This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I think it's actually harder to limit it to 48. That would require some very difficult cuts. But money talks and if the hyper elites are told by media companies that the total money is the same at 48 & 64, then it will be 48 teams. Back of the envelope math is that at 48 teams, everyone makes $20M for every $1B in revenue vs $15M per school with 64 teams. Everyone is going to look for max revenue.
I think 48 is the right number after a lot of reflection
I saw an interview with the former president of Fox Sports and he was asked the question:
www.nielsen.com
The SEC is projected to be paying out $100m pspy by 2028.
64 is only the right number if you convince the biggest brands to make less money per school than they could be otherwise. Truth is there likely won't even be 48 in that upper tier.
As I mentioned, it really only takes convincing Notre Dame. Get them on board, everybody else falls in line.
You mentioned that, but it's incorrect. Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Ohio State, Oklahoma, etc. aren't taking less money because Notre Dame told them it would be fun.
Oh yeah they would. No doubt in my mind that if ND proposed this, every single one of those schools would fall in line.
My man, no, the others aren't leaving money on the table because Notre Dame said so.
If Notre Dame says “this is good for college football, we will all make as much or more than we did before, and we are doing it”. The others will fall in line. I think there’s a good reason to suspect a 64-team college football league would make a lot more than what is being passed out now, even to the SEC and the B1G. The matchups would be better, the competition for content would be higher, and there would be an actual college football playoff that would rival any televised sporting event. Oh, and there would be two extra regular season games per team.
There are only a handful of hyper elites that will consistently deliver elevated ratings to a national broadcast (even if it only significantly elevates in a high value region).
It won’t increase payouts per team. You are missing a key point. Others have tried to tell you as well.
These two leagues will decide who gets invited to the 48 party.
NBA just inked at $2.67B per year. That's the 2nd richest domestic deal. But that league does crazy well with international and digital, so its total media deal was $76B over 11 years (just under $7B per year).
"This is for the good of college football, you'll all make less money per school than you could be, but make the sacrifice for the sport. You know, like you always have."
You might want to check multi quote again. They’d make more, not less.
Yeah. I know. It sucks. Any chance we might have to save college football tests in the hands of a program we all loathe.
The irony of Bernie Sanders calling out anything as delusional is not lost on me.
You might want to check basic math again. The biggest brands will make less per school in a 64 team league than they will in a smaller league.
I’m not sure why either of you are making definitive statements about this. Everyone automatically following ND’s lead seems like a stretch and there is certainly a way for everyone to make more money as an organized league entity that puts its multiple media deals out for bidding among the traditional networks and streamers.
Fair. I’m making an assumption option that the addition of additional games, more content, better matchups, and a compelling playoff will increase payouts. Berkeley is assuming the opposite.
I'm not saying I know what the cutoff is, I'm just saying that the idea that a league which includes Northwestern, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest, UCF, WSU, etc can generate as much money per team as a league made more predominantly of Texas, Ohio State, Alabama and the like is failing to grasp basic economic reality.
