CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

[4BienemyTDs]

With college sports in limbo and key issues coming to a head, the spotlight is on the SEC: 'It's going to get heated'

With potential CFP format changes, athlete revenue sharing and the impending House ruling all in flux, college sports is at a critical juncture. And the SEC is at the forefront of it all this week in Florida.

sports.yahoo.com

This article is a loaded with lots of info. Warm up a cup of coffee and let the all of the content sink in.

Buried in the article is this gem.

"The divide among the four power leagues is more evident than ever.

The latest example was a recent clandestine call that several ACC and Big 12 school presidents and high-ranking athletic administrators held with leaders of a private-equity backed super league. The call, earlier this month, was had without the involvement of ACC and Big 12 commissioners and was the second such Big 12-ACC joint meeting since December with those from Smash Capital, a venture capital firm proposing a super league model that features a $9 billion promise of cash infusion to college sports."

Got to think CU was at those meetings. Would suck if you woke up and the AD of your school wasn't invited to said meetings.

Coach Prime is a straight up value for the Networks, Streamers, or Smash, so we had to be there along with the Texas Tech Money guy
The best option as much as it pains me is to convince Notre Dame to headline a new or improved 3rd conference with the best of both leagues and any others that can step up and be involved. Need a Streamer, and need creativity to make the 3rd conference equal to the others.

Notre Dame
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
Colorado
Kansas
BYU
Stanford
Georgia Tech
Louisville
Oklahoma State
Arizona State

That is the core of the best possible 3rd Conference/League that would compete with the others for sure. Any others would be net neutral or net negative

 

[skibum]

It's apparent that some schools in the Big12 and ACC both know they have to make a big move now or never as the Big10 and SEC are continuing to pull further away from them.
What will they do?

Fify.

If someone doesn't think KjSU, Iowa State, Wake Forest, Cal, et. al. are not about to be shanked by UNC, FSU, Miami, CU, et. al. I don't know what to tell them.

 

[4BienemyTDs]

Fify.

If someone doesn't think KjSU, Iowa State, Wake Forest, Cal, et. al. are not about to be shanked by UNC, FSU, Miami, CU, et. al. I don't know what to tell them.

Cincinnati, UCF, Boston College

 

[InTheBuff]

 

[Buffnik]

Coach Prime is a straight up value for the Networks, Streamers, or Smash, so we had to be there along with the Texas Tech Money guy
The best option as much as it pains me is to convince Notre Dame to headline a new or improved 3rd conference with the best of both leagues and any others that can step up and be involved. Need a Streamer, and need creativity to make the 3rd conference equal to the others.

Notre Dame
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
Colorado
Kansas
BYU
Stanford
Georgia Tech
Louisville
Oklahoma State
Arizona State

That is the core of the best possible 3rd Conference/League that would compete with the others for sure. Any others would be net neutral or net negative

You want to be in Texas. That means TCU & Baylor for historical success.

 

[WasianCU]

I cannot imagine Texas Tech being left out if Cody Campbell is on the presidential commission.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

With college sports in limbo and key issues coming to a head, the spotlight is on the SEC: 'It's going to get heated'

With potential CFP format changes, athlete revenue sharing and the impending House ruling all in flux, college sports is at a critical juncture. And the SEC is at the forefront of it all this week in Florida.

sports.yahoo.com

This article is a loaded with lots of info. Warm up a cup of coffee and let the all of the content sink in.

Buried in the article is this gem.

"The divide among the four power leagues is more evident than ever.

The latest example was a recent clandestine call that several ACC and Big 12 school presidents and high-ranking athletic administrators held with leaders of a private-equity backed super league. The call, earlier this month, was had without the involvement of ACC and Big 12 commissioners and was the second such Big 12-ACC joint meeting since December with those from Smash Capital, a venture capital firm proposing a super league model that features a $9 billion promise of cash infusion to college sports."

Got to think CU was at those meetings. Would suck if you woke up and the AD of your school wasn't invited to said meetings.

Dog ****. Money ruins everything.

 

[ahoelsken]

I don't really see how this affects NDs decision to stay independent down the road. They have a number of good non-ACC opponents already on the schedule over the next 8-9 years plus still have some openings on their schedule.

Hopefully some partnership with the ACC involves games against ND for us.

 

[4BienemyTDs]

You want to be in Texas. That means TCU & Baylor for historical success.

