Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

Honestly the regular media money gap between SEC and B1G and everyone else is so huge, they don't really have a reason to fight sharing the CFP money equally, and actually, if doing so promotes stability of a system where they instantly earn 25 million more media money than everyone else in the system, they will probably be pretty enthusiastic in getting behind it as a "great deal for everyone".
 
  • Like
Reactions: PickSix
Gonzo said:
So I Googled "CFB Playoff $2 Billion", none of the articles that came up said anything about splitting that evenly among 71 P5 schools or conferences the way it's been done with the existing model. The two articles below made specific mention that it's unknown how revenue would be split in the new model.

You're assuming that the new model will distribute the massive new revenue equally when there doesn't seem to be any indicators out there that that will be the case.


apnews.com

CFP expansion could increase annual revenue to $2 billion

A new College Football Playoff with triple the number of teams involved could bring in three times as much money to the conferences and schools that share the wealth.
apnews.com apnews.com
"How revenue would be distributed in a new model was not part of the detailed proposal the CFP unveiled Thursday. The 12-team model is at least three steps away from final approval from the university presidents and chancellors who oversee the CFP."


www.usatoday.com

Possible CFP expansion could increase revenue to more than $2 billion

It's unknown how revenue from an expanded CFP would be divided, so it's hard to estimate how much more money conferences - and schools - would get.
www.usatoday.com
"Because of the many unknowns in how revenue from an expanded CFP would be divided, it is difficult to estimate how much more money the participating conferences – and, thus, their respective schools — would end up with."
Click to expand...

I think there is confusion. Here is my understanding based on what I've read/watched.

With the 4 team playoff the money is split approximately 20% G5 & 80% P5. Each P5 Conference received an equal split and I've seen #'s ranging from $68/$69M to a recent article at $79M, The $79M makes sense to me as the current amount because I've seen it mentioned each Big12 school received $8M in CFB Playoff money (most likely 21/22 fiscal).

With the 12 team playoff during the 2 year ESPN extension (2024 & 2025 regular seasons), the split would continue to be 20% G5 & 80% P5. But instead of each P5 Conference getting an equal split, each conference will get an amount per school in the conference. So the Big12 would get 12 x $X and the Big 10 would get 16 x $X. The estimate I've read for the 2 year ESPN extension is around $1B annually. Right now ESPN pays something like $600M for the 4 team playoff and New Years Bowl games it televises.

The 12 Team Playoff after media rights go out to open bid (starting 2026) is estimated at $2B. Obviously the distribution plan hasn't been established. I have been pretty clear this is the big unknown and IMO the Trojan horse for the Big10/SEC to make their money grab. The split scenarios could be:
  1. Similar to today & 2 year extension period with G5 getting 20% cut & 71 P5 schools 80%. That is the $22M figure I have used. Each P5 Conference could then decide to divide their money evenly or do uneven Playoff distribution.
  2. Does the CFB Playoff do something similar to the NCAA Hoops Tournament where conferences earn Units based on its schools in the 12 team playoff. I don't have much of an understanding of the Unit concept, but my understanding is units are tallied based on 5 or 6 years running total of teams a conference had invited to the tournament. Each unit is then worth a set amount.
  3. Or is revenue distribution a hybrid of #1 & #2. Obviously football is different with 12 spots vs 68 in hoops. And in hoops something like 32 bids go to conference champs. So even if the Big12 got 10 bids, it would be around 1/7 of the units.
  4. With the new $2B media rights, the G5 schools could get $400M @ 20%. Today the 60-70 G5 schools split around $100M of the 4 team Playoff $. Are P5 schools willing to give G5 another $300M, for maybe getting 1 playoff team?
  5. Will the six highest-ranked conference champions continue to receive an auto-bid? To receive an auto-bid would a team have to be ranked in top 15 by the Playoff Committee?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Creative
Reactions: 2speedy1, CascadeClone and Cloneon
isucy86 said:
The 12 Team Playoff after media rights go out to open bid (starting 2026) is estimated at $2B. Obviously the distribution plan hasn't been established. I have been pretty clear this is the big unknown and IMO the Trojan horse for the Big10/SEC to make their money grab. The split scenarios could be:
Click to expand...

