUTURE ?
LikeLike
Bernie, the BE probably wouldn’t have been treated as a P5 conference if it had stayed together. For sure, the schools that left would have made less money than if they had stayed in the BE. Pretty certain Syracuse, Pitt, and BC would take more money over more titles in a lesser conference. I mean, do you see any scenario where RU stays in the BE when it got the B10 invite?
LikeLike
Again, Richard. Tennessee and Notre Dame thrived for years without sticking close to home. Obviously its easier if you can.
Ohio St. can recruit anywhere because of their frequent appearances in the CFP.
LikeLike
Bullet, you’re referring to decades ago when not everyone recruited nationally. Now everyone does recruit nationally. Examples from decades ago aren’t terribly relevant. Have you noticed that Tennessee isn’t exactly so great on the football field these days? And while ND has made the playoffs recently, they’ve also been blown out by true national title contenders.
And that’s with ND’s special “in” with Catholic HSs across the country.
Every national title winner since OU in 2000 has been located in an extremely fertile recruiting region*. That is not a coincidence.
* And it’s not as if OU, Tennessee, and UMich are far from very fertile football areas. UNL is (also UW and CU).
LikeLike
Alan, I suppose we’ll see, but I predict that UCLA will be the first program that joins the P2 and sees it’s football fortunes improve.
They’re the only school that sits in a very fertile recruiting area yet had underperformed previously due to support/money issues.
LikeLike
Alan,
Doesn’t that assume those schools could’ve maintained their prior levels if they hadn’t joined the B10 or SEC? Shouldn’t we be comparing how good they are now to how good they would’ve been if they hadn’t joined the B10 or SEC?
So PSU and SC in the ACC (best guess) or still independent, and NE, AR, MO and TAMU in the B12,
LikeLike
I would go a step further and say that since Penn State joined the B1G in the early 90s, no school joining the B1G or SEC has improved themselves from a long term competitive standpoint in football.
Do you think these schools are delusional — switching/joining conferences when they should not have? Or does it demonstrate that realignment is not really about winning per se, but only about the money.
I mean…sure, they want to win games too. Otherwise, UNL would just keep paying Scott Frost to lose. But I doubt those in charge there would say, “Dang, we should have stayed in the Big XII.”
LikeLike
@Alan
Penn State – THEN 2-time national champ in the 80s. NOW No BCS CGs and one CFP semi appearance.
PSU has no CFP appearances. You probably were thinking of MSU in 2015.
LikeLike
Whoops! Thanks for the catch. Actually, I was thinking of 2016 when they won the B1G but didn’t go the CFP.
LikeLike
Marc, sure.
Comments were messed up for some reason. I was saying that Pelini at UNL was better than Ferentz/Iowa and almost as good as Wisconsin over that same period. I knew a co-worker and lifelong Husker fan who was pissed when UNL fired Pelini. Said the the Huskers would never be as good again as they were under Pelini and would enter a sad decline.
So far, he’s not wrong.
LikeLike
Meyer isn’t going back to coaching at someplace like NE. Tressel is retired from coaching, and nobody wants Orgeron or Miles.
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/nebraska-football-coaching-candidates-replace-scott-frost
Athlon has some suggestions.
LikeLike
I think Chadwell, Matt Campbell, or either of the program builders currently at the KS schools would be good hires. Possibly Leonhard too. One thing to note is that Kirk Ferentz is 67 so all those IA/WI natives may have their eyes on that job too.
LikeLike
Former TCU head coach Gary Patterson should be on the list. Midwest background as a K-State alum, and knows Texas recruiting like the back of his hand. As a UTx analyst, Texas’ defensive success yesterday against Alabama had Gary Patterson’s fingerprints all over it.
LikeLike
Former NFL QB and former football announcer Drew Brees is currently unemployed.
LikeLike
So Scott Frost has pushed the powers that be at Nebraska over the edge. He has been fired so he is due the full $15 million (I think) payout rather than $7.5 million after October 1st.
If one could be extraordinarily Machiavellian, could Frost have somehow engineered the loss to Georgia Southern, since he knew that he was gone after the first 3 losses of the year? Is that even possible for an extra 7.5 million?
I doubt it, but.
Back to back to North Dakota and then Georgia Southern is pretty scary.
LikeLike
He didn’t lose to North Dakota, but that game was close until pretty late in the 4th quarter. Still, wins against inferior teams can still be informative. A decent Nebraska team should beat North Dakota easily.
LikeLike
Correct. Beat North Dakota.
My whacked out Machiavellian plan still works by keeping game close. Do I believe it, no, but it would have been a good plan.
LikeLike
He’s from Nebraska and was part of teams that won 2 national championships.
Don’t need to read much more into it than it just didn’t work and the team just didn’t have the ability to win games.
LikeLike
I know you guys hate the USN&WR rankings, but the new ranking are out.
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities?int=top_nav_National_Universities
All Ivies are in the top 18.
P5 schools in the top 25 include #3 Stanford, #10 Duke, #10 Northwestern, #13 Vandy, #18 Notre Dame, #20 Cal, #20 UCLA, #25 Virginia, #25 Michigan & #25 USC.
Stanford is tied at #3 along with Harvard & Yale, and is the top ranked PAC school & P5 school. Shocker!
Top & bottom rankings in each of the P5 conference:
Pac 12-2: #3 Stanford & #212 Washington State
ACC: #10 Duke & #182 Louisville
future B1G: #10 Northwestern & #151 Nebraska
future SEC: #13 Vanderbilt & #194 Miss State
B12-2-2+4: #77 Baylor ê West Virginia
P5 conference movers:
#20 UCLA (AAU)
#25 USC (AAU)
#38 Texas (AAU)
#127 Oklahoma
B12 from G5 movers up:
#89 BYU
#137 UCF
#151 Cincy
#182 Houston
Potential P2 candidates and B1G/SEC rankings comparison (NOTE: I’m not saying these schools are similar, I’m just saying their USN&WR rankings are similar):
#18 Notre Dame – #10 Northwestern & #13 Vandy
#20 Cal (AAU) – tied with UCLA for top public – #20 UCLA & #29 Florida
#25 Virginia (AAU) – #25 Michigan & #29 Florida
#29 North Carolina (AAU) – #25 Michigan & #29 Florida
#44 GA Tech (AAU) – #41 Illinois & #38 Texas
#55 Florida State – #55 Rutgers & #49 Georgia
#55 Miami – #55 Rutgers & #49 Georgia
#55 Washington (AAU) – #55 Rutgers & #49 Georgia
#62 VA Tech – #62 Minnesota & #67 Texas A&M
#72 NC State – #72 Indiana & #67 Texas A&M
#77 Clemson – #77 Michigan State, #77 Penn State & #67 Texas A&M
#97 Colorado (AAU) – #83 Iowa & #97 Auburn
#105 Arizona (AAU) – #115 South Carolina & #115 Tennessee; no B1G similar
#105 Oregon (AAU) – #115 South Carolina & #115 Tennessee; no B1G similar
#105 Utah (AAU) – #115 South Carolina & #115 Tennessee; no B1G similar
#121 Arizona State – #121 Mizzou; no B1G similar
LikeLike
As flawed as the US News rankings are, they do have functional importance for young people applying to college and the general public sees them as a measure of prestige.
The conferences have always had different focuses though, especially the Big Ten and ACC.
ACC regularly touts the US News rankings of their schools, while the Big Ten focuses on AAU membership. It makes sense given the ACC schools are often smaller/more undergraduate focused schools (with a lot of large city based private/publics mixed in) while the Big Ten schools are mostly just large/more graduate focused research institutions.
Given where we are now after Texas/OU and USC/UCLA, the universe of worthwhile additions is so small that it’s really only 8-10 schools that are at issue now in the Pac-12 and ACC (along with ND).
I don’t think academics is particularly prohibitive for any sort of addition that the Big Ten wants to add.
LikeLike
Click to access boardx.pdf
Hopefully everyone will get some closure about UCLA to the B10 after this 9/22 UC BoR meeting.
B1(X) Discussion UCLA Big Ten Membership – Potential Legal Issues and Financial Impacts
LikeLike
Obviously we’re not expecting much major movement (i.e. Big Ten/SEC) for another 8-10 years, but this is the timeline I’m anticipating:
Mid-2029: Big Ten announces new 6 year TV contract that ends in 2036 (lines up with ACC TV contract ending). Will likely just be an extension of the current 16 team configuration unless something changes with the USC/UCLA situation to the point where the conference feels it has to add Western partners in 2030. (I do not anticipate that being the case).
Early 2030 to Mid 2031: Big Ten looks at expansion possibilities. Top of the list is ND. Closely following ND would be FSU, Miami, and Clemson in terms of football TV value. Big Ten presidents would probably also consider UNC and UVA to pair with FSU and Miami in the East given those 2 were at the top of the list in the 2012 round of Big Ten expansion (and Big Ten presidents may want a presence in NC/VA for demographics purposes).
Most likely contact would be made with those 4 schools in late 2030 to early 2031.
FSU will contact the SEC if they haven’t already (going to assume they’ll talk to both conferences in 2030-2031). SEC will also likely talk to Clemson, UNC, and UVA.
I think most of us anticipate FSU and Clemson going to the SEC. It’s a pretty obvious move for those two schools. I don’t anticipate any real SEC interest in Miami. Getting a 2nd Florida school is not likely to be that difficult; UF has supported FSU joining the SEC many times in the past but for various reasons it never came about… I don’t anticipate that many of the SEC schools would want 3 schools in Florida.
I also think the Big Ten should announce FSU or Miami to 17 whenever either school is willing to commit. Take #17 and then figure out #18 later. So I think it’s possible that even if UNC/UVA decide not to commit to anything, that the Big Ten announces as early as 2031-2032 Miami to join in 2036.
Most likely we see announcements for FSU, Clemson, and Miami by 2032 while UNC/UVA decide whether they want to commit. Big Ten will likely choose a #18/20 depending on what UNC/UVA decide.
Big Ten’s choice for #18 is likely to come down to UVA, Washington, Oregon, or Stanford. UVA is probably the first choice if they’re willing to separate from the NC/VA schools (or join with UNC), but it’s hard to figure out what exactly will happen with that situation. If both UNC/UVA come to the Big Ten, then #20 is likely to be Duke, but that’s several steps ahead of this.
Washington in my opinion is the best +1 from the Pac-12. Probably the best fit of all the remaining Pac-12 schools in terms of athletics brand, academics, market, location/ease of travel, etc.
There’s a reasonable likelihood that UNC/UVA work to keep the ACC together with just 3 schools exiting (FSU, Miami, Clemson). I think that scenario makes a lot more sense nowadays given how hard it is to move the needle on additions to the Big Ten/SEC.
UNC is probably the only school that the Big Ten/SEC would add in a move to an “odd number” or that’s dilutive but would be added for the strength of its brand/market/demographics/academics. So UNC can “save” the ACC by deciding to stay.
LikeLike
Anticipating pushback from Colin, I want to point out that FSU is likely to become extremely active in terms of realignment by early 2030 (if they haven’t already announced a 2036 exit by then).
Every school that cares about winning football championships wants to be in the Big Ten or SEC unless they have an institutional reason to favor another alignment.
ND and UNC are probably the only two exceptions that fit the “unless” above: ND wants to be independent as long as it can, and UNC may favor keeping all the NC/VA schools together due to its historical ties to so many of them and because it is seen as more of a basketball school that doesn’t necessarily have to chase every $.
That is not the case for FSU, Miami, and Clemson. Those 3 will want to get to the Big Ten/SEC because that’s where all the football brands are.
All 3 are pretty easily justifiable financially for the Big Ten in terms of Tier 1-3 TV rights. Probably justifiable on just Tier 1-2 for the SEC as well.
For sure FSU can bring any +1 with it to either conference, but if it’s one of those 2 makes it easier. Miami can be justified with any +1 to the Big Ten; huge brand + market + marquee nationally relevant matchups versus the bigger brands of the conference.
LikeLike
z33k: “Anticipating pushback from Colin, I want to point out that FSU is likely to become extremely active in terms of realignment by early 2030 . . .”
z33k, FSU may indeed become extremely active in terms of realignment by 2030 but neither the Big Ten nor the SEC have a good reason to invite them. Also, both conferences now have good reasons NOT to invite them.
(1) The virtually automatic bid to the ACC would then go to a middleweight like Pitt or Wake. At the same time FSU and Clemson are added to to pool of teams in the SEC and Big Ten trying to get one of six at-large bids so that obviously makes the at-large bids even more competitive. This is true for both the Big Ten and SEC regardless of which conference FSU and Clemson went into. For example, if they both joined the SEC it would them be harder for all other teams in both the SEC and Big Ten to get an at-large bid.
(2) There is no per-school revenue boost for either the Big Ten or SEC.
(3) FSU, Miami and Clemson are not AAU and they aren’t Michigan, Illinois or Maryland academic caliber either. In the Big Ten they would be academic bottom feeders.
(4) None of the three expand the SEC footprint at all. For the Big Ten, the Nielsen TV market for Clemson is #37 and Tallahassee is #107.
ND will always be the exception but there is no reason for either the SEC or the Big Ten to further expand.
LikeLike
1. So what? Clemson already is the big fish in a small pond and wants into a larger, higher-paying pond. FSU can’t even win in the little pond, so it might as well get paid more.
2. You don’t know that. ESPN’s Magnus said brands and rivalries are what they look for – they all bring both to the SEC, and add new territory for the B10 as well.
3. All three of them are well ahead of NE academically, so they wouldn’t be the bottom feeder. And for them, it’s a plus to join a conference with better academics as they can hope they’ll rise to the median over time.
4. See #2. Also, fans don’t only live where the school is. Clemson has plenty of fans in Charlotte and Atlanta. FSU has lots of fans all over FL and GA. And Miami is in Miami.
LikeLike
Brian, you failed to address the primary issue that I cited. The Big Ten and SEC have no reason to expand with FSU, Clemson, or Miami. They have nothing to gain and the individual members will clearly be less likely to get at-large bids. There is no per-school revenue increase. There is no rationale to expand with them.