My bad
Texas Tech likely for sure a plus
Houston should be a juggernaut, but commuter school not making it happen
16-20 teams is fine, but must have biggest brands remaining, not #5-8

 

[Darth Snow]

I can't believe youtube was wrong

 

[Buffnik]

View attachment 86759

I can't believe youtube was wrong

I am going to wildly speculate that this means he is envisioning a change to the landscape and it isn't the right time to sell these rights. Those sales come with an expectation of stability from the buyer.

 

[InTheBuff]

View attachment 86759

I can't believe youtube was wrong

"We're just not ready yet" is very different than
"We're not doing it at all."

So many moving parts are happening right now. Some unexpected such as the possibility of college football playoffs going with a 5 -11 format which is very surprising.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

"We're not ready" is very different than
"We're not doing it at all."

So many moving parts are happening right now. Some unexpected such as the possibility of college football playoffs going with a 5 -11 format which is a very surprising.

No it’s not. The SEC did the math and realized that they are almost always going to have 4 teams in a 16 team playoff no matter what and the 5 + 11 format allows them to almost assuredly get 5 or even 6 in. The 4-4-2-2-3 model puts a ceiling them.

And Yormark deciding no on PE means the University Presidents told him no. Likely because they understand that accepting PE likely locks them into the Big 12 for good.

 

[InTheBuff]

No it’s not. The SEC did the math and realized that they are almost always going to have 4 teams in a 16 team playoff no matter what and the 5 + 11 format allows them to almost assuredly get 5 or even 6 in. The 4-4-2-2-3 model puts a ceiling them.

And Yormark deciding no on PE means the University Presidents told him no. Likely because they understand that accepting PE likely locks them into the Big 12 for good.

SEC saying no to 4-4-2-2-3 will leave a lot of money on the table.
No 9th conference game...

ESPN willing to pay SEC big money for a 9th conference football game: report

We could be one giant leap closer to the SEC adopting a ninth conference game to its football schedule in the near future. ESPN is willing to pay anywhere from

www.si.com

no play-in games..

The Big10 looks to be the only conference wanting 4-4-2-2-3 so it's surprising the SEC says no with the ACC and Big12.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

SEC saying no to 4-4-2-2-3 will leave a lot of money on the table. No 9th in conference game, no play-in games.

The Big10 looks to be the only conference wanting 4-4-2-2-3 so it's surprising the SEC says no with the ACC and Big12.

Why wouldnt there be play in games. They specifically talked about doing that

 

[InTheBuff]

Why wouldnt there be play in games. They specifically talked about doing that

Play in games would have determined the SEC slots 3 and 4 for sure.
What can you play-in for when you don't know if you are 5th or 11th of the 'at large' ?

 

[GRM]

SEC saying no to 4-4-2-2-3 will leave a lot of money on the table.
No 9th conference game...

ESPN willing to pay SEC big money for a 9th conference football game: report

We could be one giant leap closer to the SEC adopting a ninth conference game to its football schedule in the near future. ESPN is willing to pay anywhere from

www.si.com

no play-in games..

The Big10 looks to be the only conference wanting 4-4-2-2-3 so it's surprising the SEC says no with the ACC and Big12.

Here is an idea, I like the 11+5, but they need somewhat equal scheduling.

One thing that I hate, it that teams from certain conferences make bones in the pre-season rankings (maybe call this bias) which is hard to overcome; and teams without bones in the pre-season rankings just have a ton of groud to make up. You go from unranked, to getting votes, to 20's then maybe to 15, but it is harder to go much higher. In the B1G (see Indiana) or SEC it seems earier to climb the ladder. If one conference has 8 games with 3-4 gimmies, that is not fair. Similarly, B1G teams that have 9 conference games many with 3 gimmies is not all that fair either; as we know that conference is very top heavy.

For the P-4, I think the scheduling only works fairly is if each conference plays the same # of difficult games where 10 games should be/look "competitive." I'm not against 8 conference games, if all the conferences agreed to have play one P-4 OCC game (they sprinkle some of these throughout the season, but mostly weeks 1-5, such there is always a great game on the schedule), and then a 9th inter-conference pre-playoff type game. This could occur week 9 or 10. The P-4's will have one P-4 OOC game + an inter-conference playoff playing an 8 conference game schedule. If they need to, move the season back a week as teams already play in week 0 anyways, such almost all can play weaker opponents earlier.

