The Changing FBS Football Landscape

Cerebus · November 21, 2017

Folks in another thread @Side Show Joe and I were discussing whether or not CFB had changed much since 2011, when GP and TCU moved into the P5. This sparked a really long two part response that I thought would create more discussion on its own instead of being buried in a "Brett Vito is Satan" thread. Here it is:

On 11/20/2017 at 8:07 AM, Side Show Joe said:

Even though we now have a playoff, I don't think football has changed that much in 6 years.

Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree. In my eyes there are huge and monumental changes in CFB even if you completely disregard the new play offs.

The Entire CFB Economic Model is Changing

---
Disney more or less held every single cable subscriber hostage and forced them to pay for many ESPN channels even if they had zero interest in them. They could do this because they also owned ABC, A&E, Lifetime, History, etc. If providers didn't bundle ESPN into the most basic cable package they wouldn't get access to any of the Disney/ESPN/ABC channels. What this did is made millions of subscribers pay hundreds of dollars every year for specific channel fees they would not have taken if they had the option. Free money.

Now cable cutting is killing that model. Cable is losing about a million subscribers per quarter. It's getting bad enough that cable subscribers and Disney are suing each other over forcing ESPN into basic cable. Some change has already happened. Verizon launch a ESPN less basic cable in 2015, Dish did the same in 2016. These ESPN-less packages are the only area of cable showing growth. So not only are fees going down from fewer consumers, even some consumers deciding to keep cable are going to opt for cable that doesn't give ESPN a dime. End of free money.

So as I've posted on here multiple times, we're are rapidly approaching a day when ESPN loses money for Disney. They already see the writing on the wall. Right now another round of talent layoff is going on, they are expect to trim at least 100 from the Bristol roster by the end of Thanksgiving weekend. ESPN is more or less locked into paying the rights contracts it has now, but everyone knows the next round of contracts is going to be affected.

This coming pain has had/will have two big effects on CFB. First is the end of expansion. Second is the coming contraction. In the expansion era it made sense for conferences to try and expand into as many large media markets as possible because:

1) ESPN had free money to give, trying to chase fewer eyeballs with the money of those eyeballs not even watching sports.

2) ESPN was facing competition from Fox and other players wanting to getting into college athletics. So they were enticed to give some of that free money out to get access instead of redistributing it to stock holders.

In fact that above is what lead CUSA to sign it's largest contract ($1.2M per team distribution) in 2011. Now the conference also made a bad bet, thinking that online streaming would add to the pool of money, as so they took a short term 5 year deal. So yes, in 2011, CUSA got a big fat contract under the old free money system. However when they went to renegotiate in 2016, the old free money was gone. CUSA per team distribution fell from $1.2M to $200k.

So since ESPN no longer has free money, it no longer makes sense to grow bigger conferences in media markets hoping a team can grow to capture that market. You now have to worry about what they can for sure deliver. Look no further than UH. Houston pulled off what would have been the perfect plan in 2011, but unfortunately they peaked too late. In 2011 UH would have gone to the Big 12, but by 2016 it was too late.

So long story short. GP was at TCU at a time when:

1) a program that put all out effort into successfully build a winning football team had a real chance at moving into a P5 league.

2) He also coached at a school that had SWC ties to most of the school in the P5 conference they wanted to move into.

So now imagine you are UT or OU. You know the B12 has teams that don't deliver enough enough eyeballs. You can either stick with them and trim $10M or so off your distribution, or go somewhere else and make as much if not more. You think UT/OU love Iowa St/KState/TCU/Baylor enough to do that? Neither do I. What is holding that league together right now is the B12 Grant Of Rights (GOR). Right now if UT/OU took off the rest of the B12 and Disney could see them for breach and recover damages. Come 2025 though, all bets are off.

To me the writing on the wall is clear. In fact Disney would have favored adding UH to the B12, as long as the B12 members agreed to extend the current GOR at the same rate. The schools not named OU/UT were all for that. First they know the best case scenario is UT/OU sticking around and keeping revenue about the same. Second they know their TV money would collapse the second UT/OU left, and an extension of the GOR would at least put that off. The biggest news out of all that was that UT/OU refused.

So what happens when the GOR expires? OU and UT are gone. The B12 is still probably named the B12, but it is going to lose the special P5 consideration it gets for the CFP, the CFP payout, their per team media distribution is going to fall to AAC levels, and perhaps most importantly they are going to lose the special P5 rules autonomy that the NCAA granted.