LikeLike
The B10 and SEC have plenty of reasons to add them, you just refuse to admit it. The B10 would make more money, recruit better, and maybe get more CFP bids. The SEC would also make more money and maybe get some more CFP bids (they can’t really recruit much better).
Neither conference would worry about adding more powers, because they think they’d earn more at-large spots because of the additions. It gives you more teams likely to have a good year and cover for other powers that are stuck in a down period.
Taking the ACC powers would basically guarantee that ND is about the only likely candidate on a regular basis for an at-large spot outside of the P2. The ACC is going to get their champion bid no matter what, but this avoids the ACC getting at-large bids.
Trolls will be trolls.
LikeLike
I have not gamed out every contingency, but I think there is near-zero chance that FSU wants to remain in the ACC. They are one of the few schools that is financially accretive to either of the P2, so it is only a question of which league they want to join. Since realignment moves are like Lays potato chips (you can’t have just one), then the other dominoes start to fall.
By the way, I think the chances that FSU will choose the Big Ten are way under-rated. The SEC deserves to be the favorite , but I could imagine a scenario where they would prefer to be the #1 Florida school in the Big Ten, rather than the #2 Florida school in the SEC.
I’ve become less convinced that any combo of NC/VA schools will ever join the Big Ten, even if they want to. UVA on its own is dilutive for sure. UNC does not want to separate from Duke. Taking all three is also dilutive for sure. That is a lot of schools to add for abstract reasons that do not bring in enough revenue.
LikeLike
Colin, the athletic department and administration of FSU would join the SEC or the B1G tomorrow. Availability into the playoffs does nothing to close a $30 million or more per year gap in revenues between the two leagues, even if FSU makes the playoffs and the ACC allows larger payments to teams that make the field of 12 (or 64 in basketball).
I can tell you as a fact, not as speculation or newspaper reports, that the disparity in income between UF and FSU football keeps the people at FSU up all night.
As far as value to the B1G, FSU is the number 2 team in FL, and not at all a distant number 2. In the Bobby Bowden glory days, it might have been number 1. I would imagine that virtually all B1G teams recruit Florida and having an in state presence would be a wonderful thing.
In addition, there is no reason to doubt that FSU would pay for itself with TV revenues in the B1G. If you think that FSU games against B1G powers would not easily break the 4,000,000 “barrier” every time, then you do not understand Floridian college football fans.
The SEC would gain less by adding FSU, since they already have UF, but the SEC would be nuts to give the B1G a major foothold in Florida.
I agree with Marc that the SEC would be the favorite for FSU due to geography, culture, etc. On the other hand, the academics of the B1G are very attractive to FSU, as well as being the number 1 B1G team in Florida. It might even heat up the rivalry with UF (assuming that is possible).
LikeLike
Bernie, please focus on the primary question, OK? We are not talking about what FSU wants. We are talking about what the Big Ten or SEC have to gain.
Do Big Ten college presidents lust for better football recruiting grounds? Break-even TV payouts? More non-AAU academic skanks in the conference? Difficult travel for Olympic teams (16 hours to Tallahasse per ND AD Swarnick)?
How about the SEC presidents? Zero gain in recruiting grounds, Zero expansion of TV turf, Spit in the faces to U of SC and U of FL. More competition for at-large bids to CFP.
Please stop telling me what FSU/Clemson/Miami want. Tell me what the Big Ten or SECstand to gain.
LikeLike
Why bother? You don’t listen. You’re too busy repeating things 20 times, and then making more comments to tell us that you repeated it 20 times, as if repetition makes a falsehood less wrong.
Trolls will be trolls.
LikeLike
Collin – ESPN’s Magnus told us what he is willing to pay more money for – rivalries and other big games. The new realignment is an air war, not a ground war. This isn’t 2012. Carriage still counts, but its more about 4m+ sets of eyeballs on the most games possible.
If Disney, has the 16 SEC teams and Florida State, Clemson and/or Miami, then the SEC fills out all six of the ABC & ESPN windows on Saturday with high quality games. I know Disney will own the ACC/SEC rivalry games in a couple of years, but by taking FSU, Clemson and/or Miami, the SEC (and Disney) also get more Clemson/Georgia, Florida State/Alabama, Miami/Florida, and I could go on and on.
That’s how the SEC grows the money pie to expand to 18 or 20.
LikeLike
Alan: ” ESPN’s Magnus told us what he is willing to pay more money for rivalries and other big games . . .”
So ESPN will pay more for WV-Pitt, Iowa-Iowa St, FL-FSU, Penn State-Pitt, GT-UGA or ND-USC if they were in the same conference than they do right now?
LikeLike
Obviously there is a hierarchy of schools and rivalries. Otherwise, ESPN would be featuring Lafayette–Lehigh right up there with Alabama–Auburn.
LikeLike
@Colin
Yes if the games are being played more often (see WV-Pitt which is no longer annual) or if there’s more “brand vs brand” games then the networks will pay more money. This is the reason why Texas/OU to the SEC and USC/UCLA to the Big Ten are so value additive. Those 4 are going to be played a lot more big brands than they used to…
FSU or Miami or Clemson vs the brands of the Big Ten or SEC.
There’s just way more of those games possible in the Big Ten/SEC than in the ACC.
FSU or Miami or Clemson vs Ohio State or Penn State or Michigan or Wisconsin or Nebraska or USC or UCLA or Michigan State or Iowa.
Do the same for the SEC: we just saw FSU vs LSU grab 7.6 million viewers. There’s a lot more of those games out there if you include Alabama, Texas, Florida, OU, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, etc.
LikeLike
I was interested in Pitt/WVU because it was a rivalry game that hadn’t been played in a while. And I wasn’t disappointed. It was a hard hitting, hard fought game with lots of passion from the two sides.
LikeLike
bullet: “I was interested in Pitt/WVU because it was a rivalry game . . .”
The Backyard Brawl. It was a great rivalry for many years. Too bad Penn State, Pitt and WV all ended up in different conferences.
LikeLike
https://www.dispatch.com/story/sports/columns/2022/09/14/benefits-for-osu-in-expanded-college-football-playoff-are-debatable/69492638007/
Three views about CFP expansion. It’s behind a paywall, unfortunately, so I don’t want to excerpt too much.
Me: Some people say a 12-team playoff makes the regular season more exciting, that more fans will remain interested because the usual suspects – Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Clemson, Notre Dame and Georgia – no longer will have a monopoly on playoff participation. It’s true more teams means more enthusiasm in more college towns, but not in Columbus, where expansion means the playoff becomes more of a given than possibility. Borrrrrring.
…
Myself: Boring? Ever heard of the NFL? Teams can lose eight games and still make the playoffs. Last time myself checked, the NFL regular season remains king of TV ratings. Relax. The sky is not falling with a 12-team playoff. Quite the opposite. More teams creates more anticipation, which means more eyeballs tuned in, which ultimately means more money for the schools.
…
I: Sigh. First off, the NFL is the most popular sport for one reason: gambling. Vegas is the straw that stirs the billion-dollar drink. Add fantasy leagues to the equation, and it’s no wonder the league cannot fail. On-site betting is the wave of college football’s future, too, so the regular season will be just fine from a ratings standpoint.
But that doesn’t mean I’m enthused about a 12-team playoff, because what sets college football apart from the NFL is that it thankfully is not the NFL. The New York Jets couldn’t care less about having a marching band perform at halftime. But TBDBITL is as much a part of the Ohio State game experience as C.J. Stroud tossing touchdown passes to Jaxon Smith-Njigba.
Me: Agree with you on the band, I. But sorry, a 12-game playoff will hurt the regular season. Maybe not as it relates to TV ratings or even stadium attendance, but not everything can be determined by hard data. What about emotions? That queasy feeling you get when you know a shocking loss would ruin the season? That tension is a big part of what makes the college regular season special.
LikeLike
There’s a mixture of great points and dubious ones. It’s probably true that, for an Ohio State fan, the 12-team playoff drains the regular season of almost all of its drama. With that said, I bet the Horseshoe will be full for this Saturday’s game against Toledo, notwithstanding the all-but-inevitable outcome. Fans do not appear to require a high-stakes contest to show up.
I suspect that the 12-team playoff will increase the number of “games that matter” across the country, even though for OSU the games might be less significant. But OSU seems to fill the stadium anyway. And they would keep coming for the rest of the season if OSU somehow loses to Toledo, even though the loss would be an absolute killer for their playoff chances.
I could get picky, and point out that the top four conference champs get byes, and teams 5–8 get to host in the first round, so there is still a reason to care about wins and losses. Still, I appreciate that it’s not the same as the old system where every week is practically an elimination game.
It’s true that CFB fans care about the halftime show, and NFL fans mostly do not. But they are not eliminating the bands, so I don’t see what that comment has to do with anything.
I would dispute the claim that gambling is the only reason the NFL is so popular. By the way, people gamble on college football too.
LikeLike
Marc,
Devoted fans don’t require high stakes, but casual fans do. This could impact season ticket sales in the future (when combined with prices, required donations, traffic, etc.) – less demand would give OSU less pricing power.
I’m sure Toledo will be a technical sell out, but it may not look like one in the 1st and 4th quarters. There are a lot of tickets for sale online.
OSU struggles to fill the stadium for some of these buy games. How much harder will that get for B10 games when a loss doesn’t even matter?
The question is, what are the effects of making games matter less for the biggest brands? Sure more games will matter for other schools. But which drives the ratings that TV cares about more? Will fans eventually stop tuning in for big games quite as much? Will they shift to watching teams closer to the cutoff? Will all games get more viewers? Will the viewership be the same, just distributed differently? Wil total viewers decline? I’m not claiming to have answers to those questions.
The bonus of hosting would apply even less to OSU, since our AD said he’d move any “home” CFP game to Indianapolis anyway (then softened his stance later). Getting a bye is nice, but I don’t think it excites fans. In that sense, of course all games still matter. But getting in is really what matters, and the first loss for a P5 team won’t matter in that sense anymore. Maybe not even the second loss, but 2-loss teams will have no room for error.
I think his whole point there was that the best thing about CFB is that it isn’t the NFL. Every change they make to make it more like the NFL actually undermines CFB for millions of fans. The only questions for the presidents, apparently, are whether they can get more NFL fans to start watching CFB than the number of CFB fans they lose with their changes, and whether they make enough more TV money to cover the lost donations.
The money gambled on the NFL still dwarfs gambling on CFB. Then add in fantasy football. The games aren’t really the interesting thing to a large portion of their viewers.
https://www.legalsportsbetting.com/how-much-money-do-americans-bet-on-sports/
The NFL has about $100B bet on it per year, half of all US sports gambling. ESPN put the number at $1B for CFB. Obviously the CFB side is growing.
https://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/29786544/uncertainty-college-football-taking-toll-sportsbooks
LikeLike
Does the NFL have so many devoted fans? Anyway, you posit a conjecture that making CFB more like the NFL would turn off “millions of fans” without much evidence (pretty certain you haven’t counted, Brian). I could equally posit that making CFB more like the NFL would garner even more millions of new fans with the same scant evidence.
LikeLike
That many devoted gamblers and fantasy fans? Yes.
I don’t need to count, I can extrapolate from evidence I do have. I know fans that CFB has lost because of its recent changes. I know donors who have stopped donating.
And I asked the exact question you are trying to use against me – Will they gain more fans than they lose? I didn’t claim to have an answer to that. My guess is that they will gain more than they lose. Whether that costs them financially over time due to lost donations, we’ll never know.
LikeLike
Week #2 TV ratings are out.
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
Games with 4M+ viewers for week #2.
10.6m Alabama at Texas FOX noon
4.46m Tennessee at Pitt ABC 3:30p
4.33m Kentucky at Florida ESPN 7p
Honorable mention: 3.92m Washington State at Wisconsin FOX 3:30p
P2 realignment and potential movers:
2.96m USC at Stanford ABC 7:30p
2.48m Marshall at Notre Dame NBC 2:30p
159k North Carolina at GA State ESPNU noon
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/34591467/concussions-players-wore-guardian-caps-summer-dropped-more-50-nfl-says
Those goofy looking helmet caps work.
Concussions among NFL players mandated to wear Guardian Cap equipment dropped by more than 50% this summer compared to the previous three-year average, according to data released Wednesday.
For the first time, the league required offensive linemen, defensive linemen, tight ends and linebackers to wear Guardian Caps during practice between the start of training camp until the second preseason game — a period when concussion rates historically have been elevated. There were 11 concussions among those position groups during that time. Six of those were caused by contact to the face mask, which is not protected by a Guardian Cap.
The previous three-year average for players at those positions during that time period was 23 concussions.
Concussions among players at other positions remained flat, said Jeff Miller, the NFL’s executive vice president of communications, public affairs and policy.
LikeLike
UO has this going for it, too.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34592162/sec-directs-georgia-tennessee-postpone-college-football-series-oklahoma-sooners
Does this strike anyone else as a little odd?
The SEC announced on Wednesday that it “directed” Georgia and Tennessee to “postpone” scheduled games with Oklahoma because the Sooners are on their way to the SEC.
The SEC’s reasoning is that the second game in each series was to “take place after Oklahoma joins the SEC in 2025.” That led the SEC to nix Georgia’s game at Oklahoma next season and Oklahoma’s game at Tennessee in 2024.
Georgia was scheduled to go to Oklahoma in 2031, and the makeup of the 2020 game with Tennessee that was scheduled for Norman had not yet set a makeup date. But since it was expected to be after 2025, the SEC decided to wipe away both series.
Why not start building a link between the schools now? I’m fine with the return games being cancelled, so the contracts would need to be changed, but why eliminate two high-profile games against an incoming member?
Alan, what have you heard about this?
LikeLike
I guess the SEC is thinking why give the Georgia at Oklahoma game to FOX next year? The Texas/Alabama game on FOX is the highest rated game of the season so far with 10.6m viewers.
There are lots rumblings of OU & UTx coming over to the SEC in 2024, to coincide with the new ABC deal. UTx & OU moving early appears to be part of the reason Disney agreed to hold discussions with the B12 on a new deal.
LikeLike
That’s right. You’re also right about the value of match-ups vs. market size going forward. The SEC already has a distinct advantage in this regard, and if they add FSU/MIAMI/CLEMSON, it’s game, set, match. I agree with z33k that the B1G’s primary focus should be making those schools an offer they can’t refuse, unlikely as it is to succeed.
LikeLike
Pretty certain the SEC will only add 2 of those schools.
LikeLike
Richard: “Pretty certain the SEC will only add 2 of those schools.”
Pretty certain the SEC will none of those schools.
LikeLike
Now we’re cancelling games Fox might get? So the SEC will only play ESPN teams in the future?
OU at TN also needed to be cancelled? Why not privately tell TN that OU may be coming early and they should start looking for options, but not force a cancellation until it’s a done deal? Unless it is a done deal and just hasn’t been made public yet (in which case, why do this so publicly?).
LikeLike
UGa and OU have already announced replacement opponents so it’s clear this has been in the works for a while. As for doing this “so publicly”, I’m not sure how you’d want them to do this. Just have the schools put out new schedules without any announcement? That would seem odd to most people.
BTW, the Temnessee game would be cancelled in the interests of fairness even if OU doesn’t join the SEC early as the return game would have to take place after OU joins the SEC.
LikeLike
Probably a matter of fairness. With no return game, it’s unfair to one side.
LikeLike
No, it isn’t. It’s a game. Adjust the contract to be for 1 game. Schools have changed contracts like this for decades.
LikeLike
Just because they could do it doesn’t mean the SEC thinks it’s wise for them to do so.
This is why I said I suspect you’re on the spectrum back in the day, Brian, because stuff that makes sense to most people doesn’t seem to make sense to you.
LikeLike
BTW, the B10 has a policy of no neutral site game by a B10 team unless it’s a set of 2 neutral site games where the B10 gets TV rights to 1 of them. Maybe you have trouble understanding that as well.
LikeLike
Colin, if you are correct, I would expect a major party at B1G headquarters in Rosemount. I would then expect the B1G to gladly scoop up FSU and Miami to get a major foothold in Florida.
Of course, it will probably be 10 years until we know.
Assuming that you are correct, which I totally doubt, Clemson could wind up being the anchor football team in the ACC.
LikeLike
Colin’s entire premise is that the playoff expansion to 12 teams “changes everything,” as if nobody knew that would happen.
LikeLike
Marc: “Colin’s entire premise is that the playoff expansion to 12 teams “changes everything,” as if nobody knew that would happen.”
Trolls will be trolls.
LikeLike
Yes, you will.
LikeLike
I was wondering…what was the longest period that no “major conference” had a change of membership. What counts as a major conference? I am including the SWC, Big Eight, Big XII, Pac-8/10/12, SEC, B10, ACC, and original Big East.
Looking only at the post-WWII period, there is an 11-year gap from 1953 (when the ACC was formed) to 1964 (when Georgia Tech left the SEC).
The longest period of stability I can find is 12 years: from 1966 (Tulane leaves the SEC) to 1978 (AZ schools join the Pac-8). In 1979, Georgia Tech joins the ACC. It is another 11 years until 1990 (Penn State joins the B10).
So that is two 11-year gaps and one 12- year gap, assuming there are no other moves that I overlooked.
After 1990, the changes are far more frequent. In 1991, Arkansas and South Carolina join the SEC, and FSU joins the ACC. That is also the year the Big East starts playing football and adds several football-only members. In 1996, the SWC and Big Eight disband to form the Big XII.
I probably don’t need to go through the rest.
LikeLike
You missed the SWC. Texas Tech joined the SWC in 1957 in basketball and 1960 in football. Houston announced for the SWC in 1971, but didn’t join for basketball until 1975 and football until 1976.
LikeLike
So really only the ’80’s featured a pretty stable period.
The postseason also started to change all the time in the ’90’s.
LikeLike
Oklahoma State also left the MVC for the B7 (renamed B8) in 1957.
LikeLike
https://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2013/11/30/football-conferences/index.html
SC left the ACC in 1971, splitting your 12 year window.
You’re using the year they officially joined, but GT joined the ACC in football in 1983 and PSU entered the B10 in 1993 (the link uses when they actually played).
LikeLike
Note though that there was a lull from 1996-2004 (when the ACC raided the BE). For that matter, from 2014-2023, there was also a lull.
1991 the first time a “major” conference member jumped to another major conference.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34593615/athletic-directors-express-preference-keep-fbs-football-ncaa-governance-improved
ADs want to keep CFB under the NCAA if they can fix the governance.
Tom McMillen, the CEO and president of the organization representing the 131 athletic directors in the FBS, said there were a total of 105 ADs who participated in the closed-door discussions (about 80 in-person and the rest virtually), and that by a show of hands in the room, it was clear they prefer the NCAA continues its oversight of the most popular sport in college athletics.
“Rarely do we have such consensus on an issue,” McMillen said. “It was doubly reaffirmed today that the status quo was not acceptable, and that there was a strong, very strong preference for a model in the NCAA that is extremely streamlined and much less bureaucratic. That’s a lot of details to be worked out in that, but a much [more] streamlined governance within the NCAA. And if that can’t be accomplished, move it to the outside.”
LikeLike
Central governance tends to be corrupt, as the NCAA has become. Breaking away would just form a new group that would eventually rot (perhaps over many years), though it might start out with the best of intentions.
LikeLike
Worth noting from a good reporter on this topic: “ESPN and the Pac 12 are hundreds of million apart on a new deal, I’m told.”
LikeLike
BTW, this just provides further confirmation that schools in the ACC will be scrambling well before 2036 to get out if they don’t want to be left on a potentially sinking ship.
Difficult to predict what UNC/UVA will do as I’ve mentioned before, but 3 schools will absolutely take the first boat out of the ACC: FSU, Miami, and Clemson.
Most others won’t have an option given those 3 are the most value additive for football TV value.
LikeLike
z33k: “but 3 schools will absolutely take the first boat out of the ACC: FSU, Miami, and Clemson.”
There isn’t going to be a first boat out of the ACC. The Big Ten and SEC have no reason to invite them and some good reasons not to invite them.
LikeLike
Colin, I enjoy the banter but you have to acknowledge the enormous value that Florida State and Miami/Clemson offer to the Big Ten (and SEC).
We just saw FSU bring 30k+ fans to New Orleans for a “neutral site” game against LSU that got a 7.6 TV rating.
Now imagine how big games against other big brands would be.
That is incredible value. Very few schools have that.
And that doesn’t touch Florida’s large and growing population as well as the #1 recruiting grounds for college football.
You want more schools that can win at the highest level. It improves everyone if you bring more programs like that.
It’s always better to have the worst house on a rich (Power 2) street than to have the best house on a poor street.
There’s Prisoner’s dilemma here: FSU, Miami, and Clemson all know that the ACC TV contract collapses if 1 or 2 of them moves. They can see what happened to the Big 12 and Pac-12.
Thus they must all take care of themselves first and foremost.
LikeLike
There’s Prisoner’s dilemma here: FSU, Miami, and Clemson all know that the ACC TV contract collapses if 1 or 2 of them moves.
I think that might be a misstatement of the Prisoner’s dilemma in FSU’s case. As the most valuable of the three, it can make the best deal for itself without having to worry about what others will do. Unlike UNC or UVA, it is not tied by governance to an in-state sister school, nor does it have much loyalty to the rest of the ACC.
Miami and Clemson are the ones with the dilemma, because there are plausible scenarios where FSU gets the golden ticket and they do not. Of course, if none of them do (Colin’s belief), then they are just stuck in ACC purgatory from now to eternity.
LikeLike
Yeah Marc that’s a good point; FSU is sort of in the ND/Texas/USC situation where they’ll be taken care of regardless of the rest of the moves. On the other hand, Miami/Clemson are more in the Nebraska or UCLA situation where they have to grab an invite if they can get it. UVA had a real chance to be #14 or #15 in the Big Ten but now it’s just a +1 in a lot of scenarios without certainty. Duke/Ga Tech have much lower odds of a Big Ten invite than they had 10 years ago.
I’d go so far as to suggest that the SEC would have seriously considered USC if there’d been interest on the USC side. If you’re going to blow up geography, ND and USC are probably the only 2 schools that the SEC would even consider doing it for (outside of the Big Ten).
I think the Big Ten can use the Prisoner’s Dilemma situation to its advantage in targeting Miami if it believes FSU leans towards the SEC.
Offer invites to both and immediately take Miami first even if FSU is deliberating its options.
If the Big Ten takes Miami in 2030, that gives a good 6 years to find a partner. A lot of time to work on ND/FSU/UNC/UVA or whoever is being targeted for #18-20.
LikeLike
z33k – just remember Notre Dame is contiguous to the current SEC footprint and it is located in SOUTH Bend.
LikeLike
z33k: “Colin, I enjoy the banter but you have to acknowledge the enormous value that Florida State and Miami/Clemson offer to the Big Ten (and SEC).”
zeek, perhaps we hear different drummers but I question that assumption, especially for the SEC. FSU is already within the SEC footprint and it’s hard to imagime that an FSU move from ESPN’s ACCN and ESPN’s ACC TV contract to ESPN’s SECN and ESPN’s SEC TV contract is not a zero sum game. If the SEC gains FSU, the ACC loses FSU.
ND AD Swarbrick has publicly complained that it takes 16 hours to get his Olympic teams from South Bend to Tallahassee. Do Iowa and Illinois want that?
Any combination of Florida State, Miami and/or Clemson would clearly be a loss of academic stature for the Big Ten.
The Big Ten and SEC have brutally cannibalized the ACC, Big XII and Pac-12 to get to 16 schools each and fat TV contracts. Do they want more blood on their hands?
Does either the Big Ten or SEC make more revenue-per-school with further expansion?
As I mentioned previously, more heavy weights in either the Big Ten or SEC means diminished opportunities to at-large bids for the heavyweights already in those conferences. I just don’t see any good reason for the SEC or Big Ten to further expand with FSU/Clemson/Miami.
LikeLike
It’s a big gain to either conference Colin because anything that increases the net value of games is an additive school.
FSU would go from playing Florida, Miami, Clemson annually and then a mixed bag of opponents to playing Florida, Clemson, and then a mix of opponents from the SEC of which a half have significantly more TV value than the ACC opponents.
You’re basically replacing Miami and then a bunch of lower TV value opponents with a mix of SEC teams of which a full half have values approaching Miami (of course the FSU-Miami rivalry makes that game pop a bit more than just FSU-Alabama or FSU-Texas but those are huge games).
And the same applies to the Big Ten.
Bringing Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, USC, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Wisconsin to Miami is a valuable additive effect on the conference’s TV slate.
As far as academics go, Miami is one of the highest rated non-AAU schools by AAU metrics.
Academically, FSU and Miami are comprehensively seen above Nebraska and while Clemson isn’t a large graduate school, it’s a well-regarded undergrad.
There’s no issue academically with those 3 imo.
Cultural fit would be worse for Clemson than the Florida schools of course.
LikeLike
3 schools will absolutely take the first boat out of the ACC: FSU, Miami, and Clemson.
Absolutely, and without a doubt.
LikeLike
The general consensus on this board seems to be the SEC’s first choice pairing would be FSU/CLEM and, if limited to these three schools, the preferred B1G pairing would be FSU/MIA. For discussion purposes lets assume ND stays “independent” and the rest of the PAC and ACC stay intact (until FSU makes a decision). With what we know now, would FSU/CLEM be more valuable to the SEC than FSU/MIA to the B1G?
LikeLike
Bob,
No, because the B10 would be adding FL to its footprint. That’s a big gain for BTN, adds some more large markets, and helps with recruiting and reaching alumni.
The SEC “only” gains more big brand games, and blocks the B10 from getting FSU.
LikeLike
Yep, FSU+Miami is definitely more valuable to the B10. But it really comes down to FSU’s preferences. Yes, the fanbase may prefer the SEC, but the fanbase also prefers winning. In the SEC, FSU would be one of several very similar SEC schools in it’s neighborhood. Great rivalries, I’m sure, but tough to stand out. In the B10, FSU would be the premier FL (indeed, southern) school in a national conference. And if FSU+Miami join the B10, there wouldn’t be much talent disparity any more between the SEC and B10 (so not much like the Texas in the B12 situation). That’s potentially a selling point to recruits.
Due to the ACC GOR, we’ll have to wait about a decade to see how this all plays out.
LikeLike
Certainly FSU/Miami/Clemson are more valuable to the B1G than the SEC. The question is, if both the B1G and SEC want these schools, which conference is more valuable to them?
With the SEC, FSU and Clemson get their main rivals as a conference game, freeing up their OOC scheduling; adds regional rivalries with little to no travel issue; provides for a conference schedule that resonates more with their fans; and provides their players a chance to play in the SEC that is important to recruits in the South. Just ask Texas.
Miami would maintain a conference game with FSU, and gain a conference game with Florida. An annual game with Florida would trump any potential B1G conference game with Ohio State, Michigan, et al.
LikeLike
Certainly FSU/Miami/Clemson are more valuable to the B1G than the SEC. The question is, if both the B1G and SEC want these schools, which conference is more valuable to them?
FSU is the wild card. I think the potential that they choose the B1G (and the B1G chooses them) is vastly underrated. I suspect the B1G’s 18th team would be either Miami or Washington in that case. I do not envision the Big Ten inviting Clemson. (ND assumed to be still unavailable.)
If FSU and the SEC choose each other, then I see Clemson as their likely 18th team. I can see the SEC welcoming a second Florida school, but not a third. The Big Ten would then very likely take Miami and Washington.
I am leaning towards the view that the NC and VA schools do not make a move in the next cycle. There are too many dilutive “friends” that they want to bring along, and there is no obvious school among them that clearly moves the needle all by itself. The loss of FSU, Miami, and Clemson would leave the ACC a lot weaker, but still viable as a hoops-first conference. Notre Dame would probably stay in such league on the condition that they no longer play 5 football games. The ACC would agree, because what choice do they have?
LikeLike
Bob: “With what we know now, would FSU/CLEM be more valuable to the SEC than FSU/MIA to the B1G?”
Neither brings much value to either conference. Both the SEC and Big Ten are already loaded up with plenty of blockbuster games each week: Florida, Bama, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Ole Miss, LSU, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma all playing each other and USC, UCLA, Ohio St, Michigan, Mich St, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Penn State all playing each other. Plus ND is back on B1G schedules quite often in the next few years.