It seems like the B1G and SEC are still somewhat adjoined at the hip, as are the ACC and B12. Schedule a late season bye week, then have #1 B1G play #1 SEC; 2's v. 2's; 3's v. 3's etc... Do the same thing for the ACC and B12 then finish out the conference season. IMO, perhaps Indiana may have been exposed. Some of these pre-playoff game should be epic games for the fans/TV revenue (isn't this what is driving the bus?); it is appealing to see different teams playing each other that may not normally play, and the results could break up the rankings somewhat--maybe allieviating the pre-season ranking bias. I don't think a #1 ACC v. #1 B12 would drop either team out of the playoff picture, but 3 v. 3. to 6 v. 6 games could shake things up randering a larger pool of playoff contenders. Make ND or any ranked P-4 independent participate in this. I think this system would yield more complete resumes for contending playoff teams and provide opportunity for some bubble teams, to get off the bubble.

For the G-5 they could do something similar. In jumping rankings, most all of their games do not move the needle unless there is an upset. Perhaps a system where the best G-5's play inter-conference games (they seed the teams using the rankings, so more conferences are in play) and it can be a boon for them--a G-5 wins both I-C games they should get a substantial bump. For them, I'd even consider a 7 game conference season, and do two of these interconference matchups?

The NBA already has an in-season tournament, so this is not totally bizarre.

 

[Buffnik]

Given the financial considerations and this $20.5M number not officially being tied to a specific sport, I think some schools are going to have to take a long, hard look at whether they should be offering football any more along with moving other sports to club status.

For example, if you're Duke and basketball is the most important sport to your university, maybe you drop football so you aren't using $15M on football like everyone else and leaving too little to dominate in basketball. Might they be better off if they offered Men's & Women's Soccer in the fall, Men's & Women's Lacrosse in the Spring, and Men's & Women's Basketball being the featured sports for the Winter across both academic semesters?

They could then put $15M into MBB and then outspend their competition across the other 3 sports. Why wouldn't they do this? Why wouldn't others like UConn, Kansas, Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky and others where the state and alums care most about basketball make the decision to drop football? Is football so important that having it and being mediocre at it is so vital that they are willing to also allow their basketball programs to become mediocre as they can't pay their players as well as Big East programs and universities like Gonzaga that don't offer football? Going down from the P4, why would resource constrained ADs like New Mexico, Nevada, UTEP, etc. in the new MWC that pack their basketball arenas and have a rich tradition there maintain football programs that usually suck and can't draw a crowd? I wouldn't be surprised at all if the MWC drops football and becomes a western version of the Big East.

Also, this could be the line that's drawn in the ACC and Big 12: total merger and split with the football-committed schools becoming one conference and the basketball-focused schools becoming the other conference.

 

[Liver]

if you haven't read the RG announcement and FAQ, then do so.

my net takeaways... and I could be wrong, I'm just a booster/fan spouting profundities.

1. CU intends but did not commit to spend the full 20.5 in year 1.
2. non-rev generating sports will likely lose scholarships.
3. the revenue disparity between the b12 and the sec/b10 is about to get ratcheted up to another level of anti-competitiveness. we ain't on the right side of the gap right now. I suspect some of the texas private schools in our conference are going to be able to narrow the gap easier than we will.
4. the NIL clearing house is not going to kill many if any NIL deals.
5. once again, not sitting in the sec or b10 puts our competitiveness further at risk. this is, imho, the single most important strategic issue facing CU.

 

[Buffnik]

if you haven't read the RG announcement and FAQ, then do so.

my net takeaways... and I could be wrong, I'm just a booster/fan spouting profundities.

1. CU intends but did not commit to spend the full 20.5 in year 1.
2. non-rev generating sports will likely lose scholarships.
3. the revenue disparity between the b12 and the sec/b10 is about to get ratcheted up to another level of anti-competitiveness. we ain't on the right side of the gap right now. I suspect some of the texas private schools in our conference are going to be able to narrow the gap easier than we will.
4. the NIL clearing house is not going to kill many if any NIL deals.
5. once again, not sitting in the sec or b10 puts our competitiveness further at risk. this is, imho, the single most important strategic issue facing CU.

I guess where my head is right now is that if I was in the position to make business decisions about a university athletic department and how it serves the university mission, I'm going zero-based with my thinking and not continuing to do certain things because that's what we have already done.

Fundamentally, the House Settlement says that it's not fair for revenue sports to pay for everything else and the athletes from those sports deserve to earn compensation based on the revenue they drive.

Ok.

But that means that the model of FB & MBB paying for everything else no longer applies.

Now, FB is the beast that you feed and doesn't give back outside of it being the main advertising and alum/donor/community connector for a university like CU. It's no longer the funding arm that allows you to offer Varsity Tennis. And the more non-revenue sports you offer, the less that FB is able to have resources to drive success and best fulfill its strategic role for the university.