Thank you for the great and correct info there.

My guess is it will be a hybrid payout. Like 50% ($1B) is divided up 6 ways (each P5 plus all the G5) and 50% ($1B) is distributed based on teams in the CFP.

So if the SEC gets 4 teams they would get 33.3% of the $1B, plus 16.7% of the other $1B, for a total of $500M (25%) of the total. That's $31M/team.

If the Big12 gets 2 teams, they would get $330M. That's $27.5M per team. Overall not a huge difference, although with only 1 team it would be $21M/team. That does get to be significant, and then the people making decisions about who is 12th vs 13th are making 9 figure decisions - that's HUGE pressure and opportunity for corruption and shenanigans.

The negotiation will be mostly about the split - will it be 50/50 or will it be 80/20 or whatever.

It's possible that there could be some effort toward kicking the G5 or other conferences out entirely, but I don't think that is likely now. Maybe in 2 years, esp if the SEC/B1G dominate the next 2 CFP, and the Big12, PAC, ACC all look shaky in the games (or PAC gets poached into a glorified MWC). Then they might really try to take it over and boot everyone else out to the side, including the ACC and Big12.
 
Missouri has a $30M lead over us in athletic department revenue. But over the last 2-3 years, who has had more success? Iowa makes $40M more than us... We are doing just fine competing against them.. Our football stadiums are at the same level, we have superior basketball facilities, a NY6 bowl win, and CyTown.

And starting in 2024, we no longer have to compete against UT and OU every year.. Yes, Iowa can afford to pay KKKirk and Mad Fran more $$$, but what competitive advantage are they gaining by getting b*tch slapped by OSU, UM, Bama, and Georgia annually..
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: landerson, isucy86 and State2015
The 2 billion giant number thing is really interesting. It's not just college football but all business.

The battle isn't often about what makes the most money. The battle is often that the people making money now want to always be the exact same people making money in the future. It was never that a playoff wouldn't obviously make more money than the bowl system, it was that different people might make that greater sum than the exact same people making money previously.

I don't want to cave it but it mirrors energy and all sorts of other businesses.
 
cyfan92 said:
Missouri has a $30M lead over us in athletic department revenue. But over the last 2-3 years, who has had more success? Iowa makes $40M more than us... We are doing just fine competing against them.. Our football stadiums are at the same level, we have superior basketball facilities, a NY6 bowl win, and CyTown.

And starting in 2024, we no longer have to compete against UT and OU every year.. Yes, Iowa can afford to pay KKKirk and Mad Fran more $$$, but what competitive advantage are they gaining by getting b*tch slapped by OSU, UM, Bama, and Georgia annually..
Click to expand...

There's definitely diminishing returns after you have enough revenue to trick out all the facilities.

You can use Holmes and Osun as an example, they got a huge athletic facilities/lifestyle upgrade coming to ISU because the basketball facilities are pretty close to maxed out. Oregon or UNC or Michigan State probably have even more cash for facilities but it's not noticeable because we have enough to basically do anything that matters. ISU vs St Bonnie on the other hand is very noticeable.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: isucy86, FriendlySpartan and CascadeClone
CascadeClone said:
It's possible that there could be some effort toward kicking the G5 or other conferences out entirely, but I don't think that is likely now. Maybe in 2 years, esp if the SEC/B1G dominate the next 2 CFP, and the Big12, PAC, ACC all look shaky in the games (or PAC gets poached into a glorified MWC). Then they might really try to take it over and boot everyone else out to the side, including the ACC and Big12.
Click to expand...
I think what saves the Big 12 and ACC from getting the boot is the relationships with Fox and ESPN. Those two are likely going to be the biggest bidders for the new CFP, and since they have skin in the game with the Big 12 and ACC, they’ll still want those 2 conferences included (probably to a lesser degree than SEC and B1G). Especially the Big 12 because it has a deal with both Fox and ESPN.

