SEC/Big10 Pushing for 16 Team Playoff

[cykadelic2]

I don't know how many times we have to go over this...

The SEC and Big Ten have ZERO desire to pool media rights and you can't force them to come to a negotiating table they don't want to be at. When the parties with all the power have no desire to make a deal, a deal isn't going to happen.

They will eventually be forced to so by the Feds if required. Leaving billions of dollars on the table by not doing so and eliminating hundreds of athletic scholarship opportunities will facilitate the required Fed intervention, especially when the B10 and SEC will make MORE money in doing so with media rights pooling.

And quit foolishly claiming the SEC and B10 have no desire to do so. It's the desire of ESPN and Fox to not do so.

 

[hoosman]

Why did B12 and ACC agree to the latest change? Taking away the playoff byes from the conference champions.

 

[goody2012]

G5 playoff, winner goes to the FBS playoff. Problem solved.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

They will eventually be forced to so by the Feds if required. Leaving billions of dollars on the table by not doing so and eliminating hundreds of athletic scholarship opportunities will facilitate the required Fed intervention, especially when the B10 and SEC will make MORE money in doing so with media rights pooling.

And quit foolishly claiming the SEC and B10 have no desire to do so. It's the desire of ESPN and Fox to not do so.

You’re so far off base I don’t even know where to start.

I’ll start by pushing back that pooling media rights would double the revenue from the existing media rights of the P4/G5. Right now CFB in totality earns about $4.3 billion in media rights annually. Double that to $8.6.

For comparison, the NFL earns $9.3 billion annually in media rights. The average NFL game garners 17 million viewers. The average CFB game does 1.9 million. And yet you’re telling me networks will be willing to pay 93% of what they pay the NFL. No way.

 

[cykadelic2]

You’re so far off base I don’t even know where to start.

I’ll start by pushing back that pooling media rights would double the revenue from the existing media rights of the P4/G5. Right now CFB in totality earns about $4.3 billion in media rights annually. Double that to $8.6.

For comparison, the NFL earns $9.3 billion annually in media rights. The average NFL game garners 17 million viewers. The average CFB game does 1.9 million. And yet you’re telling me networks will be willing to pay 93% of what they pay the NFL. No way.

Here are a couple of sources of info relative to potentially doubling P4/P5 media rights with pooling.

Also, the current and proposed setup of the CFP precludes maximizing CFP revenues and this was clearly illustrated by ESPN sublicensing CFP games to TNT to avoid NFL conflicts which is both preventable and absurd given ESPN has been the sole bidder of CFP rights at an overly discounted price.

Is college football undervalued? America's second-most popular game still leaving billions on the table

Ripe for venture capitalists and mega streaming deals down the line, college football's bottom line is getting astronomical

www.cbssports.com

Key excerpt from Matt Hayes column: "Currently, the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 earn an estimated $3 billion combined annually from media rights. But a high-placed industry official told USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity due to the nature of the subject that a single-payer system (pooled rights) could double the current value of the combined power conference deals."

Cody Campbell interview with 365 Sports:

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Here are a couple of sources of info relative to potentially doubling P4/P5 media rights with pooling.

Also, the current and proposed setup of the CFP precludes maximizing CFP revenues and this was clearly illustrated by ESPN sublicensing CFP games to TNT to avoid NFL conflicts which is both preventable and absurd given ESPN has been the sole bidder of CFP rights at an overly discounted price.

Is college football undervalued? America's second-most popular game still leaving billions on the table

Ripe for venture capitalists and mega streaming deals down the line, college football's bottom line is getting astronomical

www.cbssports.com

Key excerpt from Matt Hayes column: "Currently, the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 earn an estimated $3 billion combined annually from media rights. But a high-placed industry official told USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity due to the nature of the subject that a single-payer system (pooled rights) could double the current value of the combined power conference deals."

Cody Campbell interview with 365 Sports:

You are taking the word “could” and turning it into “will”. I disagree with their valuation looking at the benchmark of the NFL. The CBS article says pooled rights could net anywhere between $3 billion (which is actually less than the total media rights of CFB right now) up to $10 billion. I disagree they’d get anywhere close to that.

For the sake of the exercise, let’s take the $6 billion (the figure Cody Campbell quoted and which is not double the current media rights dollars) and divide it by the 136 FBS teams, that nets out to a little over $44M now. Which is close to what the B12 and ACC teams get annually and SIGNIFICANTLY less than B10 and SEC teams get.

I assume you’ll say teams will agree to unequal revenue sharing to make the big dogs whole, but that doesn’t actually make anyone anymore money because you’re pulling from the other school’s allotment to do so. Any revenue gains per team would be marginal.

 

[heitclone]

The tiebreaker will always be BRAND.

10-2 BYU or 8-4 Illinois? BYU
10-2 BYU or 8-4 Michigan? I wouldn't bet a thin dime on that proposition.

I know we can never count on precedents with the committee but they did the exact opposite of this last year. 10-2 SMU got in over 9-3 Alabama and two other 9-3 SEC teams. There was nothing special about SMU's resume that would have made them stand out over those teams.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Here are a couple of sources of info relative to potentially doubling P4/P5 media rights with pooling.

Also, the current and proposed setup of the CFP precludes maximizing CFP revenues and this was clearly illustrated by ESPN sublicensing CFP games to TNT to avoid NFL conflicts which is both preventable and absurd given ESPN has been the sole bidder of CFP rights at an overly discounted price.

Is college football undervalued? America's second-most popular game still leaving billions on the table

Ripe for venture capitalists and mega streaming deals down the line, college football's bottom line is getting astronomical

www.cbssports.com

Key excerpt from Matt Hayes column: "Currently, the Big Ten, SEC, ACC and Big 12 earn an estimated $3 billion combined annually from media rights. But a high-placed industry official told USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity due to the nature of the subject that a single-payer system (pooled rights) could double the current value of the combined power conference deals."

Cody Campbell interview with 365 Sports:

Them sub-licensing the content shows they have overpaid for the CFP, not the other way around.

Though I do agree going against the NFL was absurd. Shows the ego and stupidity of decision-makers in CFB.

 

[Clark]

I know we can never count on precedents with the committee but they did the exact opposite of this last year. 10-2 SMU got in over 9-3 Alabama and two other 9-3 SEC teams. There was nothing special about SMU's resume that would have made them stand out over those teams.

ah, but there was something special about SMU's resume. They made the championship game and there was a panic that had the committee punished them for losing that game, coaches would no longer be willing to play the game.

It's the same reason Penn St had a higher seed than Ohio St even though Ohio St beat Penn St @ Happy Valley and they had virtually the same record.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

You are taking the word “could” and turning it into “will”. I disagree with their valuation looking at the benchmark of the NFL. The CBS article says pooled rights could net anywhere between $3 billion (which is actually less than the total media rights of CFB right now) up to $10 billion. I disagree they’d get anywhere close to that.

For the sake of the exercise, let’s take the $6 billion (the figure Cody Campbell quoted and which is not double the current media rights dollars) and divide it by the 136 FBS teams, that bets out to a little over $44M now. Which is close to what the B12 and ACC teams get annually and SIGNIFICANTLY less than B10 and SEC teams get.

I assume you’ll say teams will agree to unequal revenue sharing to make the big dogs whole, but that doesn’t actually make anyone anymore money because you’re pulling from the other school’s allotment to do so. Any revenue gains per team would be marginal.

And to reiterate, the Big Ten, SEC and Notre Dame are perfectly fine with the current setup and have absolutely no interest in coming to the table. They're making all the cash, why would they give a **** about what the 7 leagues below them are making. They don't and it's not their responsibility to look out for the health of the sport, that was the NCAAs job and they botched it to the point where we are now.

It took less than a month for the doors to be blown off the House Settlement, there is zero appetite for the giant government overstep that would be the SCORE Act, no one wants college kids to be employees and the chances of collective bargaining happening anytime in the next decade are crazy slim.

This is college sports now. The sooner that everyone accepts that and works within that framework, the better off everything is going to be. The Collective era has been pretty good to Iowa State athletics so I'm not sure why Jamie is out leading the charge that it has to go away other than he loses a whole bunch of control. Hopefully, they are working to undo bringing We Will in house and go back to where it was.

 

[Gonzo]

I guess I don't understand how they can think the 5+11 model is going to be more diplomatic or do the Big 12 any more favors than an AQ model that guarantees 2 spots every year. Do they really think a committee that'll inevitably be guided by ESPN is not going to load up on SEC and B1G teams for the 11 at large spots? Why do you think Sankey is so in favor of it?

 

[HFCS]

ah, but there was something special about SMU's resume. They made the championship game and there was a panic that had the committee punished them for losing that game, coaches would no longer be willing to play the game.

It's the same reason Penn St had a higher seed than Ohio St even though Ohio St beat Penn St @ Happy Valley and they had virtually the same record.

I'd have "punished" SMU for losing at home to BYU and having a strength of record far below 12th. Would have had nothing to do with losing the CCG, they just weren't as worthy as BYU, Alabama and a few other SEC schools. Committee blew it, ACC was a one bid conference and Big 12 should have been the bubble team for two bids.

On strength of record BYU sould have been a lock for 16 team playoff with a decent seed, they should have been on the good side of the bubble for 12. That is if the committee was a legit thing like the basketball committee and not a cabal.

Final SOR:
BYU: 7 (they were not even considered for top 12)
ASU: 14
ISU: 15
Alabama: 17
SMU: 18
Miami: 21
Clemson: 25

So if the ISU/Big 12 fans here feel angry and 100% certain the deck is stacked to screw the Big 12 right up the ace...it's because objective data proves it everywhere we look. It appears the conference needs to be 100x better than the ACC to be perceived as such.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

I guess I don't understand how they can think the 5+11 model is going to be more diplomatic or do the Big 12 any more favors than an AQ model that guarantees 2 spots every year. Do they really think a committee that'll inevitably be guided by ESPN is not going to load up on SEC and B1G teams for the 11 at large spots? Why do you think Sankey is so in favor of it?

Agreed. The 4-4-2-2-1 AQ model reduces the role of the committee and thus reducing the risk of big-brand bias.

It also establishes an access floor for the B12 that is equal to our current ceiling and doubles our current access floor.

The big problem people have with it are number of autobids guaranteed to the SEC and B10. But the model itself is better and close to how all professional leagues determine playoff participants

 

[HFCS]

I guess I don't understand how they can think the 5+11 model is going to be more diplomatic or do the Big 12 any more favors than an AQ model that guarantees 2 spots every year. Do they really think a committee that'll inevitably be guided by ESPN is not going to load up on SEC and B1G teams for the 11 at large spots? Why do you think Sankey is so in favor of it?

They should be pushing for objective strength of record ranking as my previous post just showed.

Big 12 would have no problem occasionally getting 2 or even 3 teams in if they could look at objective strength of record and schedule more like the basketball committee always has in various ways. It could also sometimes help the seeding of a Big 12 team that does make it. Some years they'd be on the wrong end of these metrics...SOME YEARS...they'll always be on the wrong end of the brand name boner rankings. TCU's screw job should have proved that to end all debate when they got bumped for Ohio State with an objectively worse resume.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

They should be pushing for objective strength of record ranking as my previous post just showed.

Big 12 would have no problem occasionally getting 2 or even 3 teams in if they could look at objective strength of record and schedule more like the basketball committee always has in various ways. It could also sometimes help the seeding of a Big 12 team that does make it. Some years they'd be on the wrong end of these metrics...SOME YEARS...they'll always be on the wrong end of the brand name boner rankings. TCU's screw job should have proved that to end all time when they got bumped for Ohio State with an objectively worse resume.

I don’t think there’s enough data points in CFB to rely on one metric like SOR. In my opinion.

How much do you punish losses using SOR as the sole criteria. If a team has 4 losses but the number 1 SOR, are you giving them the berth over a team with 1 loss but the 35th SOR?

 

[HFCS]

I don’t think there’s enough data points in CFB to rely on one metric like SOR. In my opinion.

How much do you punish losses using SOR as the sole criteria. If a team has 4 losses but the number 1 SOR, are you giving them the berth over a team with 1 loss but the 35th SOR?

Are they allowed to use it as a tie breaker?

Team A:
- 2 losses
- 10 spots better SOR
- Beat Team B on the road

Team B:
- 2 losses
- 10 spots lower SOR
- Lost to Team A at home

Committee says Team B is SEVEN SPOTS BETTER. We are screwed with this committee. They won't even give us a leg up over an ACC that computer metrics prove the Big 12 is MUCH MUCH tougher than.

The basketball committee has never used metrics to straight up select and seed, but they consider it for teams on the bubble. The football committee seems to intentionally even ignore head to head results if teams have similar seasons.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Are they allowed to use it as a tie breaker?

Team A:
- 2 losses
- 10 spots better SOR
- Beat Team B on the road

Team B:
- 2 losses
- 10 spots lower SOR
- Lost to Team A at home

Committee says Team B is SEVEN SPOTS BETTER. We are screwed with this committee. They won't even give us a leg up over an ACC that computer metrics prove the Big 12 is MUCH MUCH tougher than.

The basketball committee has never used metrics to straight up select and seed, but they consider it for teams on the bubble. The football committee seems to intentionally even ignore head to head results if teams have similar seasons.

I don’t disagree with you on BYU vs SMU in hindsight (though I don’t think SMU should be punished for losing an extra game most teams didn’t have to play).

But most of the time the comparison won’t be as clean cut as you laid out above. Even last year, the committee wasn’t choosing between SMU and BYU. They were choosing between SMU and Bama.

I agree, I do not trust this committee at all. I’d like to reduce their influence as much as possible. That’s why the 4-4-2-2-1 AQ model is better.

 

[cykadelic2]

You are taking the word “could” and turning it into “will”. I disagree with their valuation looking at the benchmark of the NFL. The CBS article says pooled rights could net anywhere between $3 billion (which is actually less than the total media rights of CFB right now) up to $10 billion. I disagree they’d get anywhere close to that.

For the sake of the exercise, let’s take the $6 billion (the figure Cody Campbell quoted and which is not double the current media rights dollars) and divide it by the 136 FBS teams, that nets out to a little over $44M now. Which is close to what the B12 and ACC teams get annually and SIGNIFICANTLY less than B10 and SEC teams get.

I assume you’ll say teams will agree to unequal revenue sharing to make the big dogs whole, but that doesn’t actually make anyone anymore money because you’re pulling from the other school’s allotment to do so. Any revenue gains per team would be marginal.

Are you including CFP in your media totals?

Common sense would tell you that the current setup limits 50% of revenue earning potential including the existing absurdity of one bidder for CFP rights. Pooling rights NFL-style would enable all networks including CBS (with new ownership), Amazon, Apple, NBC/Peacock, Google/YT to get a piece of both regular season and CFP rights like the NFL currently does (even including streaming only NFL Playoff games).

And I trust industry sources not affiliated with ESPN and Fox over your flawed numbers.

Them sub-licensing the content shows they have overpaid for the CFP, not the other way around.

Though I do agree going against the NFL was absurd. Shows the ego and stupidity of decision-makers in CFB.

BS. ESPN was the sole bidder. They didn't overpay for the whole package. They didn't want to piss off the NFL and they realized they would have depressed ratings vs the NFL. The only overpayment was by TNT to ESPN for the sublicense.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Are you including CFP in your media totals?

Common sense would tell you that the current setup limits 50% of revenue earning potential including the existing absurdity of one bidder for CFP rights. Pooling rights NFL-style would enable all networks including CBS (with new ownership), Amazon, Apple, NBC/Peacock, Google/YT to get a piece of both regular season and CFP rights like the NFL currently does (even including streaming only NFL Playoff games).

And I trust industry sources not affiliated with ESPN and Fox over your flawed numbers.

BS. ESPN was the sole bidder. They didn't overpay for the whole package. They didn't want to piss off the NFL and they realized they would have depressed ratings vs the NFL. The only overpayment was by TNT to ESPN for the sublicense.

Yes, I included CFP in my numbers. My numbers aren’t flawed. I literally added up the annual contract values for the CFP, B10, SEC, B12, ACC, P12, AAC, MWC, MAC, Sun Belt (I stopped there and rounded up to 4.3B). Then I looked at the NFL’s annual media rights value (much easier to find).

Multiple entities already are showing CFB content through deals with conferences. Those same entities would be the bidders from the pooled rights too. You’re not really getting new revenue sources by pooling rights. It would be the same bidders probably offering the same amounts.

ESPN OVERPAID to be the exclusive CFP rights owner. Look at how much they paid per playoff game versus any other professional league (including NFL). It’s way more. It’s why they sub-licensed to TNT, to recoup some of the costs.

 

[cykadelic2]

Agreed. The 4-4-2-2-1 AQ model reduces the role of the committee and thus reducing the risk of big-brand bias.

It also establishes an access floor for the B12 that is equal to our current ceiling and doubles our current access floor.

The big problem people have with it are number of autobids guaranteed to the SEC and B10. But the model itself is better and close to how all professional leagues determine playoff participants

LOL, going to 4-4-2-2-1 model is recruiting suicide for the B12.

Not sure why any B12 fan would be in favor of this.