So that is one enormous difference between 2011 and 2017. The second is the fact that the NCAA caved into the P5 and let them have the voting authority to make rules that affect all of FBS football without any power on the G5's behalf.

NCAA Governance Has Changed to Explicitly Favor the P5

---

Ed O'Bannon has had an interesting life. He was an All American, had his number retired by UCLA, was named the MVP of the NCAA Tournament they won in 1995, even has a deadman's ACL inside him. Despite all of that the most monumental thing O'Bannon ever did was sue the NCAA.

When O'Bannon v. NCAA was decided in 2014 the judge found that the NCAA's claim to non profit amateurism was a sham, and that schools should be allowed to offer Full Cost-Of-Attendance (FCOA) payments to cover expense not paid for by scholarships. This created panic in the P5 heart.

First, because they are a much bigger cash machine, they realized they were a bigger juicier target. They needed to get a fix in ASAP or they would be creating future possible litigants every since year. Second, there was a unionization threat beginning to form, and they needed to (in effect) pay off the players to not join that momentum. Of course, being the P5, they had to try and implement a fix in the most unfair to the G5 way possible.

While all of FBS agreed it was probably best to get some FCOA going ASAP, the G5 (and a few of the less cash rich P5) wanted the NCAA to set a standard rate, or at least a cap. That would meet the requirements while keeping costs down. The P5 on the other hand saw it as another way to distance themselves. They wanted schools to be able to set their own rate, without a cap. They also specifically wanted the rule to state that if the FCOA was over the student athletes actual costs, the student athlete can keep the difference. They also did NOT want a rule that would require schools to report to the NCAA what they are covering for an athlete. Clearly all that would greatly favor the P5 over the G5.

The P5 where unable to force this over the G5 when the G5 had equal voting rights, so they gave the NCAA an ultimatum behind closed doors. Either give the P5 extra power to draft rules that govern all of FBS, or they will explore creating their own governance for football. The NCAA caved.

In 2015 the ACC, B10, P12, B12, and SEC where give special autonomy over all of FBS. The 65 teams voted to allow a FCOA in FBS. It did not set a figure for all of FBS, instead allowing official at each school to determine the FCOA. It did not set a cap on FCOA. It did not require reporting about what are the unusual expenses that a school covers. It did not require students to return, or even report, any money given above their actual expenses.

That is in and of itself a major advantage that P5 schools have over G5 schools in 2017 that they didn't have in 2011. But the rule autonomy didn't stop there.

Let's not forget the complete chaos over the changing satellite camp rules in 2016. All of that came about because the special P5 autonomy allowed the P5 to argue about what was and wasn't allowed, without the NCAA being able to over ride them, and dragging the G5 along. Is it any wonder that a 10th assistant coach rule was passed in 2017. Who has the money to outbid everyone else for the best upcoming positional coaches? The P5 don't even have to specifically pass rules, they can just pressure the NCAA to not pass rules. In fact one of the biggest differences in CFB since 2011 is the proliferation of non coach roles.

You may notice that on any sideline there are now positions like "running game quality control" or "passing coordinator." They don't count as one of the 9 (now 10) allowed assistant coaches. They can't recruit. But they can free up the assistant coaches to recruit. They can do a ton of extra film and study work with players while the assistant coaches do other coaching. They are also uncapped.

So who has the most to gain from these types of positions? The P5. The P5 can afford to hire not only up and comers, but some of the best coaches out there as "not coaches." In fact, there are already tons of allegations that P5 programs are using these positions to hire people who are influential with major recruits. Sort of an AAU system for CFB.

---

Long story short, I believe CFB is very different from 2011 until now. There are a lot of questions of how this is going to affect the future of the sport, whether or not the NCAA is going to survive, whether or not if it does will the P5 ever officially split from the G5. I would like to here other peoples opinions.

tmjerm · November 21, 2017

Very well thought out and scary. I hate that the game has peaked in terms of upward opportunity for g5 schools. I had a long conversation about that this weekend and one thought that was thrown out there was shifting to a relegation model for P5 level treatment. Lots of obstacles and issues I see with that but fun to think about.

golfingomez · November 21, 2017

totally read that

Cerebus · November 21, 2017

@TIgreen01 asked this in the original thread but I am going to address this here:

17 hours ago, TIgreen01 said:

Good summary of all that is going on. To me, though, I'm not so sure that it is a sure thing that UT/OU leave as soon as the GOR expires. What's stopping the tagalong B12 schools from just continuing to accept a smaller and smaller piece of the pie? They already moved to do just that a couple of years ago. Why not keep adjusting the payouts to give UT/OU a big enough share to match whatever they could make by leaving to join the SEC/Big10?

I think the tag-a-long B12 school would love that arrangement. However, I don't think UT and OU are interested. Let's face it, they already have the power to do that now, but they chose not to do it.

Adding in UH would have been a perfect time to do it. They could have all mutually ended their original B12 distribution agreement to form a new one where OU and UT got more. They decided not to do that. Let's face facts even more: They could simply force that distribution on the other B12 schools at any time by simply stating that either they change it now or they won't renew in after the current GOR expires.

So why don't they? I think they already realize the problem with the B12 is that besides OU/UT/Kansas they are mostly either schools in small media markets, or are privates with a small alumni base, or both. OU/UT and probably Kansas probably have already realized they can make more money by getting into a more media friendly conference than they can by dragging along the B12 weight even if they get unequal distribution.

The one big wrinkle in this is the LHN. The B12 allows UT to keep that third tier media right money to themselves. Will the Pac12/B10/SEC allow them to do so? Will it matter if they can make more off the total media deal than they can off the LHN?

Cerebus · November 21, 2017

31 minutes ago, golfingomez said:

totally read that

Yeah, sorry. It is a little long. If this was grad school I would consider that a first draft with considerable editing needed.

However since no one is grading or paying me, you get what you gets.

Ben Gooding · November 21, 2017

So, like you said, it sets college football up to be ran like the AAU is being run. Which, if anyone at all is familiar with it, is about as corrupt and scammish as it gets.

Look no further than the blue blood programs. When they are warming up an hour or so before kick, coaches and "non-coaches" out on the field sometimes outnumber the actual players out warming up. Perfect EX: Alabama. It's a blueprint that is destined to fail and/or cause ever MORE corruption than there already is. And we all know that corruption and blatant cheating is running rampant in college athletics. Reminds me of the steroid era in the MLB in the late 90's/00's. Everyone knows, everyone sees it, and no one is really doing anything about it. Took an act of congress to make an honest effort to even make an attempt to clean baseball up. Lately, the FBI is getting involved in the collegiate corruption. I hope congress is paying attention.

golfingomez · November 21, 2017

20 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

@TIgreen01 asked this in the original thread but I am going to address this here:

I think the tag-a-long B12 school would love that arrangement. However, I don't think UT and OU are interested. Let's face it, they already have the power to do that now, but they chose not to do it.

Adding in UH would have been a perfect time to do it. They could have all mutually ended their original B12 distribution agreement to form a new one where OU and UT got more. They decided not to do that. Let's face facts even more: They could simply force that distribution on the other B12 schools at any time by simply stating that either they change it now or they won't renew in after the current GOR expires.

So why don't they? I think they already realize the problem with the B12 is that besides OU/UT/Kansas they are mostly either schools in small media markets, or are privates with a small alumni base, or both. OU/UT and probably Kansas probably have already realized they can make more money by getting into a more media friendly conference than they can by dragging along the B12 weight even if they get unequal distribution.

The one big wrinkle in this is the LHN. The B12 allows UT to keep that third tier media right money to themselves. Will the Pac12/B10/SEC allow them to do so? Will it matter if they can make more off the total media deal than they can off the LHN?

if they want to move to another conference the LHN would have to be dissolved. and ESPN would be extremely happy about it. They may couch it as an incorporation into the SEC package (if that is the destination), but it would essentially be gone.

While Texas has had the big stick for the last 30 years, if they want to leave the big 12 for PAC, B10 or SEC, they will have to realize that they will just be another player alongside the major powers in those conferences.

Cerebus · November 21, 2017

6 minutes ago, golfingomez said:

While Texas has had the big stick for the last 30 years, if they want to leave the big 12 for PAC, B10 or SEC, they will have to realize that they will just be another player alongside the major powers in those conferences.

Yeah, also a big part of the adjustment for UT. However, if being the big fish was that important to them, they can do it now, in the B12, simply by extending the GOR.

TheColonyEagle · November 21, 2017

Good stuff Cerebus...

My head is spinning a little with all this I have a scatter shooting list of questions:

1. What do we think this mean for UNT?

a. Who will we be in a conference with?

And most importantly:

2. If there's an official split and no one will ever move up again, are we going to get a return on all the facility investment?

Also:

I feel like someone in the G5 is going to need to step up and lead. It almost feels like the G5 are scared to say anything because they want to hold off on the inevitable. Don't want to make it "official"

SMU, UH, hell...maybe UNT....all may have dreams of ending up in the P5. If you say UNT does not then what the hell are we spending all this money on facilities for? Is it worth it?

Do we need to (I'm talking to you SMU and UH) swallow our pride, be proactive and get a regionally based conference NOW? Then when the big12 crashes....bring the Texas cast offs in? I still can't wrap my head around that.

I have to think there is NO WAY TCU or Baylor think they will ever go down out of the P5 (or whatever it will be...) And I almost feel like SMU would drop their program before ever being in a conference with us...

Edited November 21, 2017 by TheColonyEagle

wardly · November 21, 2017

In my opinion football will become a gate revenue sport for G5 programs, as the P5 conferences will get all the t.v.money.To me that means the G5 programs will have to look at reducing costs, creating regional rivalries , and shrinking their conference footprint.

Ben Gooding · November 21, 2017

7 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

Good stuff Cerebus...

My head is spinning a little with all this I have a scatter shooting list of questions:

1. What do we think this mean for UNT?

a. Who will we be in a conference with?

And most importantly:

2. If there's an official split and no one will ever move up again, are we going to get a return on all the facility investment?

Also:

I feel like someone in the G5 is going to need to step up and lead. It almost feels like the G5 are scared to say anything because they want to hold off on the inevitable. Don't want to make it "official"

SMU, UH, hell...maybe UNT....all may have dreams of ending up in the P5. If you say UNT does not then what the hell are we spending all this money on facilities for? Is it worth it?

Do we need to (I'm talking to you SMU and UH) swallow our pride, be proactive and get a regionally based conference NOW? Then when the big12 crashes....bring the Texas cast offs in? I still can't wrap my head around that.

I have to think there is NO WAY TCU or Baylor think they will ever go down out of the P5 (or whatever it will be...) And I almost feel like SMU would drop their program before ever being in a conference with us...

Yes. This is called calling your own shots. This is what needs to be done. Grouping together the best, most attractive G5 regional programs and piecing together our own conference. Leave 3 or 4 slots available for when the Big12 implodes. Start at 10 regional G5 programs...

UNT, UTSA, SMU, UH, Southern Miss, Tulsa, LaTech, Arkansas State, Memphis, and Rice. Leave 4 spots open to get to 14 when the Big12 collapse happens. To add, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State.

This is a competitive conference with much to offer across the board, athletically and academically, that I could get behind.

TIgreen01 · November 21, 2017

14 minutes ago, TheColonyEagle said:

Good stuff Cerebus...

My head is spinning a little with all this I have a scatter shooting list of questions:

1. What do we think this mean for UNT?

a. Who will we be in a conference with?

And most importantly:

2. If there's an official split and no one will ever move up again, are we going to get a return on all the facility investment?

Also:

I feel like someone in the G5 is going to need to step up and lead. It almost feels like the G5 are scared to say anything because they want to hold off on the inevitable. Don't want to make it "official"

SMU, UH, hell...maybe UNT....all may have dreams of ending up in the P5. If you say UNT does not then what the hell are we spending all this money on facilities for? Is it worth it?

Do we need to (I'm talking to you SMU and UH) swallow our pride, be proactive and get a regionally based conference NOW? Then when the big12 crashes....bring the Texas cast offs in? I still can't wrap my head around that.

I have to think there is NO WAY TCU or Baylor think they will ever go down out of the P5 (or whatever it will be...)

I think the answer to your question is in that document produced last summer by the Keahne consulting group. They want to ultimately raise our funding/budgets to match the levels of schools that are in the MWC and AAC. They are already looking forward to that next round of realignment that Cerebus is pointing (2025) and trying to position us to land in with schools already in that next rung up from CUSA. Nobody knows who will land where. All we can do is continue to grow and put ourselves on a level playing field financially so that we can be a part of that discussion.

IMPO, it does not benefit us, yet, to shrink our footprint to just regional Texas based schools only.

Edited November 21, 2017 by TIgreen01

MeanGreen_MBA · November 21, 2017

2 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Yes. This is called calling your own shots. This is what needs to be done. Grouping together the best, most attractive G5 regional programs and piecing together our own conference. Leave 3 or 4 slots available for when the Big12 implodes. Start at 10 regional G5 programs...