LikeLike
Both the SEC and Big Ten are already loaded up with plenty of blockbuster games each week: Florida, Bama, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Ole Miss, LSU, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma all playing each other and USC, UCLA, Ohio St, Michigan, Mich St, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Penn State all playing each other. Plus ND is back on B1G schedules quite often in the next few years.
Each league has three Saturday time slots per week on linear TV (noon, 3:30, evening), and the regular season is 13 weeks. There are not 39 blockbuster games. But even if there were, the problem of having too many good games is one that no sports league has ever minded having.
Notre Dame has not started scheduling the B1G more often. They play one Big Ten game most years, but of course half the time they are the home team.
LikeLike
Marc: “Notre Dame has not started scheduling the B1G more often.”
ND is clearly scheduling the Big Ten more often. It appears you don’t realize that the NS-USC rivalry will become a Big Ten game after 2024.
In addition to that, let’s look at past and future ND schedules. In the past four years, ND has played four Big Ten teams, an averago of one per year. In the next four years, they play nine and that would be ten if we counted USC as Big Ten is 2023. That’s a average of 2.5 per year. ND plays four Big Tenners in 2026 – Wisconsin. Purdue, USC and Michigan State – and the schedule is not yet completed. The Irish still have two open spots in 2026.
LikeLike
Right, and actually, the WWL has both ABC and ESPN slots. Regardless, neither league is at saturation capacity with “too many” blockbuster games.
LikeLike
Also, Ole Miss makes for a blockbuster? Huh? Iowa should be added as well, then.
LikeLike
ESPN and the Pac 12 are hundreds of million apart on a new deal, I’m told.
The question is what other media partners are offering, because otherwise the Pac has no leverage.
LikeLike
I believe the Pac-12 and ESPN agreed to extend the exclusive negotiation window in order to see the Big Ten details, but the extended window should be ending soon.
I think there’s a decent likelihood of ESPN just taking a late night window “game of the week” from Pac-12 while the rest goes to Apple or Amazon.
Apple and Amazon will surely offer more for a pure streaming package.
Problem is the Pac-12 needs ESPN exposure and ESPN knows it.
LikeLike
While I could see that happening, there are huge risks for the Pac-12 in being entirely off linear TV, other than one after-dark game of the week. I suspect ESPN wants to keep the Pac-12 — though of course without over-paying for it.
LikeLike
Z33k – just like Fox probably only wants two games from the B12 to fill specific windows (Noon FS1 & 3:30p FOX), Disney may only want two PAC games for after dark on ESPN/2 Saturday, some Fridays and maybe a random top 10 matchup to air on ABC or ESPN primetime.
With exclusivity for ACC & SEC in 24, the ABC & ESPN windows will be mostly filled.
The only reason Disney has a need for the B12 is to boost streaming subscribers for ESPN+, to settle UTx & OU matters, and maybe a Friday primetime package. The only reason Disney has a need for the Pac is to fill Saturday and Friday late nights and to boost ESPN+ subscribers.
Maybe the Pac is only offering a few games to Disney and holding the rest back for a potential deal with Apple or Amazon.
LikeLike
Maybe the networks want the PAC to die and view their better programs as more valuable playing Big 12 and Big 10 teams then playing each other. It may be a case of nobody wants to actually be the one holding the knife to kill off a 100 plus year conference.
LikeLike
PSUhockey, no, the networks don’t want the Pac to die. They may not want to overpay for the Pac’s (frankly abysmal) viewership numbers because they can’t make it back through ad rates but that doesn’t mean they have any incentive to kill off the Pac.
Alan: note that Fox has the late afternoon and primetime slot as well as a bunch of slots on FS1 to fill. They definitely want some B12 and Pac games as those are the only P5 games available that they can get.
LikeLike
Fox will want some Pac games too (they have more slots on Fox as well as FS1), but likely will also not overpay.
I can see ESPN and Fox taking the 2-3 best games every week (but not at the Pac’s offer point) and then some streamer overpaying for the rest.
It won’t get the Pac anywhere close to the P2 payout but would still get the Pac some exposure and keep the Pac TV revenues respectable/within range of the other M3 leagues.
LikeLike
Richard – the B1G will have noon on FOX, and I’m assuming B1G on FS1 at 3:30p and 7p. CBS & NBC both have a game. I would think the BTN needs three games for most of the year. That’s eight B1G games accounted for and covers every team in the expanded B1G when conference play begins.
Unless FOX OTA wants to go into Saturday primetime on a weekly basis, or jump into Friday night games, I just don’t see available games. Maybe FS1 schedules a B1G after dark on occasion.
I can see how the B12 fits into FOX’s windows (noon on FS1 and 3:30p on FOX), but have a hard time seeing where the PAC fits.
I would think FOX would like to beef up FS1 as ESPN2 usually beats FS1 in the ratings. Maybe B1G #4 on FS1 is their best bet to get some wins over ESPN2.
LikeLike
Alan, I’ll be curious to see how those exclusive B10 windows work (when FS1 is allowed to show B10 games). Regardless, Fox has the late afternoon and primetime windows as well as a bunch of FS1 windows to fill (FS1 will get roughly 1 B10 game a week and it seems like some of them will go on Friday night and Late Night.
So I can easily see where Fox would put Pac games (Fox and FS1 primetime, for 1).
LikeLike
I am trying to put numbers to being hundreds of millions apart. If that is true, how much is the PAC asking. The story simply seems wrong.
Assuming however that it is correct, there are now ten teams and the rumored offer is $24.5 million per team, or $245 million. If that does not go up by one cent, does that mean that the PAC is looking for a counter of a minimum of $400 million plus. (Sounds closer to a demand for $500 million after adding a school or two, or $45 to $50 million per school from ESPN.)
If the PAC is seriously holding out for that, could that mean that schools such as Oregon or Washington are holding out for money that will not be paid and probably will crush the league? It would be a beyond a risky gamble.
It just makes no sense.
If the Big 12 offers the four corners, it may be more than $25 million each, but there is no reason to believe that a new expanded Big 12 with 16 to 18 schools could offer anywhere close to $45 million per team. Even $40 million would be very hard to believe. Even with Oregon and Washington on board, are there close to enough really big games to justify a $40 million payment, per team?
Also will Fox be bidding on part of the B1g 12 package? I expect that they will. I would think that Fox would want ESPN to “control” four of the P5.
LikeLike
It’s likely referring to the total value of the contract over 5-7 years.
So the Pac-12 may want $2-2.5 billion over 5-7 years, while the offer is $1.5-1.8 billion over 5-7 years.
LikeLike
Eh. The Pac can start with whatever crazy offer possible. It doesn’t really matter. Both the WWL and Fox will bid for both the B12 and Pac.
I suspect both ESPN and Fox will get some B12 and Pac games and both those leagues will also get some overpaying streamers to both get some linear TV exposure as well as some extra money.
LikeLike
Hundreds of millions over how many years, and which side is saying this?
LikeLike
Bob thinks its ESPN
LikeLike
At the risk of raising the ire of the future-averse contingent here ( “All hail Paul Bunyon’s Axe!”), seeing David Faber’s interview with Bob Chapek has me a little concerned B1GFox could find itself technologically left behind in fairly short order by the Disney juggernaut. That is, unless Fox Sports is acquired by one of the tech companies in the next decade. Point being, now that the Mouse has decided not to spin off ESPN, but instead go all in with gambling (though not as a book) and investing heavily in making the game day experience immersive, ESPN’s ‘cool-kid’ factor coupled with the SEC’s on-field dominance, could leave the B1G in the dust. Chapek basically wants to turn ESPN into a sports version of Disneyland, visually speaking, with interactive elements to boot. This may not sound appealing to old-school fans, but it will to everyone else, including the global market.
LikeLike
Global market matters more for sports other than college football (or even college basketball).
Foreigners with no ties to American colleges would have as about as much interest in those sports as Americans have in Tokyo Big 6 baseball.
As for ESPN/SEC leaving Fox/B10 “in the dust”, note that the NFL grew to a massive size not by relying on the Mouse.
LikeLike
Quite a few people from Latin American, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia have attended US universities. And they do follow American college sports. They are far fewer that the billions who follow soccer, but they are a decidedly upscale demographic.
A Nigerian student I knew talked about Bowl parties in Nigeria, which he said were really big parties, well attended.
LikeLike
Bob, there are some foreigners who’ve attended American unis, yes, and they would be upper SES. Still not enough to draw viewers in the millions to each game, though. Likely not even hundred thousands. Those parties are probably where all the folks who care about those sports congregate.
LikeLike
Bob, I imagine that almost all parties in Nigeria are really big parties and well attended.
LikeLike
…Which has absolutely nothing to do with the technology gap between Fox Sports and Disney.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how much a “technology gap” exists or actually matters. Interactive TV isn’t a new idea, but so far, it doesn’t seem to drive viewership.
LikeLike
No gap between Disney and Fox Sports? Wow. That’s an interesting take. Does that mean I can adopt a baby Yoda for my own!
LikeLike
Where does this “technology gap” actually affect viewership? I know that when I watch games, it’s for games I am interested in and interesting games. The carrier has zero effect on me (other than how good/bad/annoying the announcers are).
LikeLike
Good. Let ESECPN have all the streaming, and multiple tickers and sidebars of gambling info and stats and whatever else taking up screen space and further distracting from the games.
People keep predicting the triumph of streaming over TV viewing in sports, and it keeps not happening.
Disneyland is overpriced and under-entertaining, much like everything else Disney. Let them ruin ESPN the same way. ESPN hasn’t had a cool factor in a long time, and won’t now.
Get back to me when the global market cares about CFB. 30-50M people outside the US watch the Super Bowl (100M+ in the US). CFB draws a fraction of that in the US, and a fraction of a fraction of that outside the US.
LikeLike
Agreed! That streamin’ is just a fad. We’ll be back to 3 networks and a clothes hanger in no time!
LikeLike
Back assumes we ever left. The B10 just chose 3 networks (with or without clothes hanger) over the other options.
LikeLike
They are putting some games on a streamer that a network happens to own (Peakcock), and many others will be simulcast on both OTA and streaming. I don’t know how many people are like me, but I have cut the cord and don’t have an antenna, so I am streaming everything.
LikeLike
Marc,
But that’s impossible. People keep insisting Fox has no streaming.
LikeLike
I think there’s a huge difference between how streaming effected the viewings of pre-recorded content vs how it effected the viewing of live events. At the core, streaming just increased availability for content because you were no longer at the mercy of what the channel owner chose to broadcast on that channel (cable or OTA) or having to go buy a physical item (tape/DVD/blu-ray) to watch what you want. So for sports, it really only added overflow channels for live events that were previously not broadcast at all or were PPV.
“Agreed! That streamin’ is just a fad. We’ll be back to 3 networks and a clothes hanger in no time!”
Unironically this for sports. The TV I already own and a clothes hanger sounds like a super easy and accessible way to watch sports instead of buying a subscription and a streaming stick with more logins and blah blah blah.
LikeLike
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-14/espn-says-it-s-flexible-on-expanded-college-football-playoffs
ESPN willing to play ball and be flexible on the playoffs. i.e. as anyone should have realized, they want to make money.
LikeLike
Are they, or are they saying that?
Were they before the alliance stopped expansion in part over ESPN’s rights?
ESPN could consider sharing the rights but wants to keep the championship game and several playoff games, people familiar with the matter said.
So they want to keep the NY6/CFP games but maybe others can have the first round? That might be fair for the remaining length of the current deal, if the fee is right.
LikeLike
Not at all clear what “ESPN flexibility” means here. They seem to want the championship game every year.
Not sure that will fly.
LikeLike
If the ESPN game plan is to try to keep the finals and semi-finals long term, in exchange for going to 12 teams sooner, the B1G will wind up being the league that sinks that plan, since votes still must be unanimous.
ESPN owns the votes of the SEC and probably the ACC. ESPN could also promise the PAC and Big 12 a few extra dollars in new contracts in exchange for their support. The G5 should be all in on any deal that starts sooner.
That leaves only the B1G. I would hope that ESPN is not that sleazy, but take nothing for granted.
LikeLike
If the ESPN game plan is to try to keep the finals and semi-finals long term, in exchange for going to 12 teams sooner, the B1G will wind up being the league that sinks that plan, since votes still must be unanimous.
If we know that, ESPN surely does too. Of course, there is nothing wrong with staking out your optimal position as a negotiating ploy. The article lacks crucial context. In 2024–25, ESPN already owns all the major bowls, and I would not expect them to volunteer to give them up. But they must know that permanent ownership of those games is a non-starter, since it was one of the big issues that scuttled expansion the first time around.
LikeLike
Since ESPN already owns the NY6 and the championship game for the remainder of the current contract, and Sankey has said that the new deal will go to market, they must be taking about being flexible with the opening round games for the last two years of the current contract.
Suggestion for the opening round for the remainder of the current contract:
ABC/ESPN get a game;
FOX gets a game;
CBS gets a game; and
NBC gets a game.
LikeLike
Stop the nonsense. SEC and ACC vote their interests, not ESPN.
2026 will go out for open bidding. Nobody is going to accept anything else.
LikeLike
Their interests are getting paid by ESPN.
LikeLike
So is the Big 10 voting whatever Fox wants? Got a lot of Big 10 arrogance on this topic. Other people are owned but Big 10 is independent? The ACC and SEC are every bit as greedy and self-interested as the Big 10, just maybe a little more honest about it.
LikeLike
The ACC and SEC have a contractual relationship with Disney. The SEC also has a contractual relationship with CBS that it chose not to renew.
The B1G is a minority partner with FOX in a joint venture.
Who owns who?
LikeLike
Alan, the SEC and ACC also have joint ventures with ESPN.
In any case, the leagues and networks will all be looking out for their own interests.
LikeLike
Folks, this doesn’t have to be that contentious.
Each conference does what’s in their best interests.
SEC votes their own best interests, Big Ten votes their own best interests.