And starting in 2024, we no longer have to compete against UT and OU every year.. Yes, Iowa can afford to pay KKKirk and Mad Fran more $$$, but what competitive advantage are they gaining by getting b*tch slapped by OSU, UM, Bama, and Georgia annually..

I definitely agree. The B1G and SEC have absolutely hit a point of diminishing returns in my opinion. Mississippi State, Purdue, Rutgers, etc. haven’t been any closer to a national championship than TCU, Cincinnati, Oklahoma St in recent years despite larger bank accounts. This may be naive, but I don’t really care that we’ll have $30m, $50m, or whatever it is difference in annual income than the P2. The players don’t see any of that, and more dollars won’t change the competitive landscape to anything different than what it currently is. To be honest, I see a heck of a lot more coaching turnover in the B1G and SEC going forward, due to elevated expectations, than ever before. Which will make sustained success in those leagues even more difficult. What I care about is that ISU continues to see growth in revenue year over year in order to maintain and grow our infrastructure, staff, etc. to achieve our goals. We’ll always be the little engine that can, regardless of what other schools make.

Now my mindset will change if/when players get deemed employees and schools begin paying them directly. At that point, I see a fracturing of collegiate sports into more like-minded peer groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heitclone
HFCS said:
There's definitely diminishing returns after you have enough revenue to trick out all the facilities.

You can use Holmes and Osun as an example, they got a huge athletic facilities/lifestyle upgrade coming to ISU because the basketball facilities are pretty close to maxed out. Oregon or UNC or Michigan State probably have even more cash for facilities but it's not noticeable because we have enough to basically do anything that matters. ISU vs St Bonnie on the other hand is very noticeable.
Click to expand...
100% agree with this. The only thing the money can potentially do at this point is improve coaching staff pay. For some schools they are still upgrading their facilities but for those that already have outside of maintenance/renovation there isn’t a ton more that can be done.
 
JRE1975 said:
I can't wait for the next NCAA tournament contract and see how much more money goes to the participants and P6 basketball conferences and how much less goes to NCAA to pay for everything they do for all levels.

Yormark is right, basketball value distribution needs to change.
Click to expand...

That is the BIG wild card and why Yormark talks so much about maximizing basketball and international opportunities. There are people who believe the NCAA has left money on the table in extending the deal with CBS. The current extension pays $1.1M and goes through 2032.

For an event that attracts the nation's attention for almost a month, hopefully the powers to be can grow that number significantly!
 
SolterraCyclone said:
I think what saves the Big 12 and ACC from getting the boot is the relationships with Fox and ESPN. Those two are likely going to be the biggest bidders for the new CFP, and since they have skin in the game with the Big 12 and ACC, they’ll still want those 2 conferences included (probably to a lesser degree than SEC and B1G). Especially the Big 12 because it has a deal with both Fox and ESPN.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right, but over a medium term, I think it depends a lot on how much content that Fox and ESPN need to fill timeslots.

If they decide they only have 4 "prime" timeslots each per weekend, and they can get 4 "prime" games each from just the B1G and SEC (and probably they can - esp if both add even more teams), then they may start to treat Big12 and ACC like they treat the MAC and American today (i.e. bargain bin). They may decide that 8pm game on ESPNU is going to be low rated (ie not valuable) whether its USF-Temple or TCU-Cincy. I think it will be important for NBC and CBS (or others) at least to be serious about 2-4 games themselves to keep the bidding honest. That would be my worry I suppose.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Die4Cy
isucy86 said:
I think there is confusion. Here is my understanding based on what I've read/watched.

With the 4 team playoff the money is split approximately 20% G5 & 80% P5. Each P5 Conference received an equal split and I've seen #'s ranging from $68/$69M to a recent article at $79M, The $79M makes sense to me as the current amount because I've seen it mentioned each Big12 school received $8M in CFB Playoff money (most likely 21/22 fiscal).

With the 12 team playoff during the 2 year ESPN extension (2024 & 2025 regular seasons), the split would continue to be 20% G5 & 80% P5. But instead of each P5 Conference getting an equal split, each conference will get an amount per school in the conference. So the Big12 would get 12 x $X and the Big 10 would get 16 x $X. The estimate I've read for the 2 year ESPN extension is around $1B annually. Right now ESPN pays something like $600M for the 4 team playoff and New Years Bowl games it televises.