Why spend any money on sports that can't draw a crowd, attract significant sponsors, get on tv, etc?

 

[Bread]

if you haven't read the RG announcement and FAQ, then do so.

my net takeaways... and I could be wrong, I'm just a booster/fan spouting profundities.

1. CU intends but did not commit to spend the full 20.5 in year 1.
2. non-rev generating sports will likely lose scholarships.
3. the revenue disparity between the b12 and the sec/b10 is about to get ratcheted up to another level of anti-competitiveness. we ain't on the right side of the gap right now. I suspect some of the texas private schools in our conference are going to be able to narrow the gap easier than we will.
4. the NIL clearing house is not going to kill many if any NIL deals.
5. once again, not sitting in the sec or b10 puts our competitiveness further at risk. this is, imho, the single most important strategic issue facing CU.

I read through the FAQ and I did not see where you got #3,4, and 5 from that.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Given the financial considerations and this $20.5M number not officially being tied to a specific sport, I think some schools are going to have to take a long, hard look at whether they should be offering football any more along with moving other sports to club status.

For example, if you're Duke and basketball is the most important sport to your university, maybe you drop football so you aren't using $15M on football like everyone else and leaving too little to dominate in basketball. Might they be better off if they offered Men's & Women's Soccer in the fall, Men's & Women's Lacrosse in the Spring, and Men's & Women's Basketball being the featured sports for the Winter across both academic semesters?

They could then put $15M into MBB and then outspend their competition across the other 3 sports. Why wouldn't they do this? Why wouldn't others like UConn, Kansas, Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky and others where the state and alums care most about basketball make the decision to drop football? Is football so important that having it and being mediocre at it is so vital that they are willing to also allow their basketball programs to become mediocre as they can't pay their players as well as Big East programs and universities like Gonzaga that don't offer football? Going down from the P4, why would resource constrained ADs like New Mexico, Nevada, UTEP, etc. in the new MWC that pack their basketball arenas and have a rich tradition there maintain football programs that usually suck and can't draw a crowd? I wouldn't be surprised at all if the MWC drops football and becomes a western version of the Big East.

Also, this could be the line that's drawn in the ACC and Big 12: total merger and split with the football-committed schools becoming one conference and the basketball-focused schools becoming the other conference.

At least in Kentucky and Indianas case, they don’t have the B1G and SEC media deals without football so dropping it in favor basketball is a nonstarter. I am also skeptical that Arizona and Kansas basketball can make up for the $38m/year that the Big 12 media deal drives for each school (again, that’s only there because of their football program membership in the conference).

Your concept works for UConn and a few others probably, but football still drives the financial bus (at least a large portion of it) for the blue blood basketball programs.

 

[Buffnik]

At least in Kentucky and Indianas case, they don’t have the B1G and SEC media deals without football so dropping it in favor basketball is a nonstarter. I am also skeptical that Arizona and Kansas basketball can make up for the $38m/year that the Big 12 media deal drives for each school (again, that’s only there because of their football program membership in the conference).

Your concept works for UConn and a few others probably, but football still drives the financial bus (at least a large portion of it) for the blue blood basketball programs.

That's going to be the big question. Especially if a super league ends up being created around football and certain university commitments to spending on FB athletes are required to be part of it. Will a school like Northwestern or Vanderbilt or Stanford be willing to do so? What if they can't do so and also continue to offer every other varsity sport they currently do?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

That's going to be the big question. Especially if a super league ends up being created around football and certain university commitments to spending on FB athletes are required to be part of it. Will a school like Northwestern or Vanderbilt or Stanford be willing to do so? What if they can't do so and also continue to offer every other varsity sport they currently do?

But where is the money coming from for basketball and other sports if they drop football and are no longer getting the media money? I suppose the rich schools you mentioned would be able to foot the $20.5m/year bill on their own but how many P4 ADs are almost entirely reliant on that media money to operate?

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

if you haven't read the RG announcement and FAQ, then do so.

my net takeaways... and I could be wrong, I'm just a booster/fan spouting profundities.

1. CU intends but did not commit to spend the full 20.5 in year 1.
2. non-rev generating sports will likely lose scholarships.
3. the revenue disparity between the b12 and the sec/b10 is about to get ratcheted up to another level of anti-competitiveness. we ain't on the right side of the gap right now. I suspect some of the texas private schools in our conference are going to be able to narrow the gap easier than we will.
4. the NIL clearing house is not going to kill many if any NIL deals.
5. once again, not sitting in the sec or b10 puts our competitiveness further at risk. this is, imho, the single most important strategic issue facing CU.