ESPN has lost leverage relative to the original proposal. Even Frank (as even handed a person as any on this topic) suggested a multi-year extension for ESPN for exclusive control of the CFP in exchange for early expansion.
Now that ESPN is on the final 2 years of the contract (2024-2025) they don’t have quite as much leverage as they would have under the original proposal for 2023-2025 expansion.
Everything is out in the open now; most likely ESPN will allow expansion so long as they control the NY6+championship (that’d be quarter/semi/championship).
Whether the Big Ten bites is hard to say; I’m not at all sure that expanding early is in the conference’s best interests.
Money is money, but power/control is more important in my opinion. If ESPN isn’t flexible enough, there will be no expansion for 2024-2025.
LikeLike
bullet, yes, the SEC and ACC will vote their own interests, which will as a matter of certainty be the same as that of ESPN. See, no problem at all.
ESPN owns the ACC network and the ACC is desperately hoping for some increase in income from ESPN prior to 2036. It would be a great strategic move at this point to vote in a way that is adverse to ESPN.
The SEC and ESPN are joined at the hip in competition with the B1G.
Similarly, the B1G is partnered with and tied to Fox.
Will either the SEC or B1G fail to support the interests of the networks, which happen to precisely align with those of the leagues?
Each conference will vote its own interests. And? What does that change?
Alan, I would hope and expect that the extra games go out for bid. If ESPN is the top bidder, they will get another game or more. There is nothing wrong with that as long as everyone gets a chance to bid. The games could get split with one for each of the four networks, but it might not work out that way.
Personally, I would be shocked if ABC/ESPN and Fox did not each get at least one more game.
LikeLike
bullet,
No, because CBS and NBC also have big cuts of the deal. If all three agree on what they want, then yes the B10 would be pressed to vote that way. Money talks.
Isn’t this what many claimed was behind the B10 “blocking” CFP expansion, that they were doing Fox’s (and maybe others) bidding?
Funny you call the ACC and SEC more honest about being greedy while denying they are doing the greedy thing.
LikeLike
The ACC and SEC are every bit as greedy and self-interested as the Big 10, just maybe a little more honest about it.
I wonder about that word “greedy,” which has an ugly connotation. They are running a business. That they seek to preserve their own interests is to be expected.
LikeLike
And their interests are different than those of ESPN.
LikeLike
https://www.chronicle.com/article/growing-out-of-state-enrollment-at-flagship-universities-could-be-worsening-the-student-debt-crisis
A recent report from the Brookings Institution found that nearly every state flagship university increased its share of out-of-state students from 2002 to 2018, a trend that has contributed to the ballooning of student-loan debt across the country. “The Great Student Swap,” as the study calls it, may have increased the total tuition paid by students at just 16 flagships by roughly $57 billion over the 16-year period.
“The premise of public flagships is having a high-quality university that is accessible for the best and brightest of their state and, to some degree, subsidized by their state taxpayers,” said Aaron D. Klein, the study’s author and a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings, a research organization.
But Klein said the student swap is creating a vicious cycle in which flagships expand their share of out-of-state students and increase tuition revenues in the short term but lose state support in the process. And as state subsidies wane with the share of in-state students, those universities rely more on those out-of-state dollars.
“And the cycle continues,” Klein said. “I don’t know where this chicken and egg started, but it has to stop.”
The report suggests policies like NC has for UNC (mandatory at least 82% in-state), or TX has for UTA (top 6% in all high schools guaranteed admission), to keep flagships serving state residents.
LikeLike
I think in many states the public contribution has steadily eroded (or not kept pace with inflation), which leads to the vicious cycle of schools seeking more of the higher paying out-of-state students.
LikeLike
Agreed. Most people don’t realize how much that has changed since they were college age. There was a reason college could be $75 per quarter 60 years ago (about $735 in 2022 dollars). Of course, schools have also added a lot of overhead over the decades with more administrative staff and fancy facilities.
The great recession certainly didn’t help. Many states haven’t recovered to prior higher ed support levels, and COVID stopped that recovery. Now another recession may be coming to exacerbate the problem.
LikeLike
And for most of the history when college tuition was dirt-cheap/free, it was still only the tiny upper/upper-middle classes that could afford to send their kids to college as most working class families needed their kids working just to support the family and keep their head above water. So “cheap college for the masses” was a period that lasted maybe only 2 generations or so, if that.
LikeLike
The post-WWII economic boom (and the GI bill) probably helped with that. Before WWII, college wasn’t a priority for most people outside of becoming a teacher – there were plenty of good jobs that didn’t require a degree. The extension efforts of the ag schools were the most connection many had to the state schools.
LikeLike
Texas tuition was $200 a semester into the 80s. I knew people who came down from Michigan because out of state tuition of $1000-$1200 a semester was cheaper than in-state at Michigan at the time. In 1984-5, the UT budget was $503 million. 47% was state general funds and 12% was from the AUF (income on the permanent university fund endowment). In 2012-13, the budget was 2.35 billion with 13% from the state and 8% from the AUF. Last year only 10% came from the state and 12% from the AUF (good stock market year).
LikeLike
Back then (and in to the ’90’s, I believe), at UT-Austin, any small scholarship also got you in-state tuition and you could go tuition-free (or maybe it was a full-ride) if you were a National Merit Scholar. Same was true with A&M, who evidently spammed every single NMSF in the country back then touting their NMS scholarship.
In to the ’90’s, UNC OOS cost about the same as UIUC in-state, though UNC was already tough for OOS to get in to by then.
LikeLike
Its been that way for a long time, at least back into the 70s. Any competitive scholarship that Texas residents were eligible for qualified you for in state tuition. I had to research it when my parents moved from Texas to Cincinnati while I was at UT. I had a sister and other relatives in Texas, but I had a national merit scholarship so residence was not an issue.
LikeLike
UT-Austin got rid of that in-state qualification rule at some point, though. I’m pretty certain that doesn’t exist now. Also doesn’t offer full-rides for NMS anymore (though UT-Dallas still does, or something close to it; I think Texas Tech still does too).
LikeLike
UT-Austin now offers free tuition and fees for undergraduate Texas residents admitted with family income under $65K. Current in-state tuition is about $11K per year. Living expenses not covered.
LikeLike
My scholarship wasn’t from UT. There was a period in the 80s I believe where UT did fund a number of national merit scholarships in order to attract high caliber students. I don’t know whether the scholarship exception still applies, but I suspect they normally would do that. I know UT Arlington is still doing it.
LikeLike
UT-Austin either doesn’t offer that scholarship exception any more or they are so hard to get that it effectively doesn’t exist any more.
LikeLike
Seems like states need to increase spending to keep up if they don’t want flagships to take in more OOS students.
With state funding not keeping up, the top publics have a choice: essentially serve as a minor league farm system for the elite privates or become more like privates themselves by increasing the share of OOS students.
Though the whole college funding system in the US is antiquated. College funding should be more federalized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you federalize it, it becomes a political pawn like NASA’s budget. It will be unpredictable in value which makes planning nearly impossible.
LikeLike
Hmm. I understand that concern. Though going on the same path essentially means the better publics effectively being privates/quasi-privates in all but name. PSU is already essentially a private, just a private that gets some state money like Cornell’s contract colleges.
LikeLike
Pity and Temple too.
LikeLike
Perhaps it could be insulated more like some entitlement funding is. Have a higher ed tax pulled from every white collar worker’s paycheck to fund a trust fund for supporting higher ed.
LikeLike
“Pitt and Temple” Stupid autocorrect.
LikeLike
A bit easier to pull off for the schools located in states with growing demographics/large populations.
Michigan State’s been in the low 70s for most of the past decade as far as in-state population goes. Spiked to the high 70s post-Covid but likely to drift back down. And that’s just to maintain total enrollment around 50k.
I assume other universities like Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska, which are dependent on out-of-state enrollment; it’s hard to pull off.
Reality is California, Texas, Florida, New York/New Jersey, Illinois, Georgia, North Carolina are going to be key sources of students for many publics in states near those or that need the students to meet enrollment targets.
LikeLike
Alabama’s one of those that’s really focused on out-of-state student growth the past 2 decades, now only 40% of Alabama’s undergrads are in-state, down from 80% in the early 2000s.
Part Saban-effect I’d imagine, but also part out-of-state recruitment focus given Alabama’s much smaller population compared to Texas/Florida/Georgia.
LikeLike
z33k: “I assume other universities like Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska, which are dependent on out-of-state enrollment . . .”
Lat year, Purdue had the largest freshman class in the Big Ten, 10, 191. This year the Boilers have the second largest, 9,354 behind Michigan State’s 9,800. Both classes were about 50% larger than previous classes at Purdue and if it continues, Purdue will be the largest university in the Big Ten in 2-3 years.
The reason is low tuition. Purdue has had a tuition freeze for ten years and costs less than $10,000/year for in-state. That’s where the large freshmen classes are coming from.
LikeLike
Yeah, Alabama’s the most “all in” on substituting cheaper tuition in-state students with out-of-state students.
Alabama’s past couple of in-state undergrad classes have been smaller than Auburn’s, and this year should be around only 37% in-state.
That’s basically like a private school at that point.
LikeLike
Where I live (west suburbs of Chicago), Alabama has gone from never getting any students from this area in the early-2000s to being one of the most popular out-of-state options of them all. Essentially, if someone has the grades and test scores to get into the University of Illinois engineering or business programs, going to Alabama is effectively tuition-free. Alabama, above probably anyone else that I’ve seen, has been *very* aggressive in providing merit scholarships to out-of-state students and they’re automatic (e.g. an applicant knows right away how much money they’re getting based on the GPA/ACT/SAT).
LikeLike
Yes, Bama essentially looked around, said “hey, we have excess capacity and our per student costs are low because we essentially do no research (when I looked about a decade ago, Bama spent more on football than on all research at Tuscaloosa; it’s kind of pathetic) so let’s both get more money and increase our profile!”
Bama has doubled enrollment in the past 2 decades.
LikeLike
Richard – the last thing I would ever want to do is take up for Alabama on any topic, but the way the state’s higher education system is set up, Alabama-Huntsville and Alabama-Birmingham are the research institutions.
LikeLike
Alan, sure, I understand that (Auburn takes some of the research load too). That makes UAT essentially a giant liberal arts college (OK, they have an engineering school but evidently one that barely does any research), not the typical research uni that most think of when they think of a state flagship.
LikeLike
OSU is under $12,500 for the Columbus campus, and below $9,000 for the regional campuses. Out of state is over $36,000.
Our tuition was also frozen for years, but they just raised it a little. In-state students get a locked tuition rate for 4 years. Tuition has grown slower than inflation since 2013.
LikeLike
The total cost for in-state students is about $27,000 per year, but most get some sort of financial aid which reduces the total to about $17,000.
I believe the current state subsidy to OSU is about 20% of the academic budget. (The medical complex is another animal.)
Once upon a time, but in living memory (mine), the U Cal system had zero tuition.
Many state schools are close to being privately funded. This is only one of the great betrayals of the working and middle classes. Why we don’t have a strong socialist party is a mystery. The Democrats and Republicans are the parties of billionaires, not workers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rather timely, a letter to the editor of the Wall St Journal from Purdue President Mitch Daniels in yesterday’s edition:
In his letter (Sept. 12) responding to my op-ed (“Student Loans and the National Debt,” Sept. 2), Walter Kimbrough alleges that Purdue’s near-perfect record of graduates repaying their student loans is due not to their character but to their “wealth” and “privilege.” But if our students were really so rich, they wouldn’t have borrowed in the first place.
The biggest reason they honor their obligations is that they were more likely to study, rigorously, in a discipline valued in the marketplace. More than two-thirds of today’s Boilermakers graduate with a STEM-related degree, and many others are in fields like hospitality or supply-chain management. The average 2021 graduate started at a salary of $62,452.
Mr. Kimbrough castigates me for the growth in out-of-state students at Purdue, but that has occurred alongside an all-time record in the number of their Indiana classmates. Meanwhile, we have reduced sharply the percentage of international students on our campus. Purdue is responding to the urgent calls for more American engineers and technologists.
Even if it were valid, the criticism wouldn’t mean that Purdue should have raised its tuition steadily, as schools like those Mr. Kimbrough led do. Nor would it justify the unfair, fiscally indefensible and antidemocratic policy of federal debt “cancellation.”
Mitch Daniels
President, Purdue University
LikeLike
Maybe some of those claims of “privilege” (didn’t read the WSJ piece) are because while PU has grown by 8500 undergrads (+29%) since 2013, the number of black students hasn’t changed while there are 3300 more white students (+17%) and 3400 more Asian students (+335%).
For those who don’t know, Kimbrough is black and runs Dillard University, an HBCU. He might focus on the number of black undergraduates when talking about privilege.
The number of Hispanic/Latino and 2 or more race students are up significantly at PU as well, though, so some underserved minorities have grown.
As to “wealth,” how many PU students are on Pell Grants? According to USNWR, only 34% of PU undergrads receive any need-based financial aid. It’s 43% for OSU, for comparison. It’s 93% at Dillard. And despite Daniels’ claims, the PU grads may not have needed the money so much as their families took advantage of low interest rates over the past decade.
Another aspect of “privilege” is the high starting salary Daniels refers to. Those graduates can afford to pay off debt more easily. It’s $55,200 for starting salaries at OSU and $43,300 at Dillard. Dillard is giving lots of STEM degrees as well, just not engineering. Their top 10 majors (about 75% of all grads) are criminal justice, biology, psychology, business, communications, public health, social work, accounting, physics, and computer science. So a lot of their grads will end up in government jobs or in the medical field being underpaid. Just like OSU has great rankings for social work and education, but those jobs don’t pay nearly as well as engineering (average is over $73,500 for OSU engineering grads).
I’m not saying Kimbrough or Daniels is right or wrong.
LikeLike
Danials has started three Purdue Polytechnic High Schools in Indiana, two in Indianapolis and one in South Bend (Howdy Domers). The specific purpose of these high schools is to prepare inner city kids for the rigor of STEM studies at Purdue University. It’s been a successful venture.
LikeLike
Here’s a link for Purdue Polytechnic High Schools . . .
https://pphs.purdue.edu/
LikeLike
Eh, you can’t really compare fin aid percentages at privates and publics, however. At a lot of privates below the elite tier, the sticker price is arguably too high, and then they give aid (fin aid or “merit”) as a discounting strategy.
In any case, Daniels is definitely running a unique strategy at PU, which isn’t dumb. I’m including his acquisition of Kaplan (now renamed Purdue Global).
LikeLike
I agree financial aid % aren’t a great metric. 75% of Dillard students are on Pell Grants, vs 16% at PU.
Dillard only costs $19,354. That’s not bad for a private school, and barely more than UM in-state.
I’m just saying that Daniels claiming PU grads have better character and that’s why they pay their loans is baseless. PU is a better school, their grads earn more, and most of their students have more family wealth. That’s a lot of advantages for paying off loans that have nothing to do with character.
LikeLike
Brian: “I’m just saying that Daniels claiming PU grads have better character and that’s why they pay their loans is baseless.”
Well, that’s not what he said. You’re getting almost as bad a Michael for distorting the comments of others.
Purdue’s “Back a Boiler” student loan program is clearly biased for STEM and engineering. It is one-on-one for lender-borrower and few French Lit or Psyclology majors find a willing lendor. That isn’t woke but it works.
LikeLike
From his letter that you quoted:
In his letter (Sept. 12) responding to my op-ed (“Student Loans and the National Debt,” Sept. 2), Walter Kimbrough alleges that Purdue’s near-perfect record of graduates repaying their student loans is due not to their character but to their “wealth” and “privilege.” But if our students were really so rich, they wouldn’t have borrowed in the first place.
That’s Daniels saying it is due to their character.
LikeLike
Brian: “That’s Daniels saying it is due to their character.”
No, that is your distortion of his comment. Seems to be one of your nasty habits.
LikeLike
Walter Kimbrough alleges that Purdue’s near-perfect record of graduates repaying their student loans is due not to their character but to their “wealth” and “privilege.” But if our students were really so rich, they wouldn’t have borrowed in the first place.
It’s right there in black and white, straight from Daniels himself. He denies wealth and privilege have anything to do with it, leaving his “character” argument.
You can agree or disagree with his stance on debt forgiveness. There are some arguments for each side. But Daniels brought up character when he didn’t need to.
https://hiphopprez.medium.com/mitch-please-13e1d6aeab25
It was rich to read Mr. Daniels laud the character development of Purdue students that causes them to repay their student loans while their “less-responsible contemporaries” were bailed out by President Biden’s student-loan forgiveness. Purdue was able to freeze tuition by doing exactly what Mr. Daniels said it wasn’t doing: “We haven’t driven up our percentage of international or out-of-state students,” he told the Atlantic in 2020.
…
Purdue’s data suggests otherwise. Between 2012 and 2021, student enrollment increased: The university added 950 in-state students and 9,013 out-of-state students.
…
Around 35% of all college students receive Pell grants, but only 14% of incoming Purdue students do. A study by Opportunity Insights indicated that 54% of Purdue students come from the top economic quintile, and only 4% from the bottom. Among 377 selective public colleges, Purdue ranks 331st in percentage of students from families earning less than $20,000 a year.
…
Mr. Daniels has no standing to criticize students who take loans because they didn’t have the same privileges as the ones he recruited.
Walter M. Kimbrough, Ph.D.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Final thought. I know if is rare for a president (or former president) to call out one of their colleagues. Again, Mitch isn’t an academic. He’s a politician. His op-ed reflects that view.
LikeLike
Brian, below is Mitch Daniels’ verbatim letter to the editor of the Wall Strett Journal which you and Dillard University President Kimbaugh are bitching about. Before we get to the letter, be aware of the following student loan default rates:
Purdue – less than 1%
National average – 9.3%
Dillard University – 18.3%
https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/dillard-university/paying-for-college/student-loan-debt/
Student-Loan Forgiveness and the National Debt
Purdue students learn to be responsible while their peers get bailouts. There will be a reckoning.
By Mitch Daniels
Sept. 1, 2022 6:23 pm ET
The colorful Ohio Gov. Jim Rhodes once likened George Romney’s run for the presidency to “a duck trying to [make love to] a football.” I wish he had been around to put a label on the federal student-loan program. In the sad catalog of its failures, the federal government has set a new standard. President Biden’s debt-cancellation announcement represents the final confession of failure for a venture flawed in concept, botched in execution, and draped with duplicity.
The scheme’s flaws have been well chronicled. It’s regressive, rewarding the well-to-do at the expense of the less fortunate. It’s grossly unfair to those who repaid what they borrowed or never went to college. It’s grotesquely expensive, adding hundreds of billions to a federal debt that already threatens our safety-net programs and national security. Like so much of what government does, it’s iatrogenic, inflating college costs as schools continue to pocket the subsidies Uncle Sam showers on them. And it’s profanely contemptuous of the Constitution, which authorizes only Congress to spend money.
When the federal government took over the loan program in 2010, President Obama claimed it would turn a profit of $68 billion and that “we are finally undertaking meaningful reform in our higher education system.” Credit where due: a dead loss of hundreds of billions of dollars and tuition costs that continued to soar can fairly be described as “meaningful.”
There are, and long have been, better ways. Colleges should always have been at some risk for any non-repayments by graduates. One can view such defaults as a breach of warranty, as degrees could be thought to imply that their bearers were prepared to be productive citizens, with the market value and personal character to live up to their freely chosen obligations.
Even a modest percentage of shared liability for non-repayments would have significantly affected schools’ behavior. The financial exposure and potential embarrassment would have driven material changes in the rigor of teaching and the amounts they charged and encouraged students to borrow. Such a system would have amounted to a fair request that institutions stand behind their product.
Of course, much of this unpaid debt would never have been accrued if colleges hadn’t raised their prices at the highest rates of any category in the economy. Thanks to the subsidy gusher, that was easy to do. But it wasn’t right or necessary.
I have been asked countless times about Purdue’s record of holding tuition and fees flat since 2012 while lowering room, board and book costs. It is less expensive to attend our university, in nominal dollars and for all students, in-state or out, than it was a decade ago.
I’d like to claim that this was a triumph of managerial brilliance, but I can’t. We simply asked ourselves each year, “Can we solve the equation for zero?”—meaning what would it take to avoid a fee increase? Placing top priority on containing student costs has driven lower ratios of administrators to faculty, less gold-plating on new buildings, modernized and consumer-driven health plans, and other simple changes. Meanwhile, not coincidentally, enrollment and revenues have surged.
Ten years on, more than 60% of our students graduate debt-free. Debt per student has been cut in half, to just over $3,000. Had Purdue raised tuition at the national average, students’ families would have sent us more than $1 billion more than they have.
Along with marketable knowledge and skills, Purdue aspires to foster character in its students. Watching each year as more than 99% of our graduates honor their student-debt obligations, we take pride in them. But I’m uncertain what to say to them as they see their less-responsible contemporaries bailed out—with, adding insult to injury, a portion of the tab handed to them as taxpayers.
When, not if, our national debt forces a traumatic reckoning, asset sales will likely be part of the emergency plan to preserve safety-net payments and some vestige of discretionary government. Along with surplus federal land and structures, it will make sense to sell whatever remains of the student-loan portfolio. That will be a fitting end to a bankrupt lending system born of bankrupt policy choices.
Mr. Daniels is president of Purdue University. He served as governor of Indiana, 2005-13.
LikeLike
No, I’m complaining about his response to Kimbrough which you quoted. I never said a thing about his original op-ed, because (as I said) I hadn’t seen it.
LikeLike
Brian, here is Daniels original comment about character, in its entirety from the WSJ op-ed, verbatim:
“Along with marketable knowledge and skills, Purdue aspires to foster character in its students. Watching each year as more than 99% of our graduates honor their student-debt obligations, we take pride in them. Watching each year as more than 99% of our graduates honor their student-debt obligations, we take pride in them. But I’m uncertain what to say to them as they see their less-responsible contemporaries bailed out—with, adding insult to injury, a portion of the tab handed to them as taxpayers.”
This Kimbrough goon, whose students have an 18.3% default rate, then took that comment and morphed it into the following distortion. Again, this is verbatim:
“It was rich to read Mr. Daniels laud the character development of Purdue students that causes them to repay their student loans while their “less-responsible contemporaries” were bailed out by President Biden’s student-loan forgiveness.”
Brian, you then follow this up with the following verbatim lies: “It’s right there in black and white, straight from Daniels himself. He denies wealth and privilege have anything to do with it, leaving his “character” argument.”
Clearly, none of your gibberish is in black and white. Daniels never mentions wealth or privilege and his comment about character isn’t an argument at all. It speaks for itself. You are distorting Daniels comments and endorsing a shameful liar who is doing the same.
LikeLike
Racist trolls gonna troll.
And call a black college president a goon for daring to disagree with PU’s president.
LikeLike
Brian: “Racist trolls gonna troll. And call a black college president a goon for daring to disagree with PU’s president.”
Ah, the race card. Brian, you are a documented, demonstrated liar. You abandoned our debate after I exposed your absurd lies.
And a black college president with an 18.3% student default rate – paid by us taxpayers – making an ad hominem attack on a white college president with far better results is a racist, bigoted goon.
LikeLike
z33k,
I think his primary issue was with schools choosing OOS students over in-state students just for the revenue, not the actual number of OOS students. He’s saying a lot of that student debt would be erased by more of those students staying in-state for school. If the schools don’t have room, that’s a different issue.
His point is that if a state is exporting a lot of students, they shouldn’t also have a lot of OOS students at their flagships. Keep more of those students in-state.
I think the parallel would be that students who chose a more expensive college path (not those who had it forced upon them) are responsible for the debt, too. It’s not just evil schools preying on innocent victims.
LikeLike
I don’t know about the midwest, but if more students could get into Texas or Texas A&M or Georgia or Georgia Tech, there wouldn’t be so many going out of state. They are choosing flagships over schools like Houston, UT Arlington, Georgia Southern or Georgia State, some of which are comparable or harder to get into than neighboring flagships.
LikeLike
Different demographics, Bullet. TX/GA/FL have growing populations and tax bases. Those states should be spending more to help their in-state students get educated (and should be getting more tax revenue to do so). Midwestern states have level or shrinking numbers of HS grads and tax bases that aren’t growing above the national level. In such an environment, I don’t have a problem with Daniels’s strategy, which does keep the in-state undergrad numbers roughly level while increasing (higher-paying) OOS numbers. Yet for many OOS, students, PU may actually present the best prestige/cost deal for them.
LikeLike
https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/34603436/texas-ran-280000-tab-recruiting-visit-arch-manning-8-others
UT spent $280k on a recruiting visit for 9 recruits (over $31k per athlete for a weekend). Isn’t this (not just UT, the whole recruiting business) getting a little extreme?
According to public records obtained by The Athletic, the Longhorns spent nearly $630,000 on two recruiting weekends in June, including the June 17-19 official visit by Manning and eight other recruits that featured five-star accommodations and virtually all-you-can-eat fare for them and their families.
The Manning visit — in which almost $280,000 was spent on the nine recruits, according to The Athletic — has resulted in four commitments so far. Manning, nephew of Super Bowl winners Eli and Peyton Manning, announced he would play for the Longhorns on June 23, four days after his recruiting trip. His high school teammate, three-star tight end Will Randle, committed at the end of the visit on June 19.
Among the highlights of the visit, according to The Athletic: a full spread in their rooms at the Four Seasons Austin, a photo shoot at DKR Texas Memorial Stadium, a trip to driving range Top Golf, multiple lavish meals and a breakfast at the home of coach Steve Sarkisian.
The extravagance appears to be standard at Texas, which spent nearly $350,000 the weekend of June 24 on 14 recruits; 12 players from that group have committed to the Longhorns.
LikeLike
Of course, UT has virtually unlimited funds to spend on sports.
This is not like schools with multi billion endowments that will be kept away from sports.
Is this where most of the SEC and the B1G will be in five or ten years?
LikeLike
They have to spend it on something. It might as well be hookers and blow (I mean 5-star hotels and Top Golf).
I just wonder how effective it was for a kid like Arch Manning. I’m pretty sure he already knows what fancy hotels and restaurants are like.
LikeLike
UT most definitely does not have unlimited funds. Endowments have all sorts of restrictions placed on them regarding spending. Generally the funds can only be used for a narrowly defined purchase, scholarships, endowed chairs, buildings… Even the oil money UT gets is highly restricted, e.g., no salaries.
UT’s athletic budget comes from the same sources as everyone else: TV, ticket sales, paraphernalia, donors. It just happens that UT gets more from these sources than anyone else.
No rational university president spends any endowment money on athletics, unless the donor specified that purpose.
They don’t spend research overhead charges on athletics, either.
Decades of discussion of economics on this site, and still people don’t understand college budgets.
LikeLike
Note that the article shows Texas spent 1/3 of what UGA did in 2019. Texas seems to be aiming to catch up.
LikeLike
And Alabama probably spent as much as GA. The point of the article is how much was spent on two groups of recruits.
LikeLike
The point is bigger than that.
College presidents need to get a handle on this form of the arms race and figure out how to apply some common sense rules (ie not the specific NCAA type rules where you could give them a pencil, but not an eraser—-not a specific NCAA rule, but they were that absurd at one point).
LikeLike
Do you seriously think that was the point of the story on crazy spending on recruiting? Do you think that the president of UT, or Georgia, or Alabama will now read this and be motivated to limit the spending?
How about the SEC in general? Will there be a rule to limit spending on recruiting? If they do not do that, do we expect Kevin Warren to tell Ohio State, Michigan, etc., that they cannot compete with crazy spending in other places?
That is your reading of the story. Good luck with that.
LikeLike
They have eliminated some of the silly rules (like the bagel rule), but the fundamental problem is that there is no good way to regulate something where people are so incentivized to cheat. There will always be loopholes and pointless enforcement, and the best will get away with it (see the US tax code).
LikeLike
Its a pretty narrow reading of the article to think it was about one weekend.
I guarantee you Ohio St. has really expensive recruiting trips as well.
It was about how extravagant this recruiting has gotten and informing people.
LikeLike
Bullet: Brian gets to the heart of the issue:
“there is no good way to regulate something where people are so incentivized to cheat”.