The 12 Team Playoff after media rights go out to open bid (starting 2026) is estimated at $2B. Obviously the distribution plan hasn't been established. I have been pretty clear this is the big unknown and IMO the Trojan horse for the Big10/SEC to make their money grab. The split scenarios could be:
  1. Similar to today & 2 year extension period with G5 getting 20% cut & 71 P5 schools 80%. That is the $22M figure I have used. Each P5 Conference could then decide to divide their money evenly or do uneven Playoff distribution.
  2. Does the CFB Playoff do something similar to the NCAA Hoops Tournament where conferences earn Units based on its schools in the 12 team playoff. I don't have much of an understanding of the Unit concept, but my understanding is units are tallied based on 5 or 6 years running total of teams a conference had invited to the tournament. Each unit is then worth a set amount.
  3. Or is revenue distribution a hybrid of #1 & #2. Obviously football is different with 12 spots vs 68 in hoops. And in hoops something like 32 bids go to conference champs. So even if the Big12 got 10 bids, it would be around 1/7 of the units.
  4. With the new $2B media rights, the G5 schools could get $400M @ 20%. Today the 60-70 G5 schools split around $100M of the 4 team Playoff $. Are P5 schools willing to give G5 another $300M, for maybe getting 1 playoff team?
  5. Will the six highest-ranked conference champions continue to receive an auto-bid? To receive an auto-bid would a team have to be ranked in top 15 by the Playoff Committee?
Click to expand...
So you are saying you have no links to this idea of yours.... and basically it is your own theory that you keep passing on as having sources that say this is the case...Correct. As if you actually have a link that says anything remotely like what you are saying it would be an easy share.

The only thing that I have even seen about 24-25 is that it will be "more fair" to those conferences with more members. But in no way does it say they are dividing it equally between 71 schools. And none of that has anything to do with the future agreement after these first 2 years....that you are completely guessing on.
 
cyfan92 said:
Missouri has a $30M lead over us in athletic department revenue. But over the last 2-3 years, who has had more success? Iowa makes $40M more than us... We are doing just fine competing against them.. Our football stadiums are at the same level, we have superior basketball facilities, a NY6 bowl win, and CyTown.

And starting in 2024, we no longer have to compete against UT and OU every year.. Yes, Iowa can afford to pay KKKirk and Mad Fran more $$$, but what competitive advantage are they gaining by getting b*tch slapped by OSU, UM, Bama, and Georgia annually..
Click to expand...
Iowa makes $40M more than us currently?
 
You know one thing I find interesting about the PAC situation that I just thought of?

When these media deals were last negotiated, about a decade ago, we all thought that being last at the negotiating table was going to be a benefit, because the Big 10 and PAC media deals all ended before ours; and the thought at the time was they would set the market for us. Boy was that train of thought off base with the PAC basically the last one without a chair.
 
CascadeClone said:
I hope you are right, but over a medium term, I think it depends a lot on how much content that Fox and ESPN need to fill timeslots.

If they decide they only have 4 "prime" timeslots each per weekend, and they can get 4 "prime" games each from just the B1G and SEC (and probably they can - esp if both add even more teams), then they may start to treat Big12 and ACC like they treat the MAC and American today (i.e. bargain bin). They may decide that 8pm game on ESPNU is going to be low rated (ie not valuable) whether it’s USF-Temple or TCU-Cincy. I think it will be important for NBC and CBS (or others) at least to be serious about 2-4 games themselves to keep the bidding honest. That would be my worry I suppose.
Click to expand...
I think that’s a fair concern. But I don’t think Fox or ESPN would invest as much as they did in the Big 12 if they viewed it like that. To me, that is how they are viewing the PAC-12 given what we’ve heard about those negotiations. I think they consider the Big 12 a “little brother” to the two big dogs who will put 1-3 competitive teams in the playoff each year.

I’ll look this up, but does anyone know if we got a guaranteed time slot in these networks in our new deal? Similar to the B1G’s Big Noon guarantee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom