2022 NCAA Football Thread

[gehringer_2]

31 minutes ago, buddha said:

that has zero to do with why the pac 12 imploded.  it is mostly to what hongbit said about terrible leadership.  abysmal leadership, t

Leadership in the B10 isn't abyssmal? Who knew? When you have enough income, competence matters a lot less!

>california is still a top 3 recruiting ground for football players

By population they'd be #1 by 20%

Edited July 31, 2023 by gehringer_2

[MichiganCardinal]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

that's true. The original B10 and Pac10 were AAU conferences. That became part of the controversy over Nebraska, which had been an AAU member but got booted before switching conferences to the B10. The B10 consoled itself that NEB was booted for purely 'political' reasons so it wasn't really making an exception to bring Neb in.  It's still the only non-AAU member of the conference.

50-60 years ago the you might have been able to make a case that the AAU schools did run their programs to different standards, but that was ancient history by the time the PAC10 decisisions referenced above were being made (~2011)

Nebraska actually got booted in between the time they accepted the Big Ten’s invite and the time they formally joined. So they were an AAU member at the time they were invited to the conference. And the political line probably has some truth to it, they were the first public university to ever get the boot. And the only schools ever booted before them were *checks notes* Catholic University of America and Clark University.

[buddha]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

Leadership in the B10 isn't abyssmal? Who knew? When you have enough income, competence matters a lot less!

>california is still a top 3 recruiting ground for football players

By population they'd be #1 by 20%

texas, florida, and california are always 1-3 in recruits, even before the new york times informed you of the exodus of white people from the gridiron.

the fact that youre uniformed about what happened to the pac 12 doesnt mean it didnt actually happen.  

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

even before the new york times informed you of the exodus of white people from the gridiron.

!?

You get an A for that one Perfesser.

Quote

texas, florida, and california are always 1-3 in recruits,

yes. and....

Edited July 31, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Deleterious]

 

[Deleterious]

 

[Motor City Sonics]

Oregon, Washington, Florida State and Clemson coming to the Big 10 - joining UCLA and USC.    There's 20.   Is it over, are they done? 

[buddha]

6 minutes ago, Motor City Sonics said:

Oregon, Washington, Florida State and Clemson coming to the Big 10 - joining UCLA and USC.    There's 20.   Is it over, are they done? 

barstool is a helluva drug, mcs.

[buddha]

On 7/30/2023 at 5:16 PM, MichiganCardinal said:

The B1G may extend an offer to those NorCal and Northwest teams on a crap end of the stick deal as it pertains to their cut of the pie. They might not have a choice.

This is entirely the PAC-12’s fault. They had the choice to eat or be eaten and they got ate. The Big 12 was there for the poaching when Texas and OU left.

yahoo reporting big ten is now putting together a group to look into further expansion with the pac 12 falling apart.  oregon, washington, cal, and stanford being considered.

it'll come down to whether the networks give them more money with the new teams, or whether the new boys take a lower rate.  or both.

[buddha]

as much as i dont think "tv markets" makes as big of a difference now that they have the biggest fish in USC, i bet the big ten presidents are salivating at the thought of adding stanford and cal to the big ten.  its an academics' wet dream.

honestly, oregon is the school that doesnt fit the profile.  but they took nebraska...

[MichiganCardinal]

I think more teams = more games = more eyes = more TV money.

The question is whether that add money makes 1/x+1 increase. I think the remaining PAC schools ultimately take a lesser cut to avoid being homeless. 

[buddha]

21 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I think more teams = more games = more eyes = more TV money.

The question is whether that add money makes 1/x+1 increase. I think the remaining PAC schools ultimately take a lesser cut to avoid being homeless. 

i read one of the big reasons they didnt initially move for washington and oregon because they didnt move the tv money needle.  or didnt move it enough.  im not sure adding four more teams - especially teams like stanford and cal that do very little to get eyeballs on screens - does that either.

it eventually works if you can get the big fish: notre dame.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

it eventually works if you can get the big fish: notre dame.

How do you change ND's incentives? As it stands any conference they join reduces their take.

[buddha]

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

How do you change ND's incentives? As it stands any conference they join reduces their take.

they have a clause in their current tv contract that increases the amount of expenditure if they add one school: notre dame.

[buddha]

"they" being the big ten.

[MichiganCardinal]

2 hours ago, buddha said:

i read one of the big reasons they didnt initially move for washington and oregon because they didnt move the tv money needle.  or didnt move it enough.  im not sure adding four more teams - especially teams like stanford and cal that do very little to get eyeballs on screens - does that either.

it eventually works if you can get the big fish: notre dame.

I think not moving it enough makes sense.

I think if you add four teams, you're going to inherently generate more money. Those two extra games in conference play every week don't go unwatched and they don't lose money. I think it's fair to question though if you're Michigan, Ohio State, or USC (among others) whether adding Stanford, Cal, Oregon, and Washington moves the needle in terms of per school compensation.

To use made-up numbers, if you have a pie of a billion dollars split amongst 16 schools, you each make $62.5 million. If you add four members who bring you $200 million, you now have a pie of $1.2 billion split amongst 20 schools, where now you each make $60 million. I think that's the concern of the B1G foundational members... If you're a Stanford, Cal, Oregon, or Washington, the day may come where you are offered $10 million in the cemetery of the PAC-12. At that point, it seems logical to accept a deal where you take $25 million in the B1G, while the other 16 split the remaining $1.1 billion. Everyone gets more money, though the newcomers on a pretty crappy end of the stick.