In any case, Bullet, I believe you’re pretty well off. Why does it bother you so much that HS kids and their families also get to enjoy some extravagance? Honestly, I’m more bothered by your attitude than I am by the article. Really reeks of entitlement. Like, “of course me and my peers should enjoy that, but why should those peons”?
And if you want to stop that, then the system should just move towards paying players. You can’t say you support capitalism but then say that there should be artificial limits on wages because you don’t like workers earning their market value.
LikeLike
Richard, I find your attitude ridiculous. Wall St. firms probably don’t spend that much recruiting college grads on one trip. If you support paying players, you should find it offensive as well. Its another way to recruit people, like gold plating locker rooms, that “pays” them without really paying them. While I’m sure its effective, its a silly way to compete.
LikeLike
Bullet, don’t get me wrong: I think it’s ridiculous too! But that’s why it should just move to a pure market-driven system, which means paying players. If it’s handled by the market, it’s probable that such stupid excess goes away, but because regulation prevents a pure free market system from functioning, you see gold-plating like this. In any case, I see more regulation working out as well as rent controls.
LikeLike
bullet,
Well, poor UGA has to drive all the way to Atlanta to scout and recruit players. That’s expensive.
LikeLike
Well Kirby probably takes a helicopter to recruit those South Georgia kids!
LikeLike
My freshman year at LSU, I paid more for books than tuition. The state of Louisiana used to pay for 75% of the cost of education. Now its about 20%.
Real life example of schools favoring out of state applicants. My daughter ( a Louisiana resident) was accepted to Georgia about a week after applying. Two years later, my Georgia resident niece – with an identical GPA and a slightly higher ACT score – didn’t even make the wait listed. Due to Georgia’s admission policies, LSU gained a great out of state student.
The UTx and A&M entrance requirements have sent many great Texas HS students out of state. These upper middle class Texas kids don’t want to go the TX Tech or the regional schools, and going to out of state to OU, LSU, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Alabama is still way cheaper than TCU or SMU.
LikeLike
Pac 12-2 Amazon rumors.
https://awfulannouncing.com/amazon/pac-12-reportedly-taking-rights-deal-with-amazon-under-consideration.html
LikeLike
https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-will-pac-12-football-be-delivered
David Carter, a USC sports-business professor, told me on Thursday that he thinks it’s going to take more time for the bulk of sports fans to migrate toward streaming. But he doesn’t blame the various leagues for kicking the tires.
“It works for a lot of folks now and it will be common-place maybe 10 years from now,” he said. “To go too quickly toward streaming you’re going to leave a lot of money on the table and if you move too slowly you’re also going to leave a lot of money on the table.”
…
Bob Thompson, the former Fox Sports Networks president, told me he felt like it was too soon for the Pac-12 to go all-in with a streaming service.
He pointed out that Amazon Prime is only available in 42 percent of internet households in the country. Amazon Prime Video accounts for only about 3.5 percent of all video minutes consumed across all platforms. Netflix, by comparison, is around 7.5 percent. Meanwhile, traditional broadcast television and pay-TV account for 60-65 percent of video minutes consumed.
LikeLike
Contraction, anyone?
LikeLike
Yes please. D-I should be much smaller, with I-A also shrinking a lot.
LikeLike
OK, so you think that D-1 should be smaller, but it is getting bigger. How can it be made smaller unless a conference crashes and there are leftovers? Perhaps in five or six years, but not now.
At the moment, it seems unlikely that there were will be a collapse, unless the B1G raids the PAC again, which I have never viewed as likely now.
Instead, the P5 is adding schools. Four new schools to the Big 12 and probably at least one more to the PAC. If the PAC survives, they need all schools to hang in, since there are no replacements. They can’t cut anyone.
Neither the SEC or B1G seem likely to eliminate existing members. Neither is the Big 12, which is looking to grow.
If Tobacco Road stays all in on the ACC, there will be no contraction then, even if two or three schools leave. The ACC will not kick out Wake, which is probably most vulnerable, nor Syracuse or BC, which are sort of hanging in there.
Obviously if the conferences started over, it would be different. Does the SEC really need two teams in Mississippi?
If Amazon or Apple decide to heavily move into streaming, there will be a market for as many P5 teams as exist.
LikeLike
Simple:
1. Raise the requirements (# of sports, # of scholarships) for being I-A and D-I
2. Increase the maximum scholarships available (for the non-revenue sports that currently often get partial scholarships) and coaching spots in all sports.
3. Change the tournament funding model so D-I conferences can’t exist just to steal a NCAA tourney check every year.
A change in the financial model will allow the echelons to separate.
LikeLike
That would squeeze out some of the smaller programs, but have no effect at all on major schools. No P5 school would care and probably only a few G5 schools would be impacted.
The first two points would eliminate some of the 350 schools eligible for March Madness and might even crush a league or two, thereby opening at large spots.
Eliminating the “stolen” NCAA tourney checks could be done in other ways too. Perhaps no team is allowed to get a bid unless they are ranked in the top 80, or something like that.
None of it would have any impact on major schools spending millions on recruiting. And that does not even consider NIL money by the millions.
LikeLike
That’s the contraction that needs to happen. Get D-I down to about 250-300 schools, and I-A should be more like 110-120.
The P5 could use a little contraction, but it won’t happen unless some of the M3 implode. The G5 should contract rather than keep bringing up more schools, but the financial incentives are too strong right now. That’s why the financial model needs to change.
I never hinted it would have any impact on the power schools.
LikeLike
Honestly, I don’t understand the pro-contraction people. What problem exists that needs to be solved by contraction?
LikeLike
Some problems:
* Insufficient revenue from the tournament shared with the schools who earn it, because leeches are taking too much of it.
* Schools spending themselves into endless athletic debt chasing success they can’t achieve.
* The first four games stigmatize teams as not really belonging in the tournament.
* I-A conferences are getting too large – becoming leagues instead.
* CFB is dangerous for teams that don’t belong on the same field as their opponents over and over each season.
LikeLike
CFB is dangerous, period.
I actually haven’t been any evidence to support it being more dangerous for lower-level schools.
LikeLike
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/19357397.2020.1768035?cookieSet=1
Players suffer more injuries because they lack the depth of the I-A schools, and are playing in the heat of the early season (generally). Fatigued players going against bigger and/or faster players get hurt more. And multiple games against I-A schools made everything worse, especially when played back-to-back.
They did not consider the long-term impacts of any head injuries they noted.
Click to access JIIA_2010_3_11_194_210_pay_for_slay.pdf
The Threat of Injuries
Because of the physical differences among the players, several FCS athletic directors acknowledged having significant fear of their players getting hurt while playing FBS teams. FCS4 said the thought crossed his mind everyday after he agreed to play the games until after the games were over. He said he felt fortunate that none of his players were significantly hurt while playing the games and that he would have had to “go into hiding” if they had been. FCS1, FCS2 and FCS5 also felt the threat of injury to their players was significant. None, however, reported season-ending injuries as a result of the games.
…
There isn’t enough data to know if severe injuries increase, as those are relative rare in any game, but fatigue is a known risk factor for injuries as the body can’t protect itself as well as usual.
LikeLike
Quite the day for the Magnolia League.
Tulane beat KSU
Rice won
Duke won
Vanderbilt won
SMU spoiled the party by losing to UMD, but WF won.
Alan has to be happy, since LSU also won – party time in New Orleans (isn’t it always?).
LikeLike
Brian – thanks. I’ll let you know. I’ll be on my way to watch the Saints play Tom Brady and the Bucs shortly.
LikeLike
NBC playing hardball with ND? Hmmm.
LikeLike
NBC playing hardball with ND?
Is there a link to that?
LikeLike
Rumor from an ND site:
https://ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=football;pid=459605;d=this
Always have to take these things with a huge grain of salt.
And the premise is off: ND even at $60-70 million per year is still only 1/5th the price of the Big Ten’s B package.
Half as many games for 1/5 the price.
Not necessarily a bargain due to a bunch of those ND games including lower quality opponents but still, it’s not an expensive outlay for NBC.
ND package is good value even at $60-70 million as long as they’re regularly ranked and challenging for a playoff bid every couple of years.
If they go through a big decade long slump all bets are off; or if it gets really tough to get good opponents if FSU/Clemson/Miami leave their ACC package, maybe then things might change.
But for at least the next 14 years, hard to see anything changing with ND.
LikeLike
I still don’t understand where you get that NBC is playing hardball with ND.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s a “Dude of WV” level of rumor, not that it couldn’t be true on some level. I certainly think Peacock is struggling: I regularly receive promotions where they are practically giving it away.
The replies are pretty funny, such as the one saying that the announcers have all been terrible since Enberg and Walsh. I mean…who do they think they could get?
Not necessarily a bargain due to a bunch of those ND games including lower quality opponents…If they go through a big decade long slump all bets are off.
I wonder how many viewers those lower-tier games get? ND still attracts a lot of interest even when they and/or the opponents are terrible. Similarly, Michigan remained a solid ratings draw through the seven-year drought of Rich Rodriguez and Brady Hoke.
…or if it gets really tough to get good opponents if FSU/Clemson/Miami leave their ACC package
If that happens, but the Tobacco Road schools stay together, I am predicting ND offers to remain a member, but without the commitment of five football games. Perhaps they cut the commitment to two or three games. The ACC would surely take that deal, because they would have no leverage to refuse.
ND would be able to replace those games elsewhere, because everyone knows the alternative is to send the Irish into the arms of the Big Ten, which no one (except the Big Ten) wants.
LikeLike
IMO, NBC isn’t really playing hardball with ND, but they may not feel it’s worthwhile to overpay for 7 ND games, of which really maybe only 2 are blockbuster matchups. Is NBC paying $50mm or 60mm? ND games on NBC now average a little over 2mm viewers a game. NBC may be discounting that because they are taking single-team risk (of ND being bad for a while). So say they assume they are paying for 2mm viewers on average. That’s 50/14 or 60/14 or $3.5-4ish per viewer. That’s about what ESPN paid for the top SEC game of the week ($300mm for 15 games of about 5mm or so viewers each game).
Arguably, CBS and NBC are (over)paying for the B10 or they feel they can get extra viewers with their dedicated time slots and the addition of SoCal/USC. Fox is paying $500mm for their portion. Say 80% of that is football and the B10 CCG is worth 50mm each. Fox has about half those so $375mm for 15 first/second B10 picks and some leftover games. If $75mm for the leftover games, $300mm is comparable to what ESPN paid for the SEC first pick. Fox Big Noon (which had a lot of B10 games) drew 5-6mm viewers on average.
NBC and CBS are paying $350mm each. If 80% for football and $20mm or so for the CCG+Peacock, that’s $260mm for 15 1st-3rd (but a lot of 3rd) B10 picks. At $4/viewer, they’re trying to get a 4.3mm viewers average. That might be a bit aggressive. In 2021, 1st and 2nd B10 picks definitely drew that much on avaerage but not the 3rd pick, so they must be betting on SoCal/USC really boosting the value of those B10 3rd pick games. Or they are fine with paying the B10 $5-6/viewer.
Oh wait, in my analysis, I forgot about the SEC CCG. Arguably, ESPN getting a steal in that they seem to be getting the SEC CCG for free.
LikeLike
I forgot about the SEC CCG. Arguably, ESPN getting a steal in that they seem to be getting the SEC CCG for free.
ESPN’s SEC deal is already outdated. They would be paying more if the deal were done today.
Also, the Big Ten’s 3-partner deal is almost certainly greater than any one partner would have paid. I suspect that the next time the SEC comes up, Disney won’t get all of it.
LikeLike
Note, I’m also making an assumption on the B10 draft order. Namely, that Fox doesn’t have worse picks on the first 2 picks than last time (so first overall pick, and half the first and second picks, leaving NBC and CBS with a quarter of the first and second picks and half the third picks each).
I wonder if the B10 “protected” the home games of the LA schools for NBC and CBS, thus sweetening the deal for them to get them to pay up.
That also means no 9AM home game start on the West Coast.
LikeLike
Assuming any truth to the rumor, all in must include the $10 million plus that ND gets from the ACC. It could also include an estimate of future playoff money.
Personally I do not give those rumors much credence. I am still waiting for the highly sourced and reliable Brett McMurtry B1G western expansion to finish any day now.
LikeLike
I wonder if the B10 “protected” the home games of the LA schools for NBC and CBS, thus sweetening the deal for them to get them to pay up.
Not sure I am following you here. I assume that those two schools’ home games — when they are in the top three — will always be on NBC or CBS, since Fox has the noon window.
But when those schools’ games are not in the top three, then they could be on any network. If I understand the deal, the non-T3 games will be split among Peacock, FS1, and BTN.
That also means no 9AM home game start on the West Coast.
They have been silent on late starts, but I would think a 9pm kickoff is precluded only when their games are on NBC. The Peacock, FS1, and BTN games could start later.
LikeLike
Marc, I meant that if the LA home games can’t go on Fox at noon (Eastern, 9AM Pacific), they can only go on CBS and NBC (if they are a top 3 pick). That’s what I’m curious about: whether the B10 reserved the LA home games for CBS and Fox to get them to pay up.
LikeLike
That’s what I’m curious about: whether the B10 reserved the LA home games for CBS and Fox to get them to pay up.
Fox was announced as having the noon window exclusively, which I would say precludes a west coast home game from ever appearing there. By default, the USC/UCLA home games (when in the top three) must be on NBC or CBS.
LikeLike
Fox was announced as having the noon window exclusively, which I would say precludes a west coast home game from ever appearing there. By default, the USC/UCLA home games (when in the top three) must be on NBC or CBS.
FOX has already had 9AM Pacific USC home game so it wouldn’t surprise me to see it again. Fox could also swap windows with CBS/NBC to accommodate other sports (MLB, NASCAR) similar to how CBS and ESPN do.
LikeLike
Was the 9AM West Coast home game during 2020 when there were no crowds?
Anyway, that’s why I’m curious to see if the B10 reserved the LA home games for CBS and NBC to get them to pay up.
LikeLike
Anyway, that’s why I’m curious to see if the B10 reserved the LA home games for CBS and NBC to get them to pay up.