UNT, UTSA, SMU, UH, Southern Miss, Tulsa, LaTech, Arkansas State, Memphis, and Rice. Leave 4 spots open to get to 14 when the Big12 collapse happens. To add, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State.

This is a competitive conference with much to offer across the board, athletically and academically, that I could get behind.

The NEW SWC

golfingomez · November 21, 2017

3 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Yes. This is called calling your own shots. This is what needs to be done. Grouping together the best, most attractive G5 regional programs and piecing together our own conference. Leave 3 or 4 slots available for when the Big12 implodes. Start at 10 regional G5 programs...

UNT, UTSA, SMU, UH, Southern Miss, Tulsa, LaTech, Arkansas State, Memphis, and Rice. Leave 4 spots open to get to 14 when the Big12 collapse happens. To add, Baylor, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State.

This is a competitive conference with much to offer across the board, athletically and academically, that I could get behind.

While this could potentially be beneficial to those of us in CUSA/Sunbelt. I still think that the schools in the AAC are getting a bigger payout and wouldn't have much motivation to jump ship before absolutely needing to.

Ben Gooding · November 21, 2017

4 minutes ago, golfingomez said:

While this could potentially be beneficial to those of us in CUSA/Sunbelt. I still think that the schools in the AAC are getting a bigger payout and wouldn't have much motivation to jump ship before absolutely needing to.

Why wait until absolutely needing to.

The G5 are in the predicament we are in because we keep waiting around for table scraps. We never call our own shots, we just wait to jump onto the last domino that falls. You get ahead of these kinds of things by calling your own shots and dictating your own success. And I have a feeling these regional games with these exact opponents would draw damn good TV ratings which would in hand increase our monetary allotment to at least that of the current AAC putout. Difference is, attendance/revenue would spike and overhead would decrease due to far less traveling.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Ben Gooding

golfingomez · November 21, 2017

1 minute ago, Ben Gooding said:

What wait until absolutely needing to.

The G5 are in the predicament we are in because we keep waiting around for table scraps. We never call our own shots, we just wait to jump onto the last domino that falls. You get ahead of these kinds of things by calling your own shots and dictating your own success.

so you really think that Memphis, Houston and SMU are going to want to admit that they will not be P5? Because it sure would be a tough sell to get them to 'drop down' (which is what they would see it as.

if you roll without those schools, like it or not, you might get a TV deal Bein Sports/online streaming. You would have 7 schools with only LaTech and SoMiss only being 'known' football schools.

TheColonyEagle · November 21, 2017

8 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

What wait until absolutely needing to.

The G5 are in the predicament we are in because we keep waiting around for table scraps. We never call our own shots, we just wait to jump onto the last domino that falls. You get ahead of these kinds of things by calling your own shots and dictating your own success.

I agree with you.....

But pride (foolish maybe, yes) will NEVER let the teams not in CUSA/Sunbelt proactively group themselves with us.

They will wait until they are forced to.

I still say, SMU would drop football before being in a conference with us. I'm not taking a shot at SMU but I think their history has shown....they thrive on being associated with others (SWC history and now a strong AAC) but have never contributed to those groups themselves. I don't think they can succeed without strong programs they can tag along with. If they were in our conference they would get killed in recruiting...put them on our even playing field and I don't think they won't be able to compete. They can't sell "we're in X conference" anymore.

Edited November 21, 2017 by TheColonyEagle

Ben Gooding · November 21, 2017

1 minute ago, golfingomez said:

so you really think that Memphis, Houston and SMU are going to want to admit that they will not be P5? Because it sure would be a tough sell to get them to 'drop down' (which is what they would see it as.

if you roll without those schools, like it or not, you might get a TV deal Bein Sports/online streaming. You would have 7 schools with only LaTech and SoMiss only being 'known' football schools.

No, I don't think they would. But it'd be in their best interest long term.

Green Mean · November 21, 2017

I totally get the landscape has changed and will continue to change. The TV money is going to dwindle but not just for the G5's but for everyone. Even within the P5's, how many of them are the major draws from a tv perspective from a national level? Maybe 20-25? Few of the other ones have a good regional following but I feel the money is going to be going down all across the board. That said, it doesn't mean there won't be any money there....as of now the G5's have to rely on actual tickets sold, donations etc...that's not going to change later on. I don't see the complete break off between the P5 and G5...it kind of is already divided indirectly...G5's don't have a shot at the playoff...they might be lucky to get into a major bowl like a WMU last season but how often is that going to happen?