I’m curious about where the “did not commit” piece of your #1 came from?

“While athletic departments are not required to compensate student-athletes up to the cap, in order to remain competitive, it is our intention to fully meet the $20.5 million responsibility.”

That’s an intention, for sure, but you can assuredly read that as a commitment to fully meet that. Prime wouldn’t be here moving forward if there was any wavering in that commitment.

 

[Buffnik]

But where is the money coming from for basketball and other sports if they drop football and are no longer getting the media money? I suppose the rich schools you mentioned would be able to foot the $20.5m/year bill on their own but how many P4 ADs are almost entirely reliant on that media money to operate?

The thing is, if you have football and make the required commitment to it the Power conferences will require, you don't have $20.5M for your other sports - you have $5M you're able to spend. Drop FB and you are allowed to spend $20.5M (or applicable revenue %) across the others.

Big East is loving this and sees an opportunity to dominate in hoops. Their media deal may only pay $7M per school, but all that money goes towards hoops and other sports. And all their booster NIL money goes to hoops and other sports. Even if the total AD budget might be 1/4-1/3 of a P4 football school, they actually have more resources for other sports.

P.S. The $20.5M is based on 22% of the revenue of Power conference schools plus Notre Dame. If you drop out of those, you don't have to spend that amount. You're only required to spend on this revenue share if you're in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, PAC-12 or SEC + Notre Dame. No one else was named in the lawsuit so the settlement doesn't apply. So, for some, maybe it doesn't make financial sense to stay a member of a Power conference with this requirement.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The thing is, if you have football and make the required commitment to it the Power conferences will require, you don't have $20.5M for your other sports - you have $5M you're able to spend. Drop FB and you are allowed to spend $20.5M across the others.

Big East is loving this and sees an opportunity to dominate in hoops. Their media deal may only pay $7M per school, but all that money goes towards hoops and other sports. And all their booster NIL money goes to hoops and other sports. Even if the total AD budget might be 1/4-1/3 of a P4 football school, they actually have more resources for other sports.

That works for the Big East but what does that look like for Kentucky? How much of Kentucky’s AD revenue comes from football (media, tickets, merch, concessions, donations, etc)? When you’re an AD used to getting an $80m check every year just from football media rights (well above the operating cost for football) that’s a massive revenue hit. I can’t imagine any SEC or B1G programs saying no thanks to football, but I could maybe see an ACC or Big 12 program opting out.

The more likely scenario for P4 ADs is that football will remain in place, but instead of $16m going to football, it’s probably like $10m at some schools. Duke and Kansas will simply choose to dominate in basketball while forcing the football programs into a participant but not competitor mode.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I read through the FAQ and I did not see where you got #3,4, and 5 from that.

Yeah, read through the announcement and FAQ and I’m not sure where he got those or half of #1. He must be on his third, three fingers of bourbon already

 

[Buffnik]

That works for the Big East but what does that look like for Kentucky? How much of Kentucky’s AD revenue comes from football (media, tickets, merch, concessions, donations, etc)? When you’re an AD used to getting an $80m check every year just from football media rights (well above the operating cost for football) that’s a massive revenue hit. I can’t imagine any SEC or B1G programs saying no thanks to football, but I could maybe see an ACC or Big 12 program opting out.

The more likely scenario is that football will remain at all those schools, but instead of $16m going to football, it’s probably like $10m. Duke and Kansas will simply choose to dominate in basketball while forcing the football programs into a participant but not competitor mode.

Just did an edit after reading more. If Kentucky, for example, left the SEC then they would no longer be subject to the House lawsuit settlement. So their 22% of budget requirement goes away. I really think we are going to see some shakeup over this. Partly driven, also, by the major networks & other members not being on board with the network paying a super premium for a conference's football rights with dead weight schools that don't spend at the same level on football being included with an equal share.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Just did an edit after reading more. If Kentucky, for example, left the SEC then they would no longer be subject to the House lawsuit settlement. So their 22% of budget requirement goes away. I really think we are going to see some shakeup over this. Partly driven, also, by the major networks & other members not being on board with the network paying a super premium for a conference's football rights with dead weight schools that don't spend at the same level on football being included with an equal share.

The Tennessee and Texas house Bills that passed, insulating schools from NCAA punishment for skirting rules around collectives, will also play a role, IMO. Texas, A&M, Tennessee and Vandy have a distinct advantage over the other SEC programs right now unless they enter into an agreement with the SEC that they will adhere to the same rules. I think all of this and those bills could hasten the move to a football only entity/super league.