It simply has to be. Time zone math.
LikeLike
Was the 9AM West Coast home game during 2020 when there were no crowds?
Anyway, that’s why I’m curious to see if the B10 reserved the LA home games for CBS and NBC to get them to pay up.
It was. Reporting at the time was the PAC had been considering adding 9AM PT games for a while.
IIRC Bob Thompson said FOX would never allow USC/UCLA to be CBS/NBC OTA only. I can’t find that tweet though.
LikeLike
CBS/NBC would welcome FOX blocking them from broadcasting USC/UCLA OTA since that means FOX would have passed on OSU-Michigan. We all know that will never happen so that information is false. The only way FOX gets the game is it falls to the 4th pick or lower, and in that case it is unlikely to pull high ratings.
LikeLike
To be sure, Notre Dame at USC is going to be a rivalry week game every other year under the Big Ten package, so that’s always going to be a strong pick for either NBC or CBS even with Michigan – Ohio State off the table.
LikeLike
Marc,
“I wonder how many viewers those lower-tier games get? ND still attracts a lot of interest even when they and/or the opponents are terrible.”
2019 ND viewers for minor games:
Stanford – 3.21M
BC – 1.66M
Navy – 1.56M
VT – 2.95M
MI – 6.75M
USC – 3.16M
BGSU – 1.28M
UVA – 2.82M
UGA – 9.29M
UNM – 1.50M
UL – 5.60M
Their 12th game was vs Duke on the ACCN.
Their bottom 4 games averaged 1.50M.
The middle 4: 3.04M
The top 3: 7.21M
LikeLike
Brian, so roughly 25mm viewers for a home slate like that, but their most viewers were for the 2 HaH games in their “non-conf” schedule (outside the 5 ACC games + Navy + USC & Stanford). And the Domers in 2019 were pretty good. If NBC is expecting 15mm-20mm viewers/7 ND home games, $60mm/year would seem reasonable.
Mike: Eh, the USC-UCLA game hasn’t gotten ratings comparable to the top 2 B10 games each week recently. Then again, both USC and UCLA have not been great in recent years.
Even in 2017, when USC was pretty good, USC-UCLA got good (4.0mm viewers) but not great viewership. And everything has a price. If Fox is paying $500mm/year (towards the end of the B10 contract), which works out to close to what ESPN paid for the SEC top choice football game each week (difference seems to be only the SEC CCG), that’s still a decent deal for Fox. They essentially get mostly what they had before (fewer CCGs and worse games outside the top 2 being the difference) at a reasonable price increase.
NBC and CBS are the ones who seem to be paying up for what they are getting, which is why I’m wondering if the B10 promised those 2 the home games for the LA schools (maybe some of the “color out” games too; though that would mean a worse selection for Fox).
LikeLike
You know, Mike, as I mentioned, the viewership for USC-UCLA has been pretty weak in recent years, so it wouldn’t surprise me if some years, the USC-UCLA game falls out of the top 3 picks of that week. Fox could get USC-UCLA that way (as an After Dark game). So NBC and CBS may get dibs on LA home games but may also choose to pass them up.
I’m very curious as to how the drafting of picks will work.
LikeLike
Little8:
USC-UCLA is rarely (never?) on the last week of the season in recent years because USC ends the season with ND half the time.
I suppose the B10/networks/ND/USC could move USC/ND up a week and have USC/UCLA end the season, but I’d bet NBC and CBS would rather still keep ND@USC on the last week because it would allow for ND/PSU/MSU@USC on Saturday and PSU/MSU/RU/UMD@UCLA Black Friday (or, if you want to make it more sexy, PSU/MSU/Wisconsin/UNL@UCLA Black Friday, meaning Iowa and UMTC end the season with the Pig game some years). And Fox wouldn’t be able to get those games.
LikeLike
Richard,
“USC-UCLA is rarely (never?) on the last week of the season in recent years because USC ends the season with ND half the time.”
The other half (2019, 2017, 2015, 2013, 2011, …) they’ve ended at UCLA.
Of course, we don’t know what will happen once they join the B10. There will be pressure to move ND@USC up a week and keep the USC/UCLA rivalry for the final week every year, so everyone ends with a conference game.
LikeLike
Brian, yes, but if USC-UCLA isn’t the last game of the year, both LA teams can host at night, which eliminates 1 week of cold northern night games. Possibly 2 if USC-UCLA is the only night game on the penultimate week
I suppose when USC is hosting ND, RU/UMD could host UConn/UMass. Give those schools something akin to the ND experience traveling somewhere warmer to end the year. 🙂
LikeLike
You know, Mike, as I mentioned, the viewership for USC-UCLA has been pretty weak in recent years, so it wouldn’t surprise me if some years, the USC-UCLA game falls out of the top 3 picks of that week. Fox could get USC-UCLA that way (as an After Dark game).
I think the Big Ten will manipulate the schedule so that USC–UCLA is a top three game in whatever week it is played. It would be acutely embarrassing if that game were shuttled off to BTN or a late-night kickoff.
LikeLike
Marc: Eh. Iowa-UNL has gone on BTN. People lived.
I guess one argument against putting USC-UCLA on BTN is that it gives you a late November night game that isn’t in the cold.
LikeLike
Iowa-UNL has gone on BTN. People lived.
Yes, you live after an embarrassment. You would just rather not do it. USC–UCLA has almost always been on broadcast TV. So you are Kevin Warren and add two shiny bright new toys, and then put their major rivalry on a tier 3 network? I don’t think so. Maybe after they have been around a while, but not right away.
LikeLike
Marc – regarding the SEC contract being outdated, you are comparing a contract with a 14 team SEC with an eight game conference schedule to a 16 team B1G with a nine game conference schedule.
Add about $43m each for UTx & OU as a pro-rata for the new ABC tier 1 deal and the ESPN tier 2 deal, along with their payments for the SECN and increased carriage in Oklahoma and increased fees in the state of Texas.
You’ll also have to add a likely nine game conference schedule increasing the quality of games, and and at least two more premier OOC match ups.
The SEC contracts is still a work in progress. I do expect it to be less than the B1G’s but the gap should close.
LikeLike
BTW, I know it won’t happen, but it actually would be pretty cool if every night game on NBC was a Out game. 1 hosted by each school.
LikeLike
*Was a Color Out (White/Black/Maize/etc. Out) game.
LikeLike
Those work much better for some schools than others. PSU does it well, but OSU doesn’t. Our fans tend to wear whatever they feel like (scarlet works okay if it’s T-shirt weather).
Let each school have their own thing. PSU has white outs. WI has jump around. OSU has Script Ohio.
If the B10 wanted 1 universal thing, one year I’d like to see rivals both wearing the home colors like USC vs UCLA. That works for USC/UCLA, OSU/MI, MI/MSU, NE/IA, WI/MN, IA/MN, IA/WI, NW/IL, and IN/PU. PSU, UMD and RU don’t really have B10 rivals, but PSU/UMD and PSU/RU could work.
Long term I would leave that as USC vs UCLA’s thing.
LikeLike
Brian, that would be pretty cool too, though it may not work for Iowa/UMTC if they both wear gold pants with a dark top.
LikeLike
Though I suppose they could go all color rush: All yellow vs. All Maroon or All black vs. All gold.
LikeLike
If the PSU White Out game will be at night (as I expect PSU to want), would it always be an early season game? It seems to me like the networks don’t want to commit to choosing games (and thus setting a time) after the first few weeks before the season begins. So PSU, the B10, and networks would have to work to schedule an important game, likely early in the season, to be at night to be the White Out game (PSU may have to move some non-conf games around too but that’s pretty easy).
LikeLike
It’s a virtual guarantee that Penn State – Ohio State is going to be a protected rivalry. At least when that’s played in Happy Valley, that could be earmarked for a White Out game.
LikeLike
Frank, right.
UMich-OSU, UMich-MSU, and OSU-PSU are the 3 most valuable B10 games. Fox will take UMich-OSU every year. Does that mean CBS and NBC alternate UMich-MSU and OSU-PSU? But that would mean one side of both those rivalries would always have the game at night while the other is always in the afternoon. That may strike some fans as unfair. I suppose they could work something out like 2 on, 2 off. Anyway, if OSU wants the White Out game at night all the time:
1. Likely, OSU won’t automatically be the White Out game every year they visit Happy Valley.
2. It’d probably be staged early in the season (and the networks seem to prize flex scheduling).
LikeLike
PSU often, but not always, chooses the OSU game for a white out. This year they chose the MN game (10/22). OSU (10/29) will be their stripe out game instead.
PSU had been alternating between OSU and MI for the whiteout for almost a decade. The thought is that MN will be at night while Fox will want the OSU game at noon, and they prefer a night game for white outs.
LikeLike
The logical rivalry should be Rutgers and Maryland. I do not think that PSU view either as rivals in football. I do not know which team PSU views as a natural football rival.
In women’s soccer on the other hand, this weekend number 3 ranked RU (9-0-0) plays number 13 ranked PSU (5-1-2). They are the two top ranked B1G teams. UCLA (8-0-0) is ranked number 1
LikeLike
Bernie,
Yes, I was just talking for games where both teams can wear their home uniforms. Depending on UMD’s fashion choices, they might be too similar to RU to be allowed to both wear home uniforms. That’s why I was throwing their games against PSU out there as alternatives (red vs blue).
PSU views OSU as their B10 rival (as close as they have to one, anyway), but they know it’s not reciprocated.
LikeLike
BTW, when talking about B10 games, OSU-MSU isn’t a rivalry and the PSU-MSU game (for the bowling league trophy) is a fake rivalry but they also draw strong ratings, so it will be interesting see what the B10 does there. 3-6-6 makes a ton of sense, as does matching up OSU & UMich with USC, but will PSU keep both UMD and RU as annual games? Or only 1 of them, making MSU-PSU also an annual game (along with OSU-PSU)?
LikeLike
At the very least, I’d think PSU vs UMD/RU need to play 3 out of 4 years. I’d lock them with both.
OSU/MSU and PSU/MSU will still play twice in 4 years, so I see no need to lock them. You can get equivalent big games with other brands.
LikeLike
Agreed – I think PSU’s annual games (assuming 3 per school) are probably the easiest out of everyone to lock in: they really can’t be anyone other than OSU, Maryland and Rutgers.
LikeLike
If there is a pod of 3, then I also agree that PSU, UMd and RU are a pretty simple and obvious pod to use.
If there is some attempt to have a long term two team “rivalry” playing for the annual “Atlantic Cup” or something, then it is UMd and RU.
LikeLike
Frank, yeah, I had UMD and RU locked with PSU pretty much all the time in all scenarios but to now. But the issue of fairness does come up. If OSU has PSU, UMich, and USC and UMich has OSU, MSU, and USC, PSU locking UMD and RU and MSU locking IU and NU may seem unfair.
If PSU-MSU-UMich-OSU lock, that’s a ring that plays 2 of the other 3.
LikeLike
Richard: “If OSU has PSU, UMich, and USC and UMich has OSU, MSU, and USC . . .”
That isn’t going to happen. It’s popular internet gossip but the Big Ten isn’t going to do that. Both USC and UCLA will get locks with schools now in the Western Division.
LikeLike
USC and UCLA will get locks with schools now in the Western Division.
Is that before or after Kevin Warren’s lobotomy?
LikeLike
Marc: “USC and UCLA will get locks with schools now in the Western Division. Is that before or after Kevin Warren’s lobotomy?”
Here’s what is really crazy: OSU with locks of PSU, UMich, USC and UMich with locks of OSU, MSU, and USC. Do you think all of the Wisconsins, Nebraskas and Iowas will say “Duh, OK.”
LikeLike
Colin, Iowa and Minnesota have 3 neighboring rivals that they’d want to play. Of the western schools, probably only UNL would prefer to sacrifice annual games vs that NW quartet for more CA exposure. But anyway, I have UNL & UW locked against UCLA.
LikeLike
Here’s what is really crazy: OSU with locks of PSU, UMich, USC and UMich with locks of OSU, MSU, and USC. Do you think all of the Wisconsins, Nebraskas and Iowas will say “Duh, OK.”
Actually, the west teams know perfectly well that their huge media payouts depend disproportionately on the kings. While I do not have a position on what the scheduling format will be, I think the western teams know that they cannot always get what they want, if they want to keep collecting those fat payouts for generations to come.
LikeLike
I think it’s a safe to assume that Ohio State-Penn State will be kept annually for now.
More interesting to me is whether that game would not be protected down the road if FSU and/or Miami join.
Either Florida school actually makes more long-term sense as an annual game with Penn State than Ohio State.
I’d go with Miami/Maryland/Rutgers for example as Penn State’s 3 locked games if Miami/Washington is the next expansion pair to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
If the 2 more schools get added, most likely, the number of locked games would change. You either have 5 locked games and play the other 12 1/3rd of the time each, or you have 1 locked game and play the other 16 half the time (which won’t happen) or something else that’s funky (parity-based scheduling?)
But in no scenario do I see OSU-PSU stop being a locked game, actually. It makes too much sense and gets too good ratings.
LikeLike
But in no scenario do I see OSU-PSU stop being a locked game, actually. It makes too much sense and gets too good ratings.
I believe OSU–PSU is consistently the Big Ten’s second most valuable game, behind only OSU–Michigan. Why give that up as an annual contest?
Either Florida school actually makes more long-term sense as an annual game with Penn State than Ohio State.
I am not sure why. PSU and Miami have not played very frequently: just 12 all-time regular-season games. Strangely enough, Miami’s most played Big Ten opponent is Maryland. I would not have guessed that.
PSU has never played Florida State in the regular season, and only three times in the bowl season. Nebraska is the Seminoles’ most played Big Ten opponent, but only 8 games, of which four were in the regular season.
Short story: the Florida schools do not have anything you could call a “rivalry” with any Big Ten team.
LikeLike
New post relating to our protected rivals discussion:
LikeLike
Seeing college football expand their playoffs to 12 teams is what the fans asked for, and I’m all for it. This gives the smaller, not as popular schools a chance to compete at a high level with the power houses like Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio state. This now brings upsets and underdog stories to the CFP. I can’t wait until the first 12 team playoffs.
LikeLike