[buddha]

56 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I think not moving it enough makes sense.

I think if you add four teams, you're going to inherently generate more money. Those two extra games in conference play every week don't go unwatched and they don't lose money. I think it's fair to question though if you're Michigan, Ohio State, or USC (among others) whether adding Stanford, Cal, Oregon, and Washington moves the needle in terms of per school compensation.

To use made-up numbers, if you have a pie of a billion dollars split amongst 16 schools, you each make $62.5 million. If you add four members who bring you $200 million, you now have a pie of $1.2 billion split amongst 20 schools, where now you each make $60 million. I think that's the concern of the B1G foundational members... If you're a Stanford, Cal, Oregon, or Washington, the day may come where you are offered $10 million in the cemetery of the PAC-12. At that point, it seems logical to accept a deal where you take $25 million in the B1G, while the other 16 split the remaining $1.1 billion. Everyone gets more money, though the newcomers on a pretty crappy end of the stick.

how do they bring you $200 million if the tv money stays the same?

[MichiganCardinal]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

how do they bring you $200 million if the tv money stays the same?

Why would it stay the same? Even if Stanford vs. Illinois or Washington vs. Purdue isn’t drawing what Penn State vs. Michigan State does, it’s still a game on regional television, drawing eyes and making money.

Ten conference games with their addition may not add 1/4 of what eight conference games makes now, but it won’t add nothing.

[buddha]

2 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Why would it stay the same? Even if Stanford vs. Illinois or Washington vs. Purdue isn’t drawing what Penn State vs. Michigan State does, it’s still a game on regional television, drawing eyes and making money.

Ten conference games with their addition may not add 1/4 of what eight conference games makes now, but it won’t add nothing.

does the tv contract change if you add more games?  are they paid by the game?  i havent seen anyone write that adding these four teams would alter the tv contract or add significant additional value to the tv contract.  all i've seen are articles saying the big ten didnt want them originally because they didnt bring enough value and they werent interested in adding them for the same reason.

until now because the pac ten is about to cease to exist.  if youre reading something different, i'd love to see it.

in fact, florida state probably adds a lot more value than cal and stanford combined.  

[MichiganCardinal]

53 minutes ago, buddha said:

does the tv contract change if you add more games?  are they paid by the game?  i havent seen anyone write that adding these four teams would alter the tv contract or add significant additional value to the tv contract.  all i've seen are articles saying the big ten didnt want them originally because they didnt bring enough value and they werent interested in adding them for the same reason.

until now because the pac ten is about to cease to exist.  if youre reading something different, i'd love to see it.

in fact, florida state probably adds a lot more value than cal and stanford combined.  

Oh I see now. My assumption is that they would rework the deal based on an influx of schools. They might not with just a single addition but if they expanded to 20 or 24 I would think they would want a new deal.

[casimir]

I gotta be honest, I don’t think I like larger conferences.  10-12 teams, that’s fine.  If they pull in more PAC teams to get to 20, they’ll eventually get to 24 if Notre Dame joins the conference.

[gehringer_2]

4 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I think that's the concern of the B1G foundational members... If you're a Stanford, Cal, Oregon, or Washington, the day may come where you are offered $10 million in the cemetery of the PAC-12. At that point, it seems logical to accept a deal where you take $25 million in the B1G, while the other 16 split the remaining $1.1 billion. Everyone gets more money, though the newcomers on a pretty crappy end of the stick.

I think a conference will be reluctant to go that route because it raises a host of governance issues. Whether they apportion voting rights in accordance with $$ participation of not, either way you're going to have a lot of strain. IIRC hasn't B1G brought in teams without full $$ rights initially but reduced rights were temporary? (Maryland and Rutgers?). 

Still, hard to see the 2nd tier B1G and Pac12/10/8 teams not being willing to give up almost anything not to fall out the P5 completely.

[MichiganCardinal]

11 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think a conference will be reluctant to go that route because it raises a host of governance issues. Whether they apportion voting rights in accordance with $$ participation of not, either way you're going to have a lot of strain. IIRC hasn't B1G brought in teams without full $$ rights initially but reduced rights were temporary? (Maryland and Rutgers?). 

Still, hard to see the 2nd tier B1G and Pac12/10/8 teams not being willing to give up almost anything not to fall out the P5 completely.

I don’t think it would work in perpetuity. Though I think they probably hoped that Rutgers and Maryland would be generating more money for the conference by the time they received a full share.

[buddha]

from the arhletic today:

Feldman: From everything I’ve heard, TV does not want to pay more for this, nor do some of the schools already. Why would they give up stuff for places that they weren’t jumping in the picture for? 

[buddha]

also from the athletic: there are a lot of presidents who are more interested in waiting to see if the ACC breaks up than paying for oregon and washington.

monetarily, that makes more sense.  again, grabbing florida state and/or miami makes more immediate monetary sense than any of the other west coast teams.  you already have the west coast because you have USC.  

but to get into the acc, you have to break the grant of rights.  and i am reading that it might be able to be broken if half the acc teams agree to break it.