There's a disruption now but there's also going to be new things that come...We can now watch games on Facebook, Twitter etc....there's going to be other services and products that get created which will add a new dimension to entertainment IMO. While it looks slightly worrisome especially from our perspective I just think we're still a ways away before the worst happening.

From a NT perspective we just need to continue to poor resources and money into the important programs and try to get ourselves aligned and associated with the AAC's & MWC's of the world. Perception wise they're viewed much more favorably and IMO just better conferences than CUSA IMO. We do that I think we'll be fine and we'll continue to have winning/successful seasons which elevates our programs and our school's profile.

Ben Gooding · November 21, 2017

2 minutes ago, Green Mean said:

I totally get the landscape has changed and will continue to change. The TV money is going to dwindle but not just for the G5's but for everyone. Even within the P5's, how many of them are the major draws from a tv perspective from a national level? Maybe 20-25? Few of the other ones have a good regional following but I feel the money is going to be going down all across the board. That said, it doesn't mean there won't be any money there....as of now the G5's have to rely on actual tickets sold, donations etc...that's not going to change later on. I don't see the complete break off between the P5 and G5...it kind of is already divided indirectly...G5's don't have a shot at the playoff...they might be lucky to get into a major bowl like a WMU last season but how often is that going to happen?

There's a disruption now but there's also going to be new things that come...We can now watch games on Facebook, Twitter etc....there's going to be other services and products that get created which will add a new dimension to entertainment IMO. While it looks slightly worrisome especially from our perspective I just think we're still a ways away before the worst happening.

From a NT perspective we just need to continue to poor resources and money into the important programs and try to get ourselves aligned and associated with the AAC's & MWC's of the world. Perception wise they're viewed much more favorably and IMO just better conferences than CUSA IMO. We do that I think we'll be fine and we'll continue to have winning/successful seasons which elevates our programs and our school's profile.

It happens every year. It'll be UCF this year. And someone else the next. It's a guaranteed game for the G5 highest ranked conference champion. It's the proverbial "table scraps."

Cowtown · November 21, 2017

Fighting Irish to Big 12 allows them to keep their indy TV deal. Big 12 is the only conf in a position to offer that. If Irish join, then the idea of Big 12 poaching from the SEC (Ark, Mizzu), Big 10 (Nebraska, Penn St) or Pac (CO) is not that far fetched.

It aint all over yet.

golfingomez · November 21, 2017

15 minutes ago, Cowtown said:

Fighting Irish to Big 12 allows them to keep their indy TV deal. Big 12 is the only conf in a position to offer that. If Irish join, then the idea of Big 12 poaching from the SEC (Ark, Mizzu), Big 10 (Nebraska, Penn St) or Pac (CO) is not that far fetched.

It aint all over yet.

Would Notre Dame owe the ACC some kind of compensation due to their current arrangement?

Cerebus · November 21, 2017

1 hour ago, TheColonyEagle said:

Good stuff Cerebus...

My head is spinning a little with all this I have a scatter shooting list of questions:

1. What do we think this mean for UNT?

a. Who will we be in a conference with?

With the hope of TV money going away for everyone except the new P4, the G? teams are going to have to rely on money they can get locally. Ticket sales, donations, local partnerships, student fees.

They will need to cut expenses where they can. Travel is a killer, especially for the non revenue generating sports. To be honest, the only team that we have that comes close to covering expenses is the football team. Mostly because it drives MGC memberships and it can schedule payout games. The arms race will still exist, but the P5/G5 gulf will be larger than ever.

Non Power Conferences will need to re-shuffle membership to keep costs down and promote close by rivalries that will drive more attendance. Right now the difference between say AAC/MWC and CUSA/MAC is more or less driven by media money. That difference will get levelled out. All G5 conferences are heading to a major haircut on media money, it just came to CUSA first since the conference decided to sign a 5 year deal in 2011 instead of a 10 year or longer deal.

So what does this mean for NT conference wise. We need to be hitting our stride around 2025. That doesn't mean our FB or MBB team has a good year that specific year. That means our MGC numbers are much higher, or season ticket numbers are much higher, our athletics endowment is much higher. Those are the metrics that matter.

After the B12 explodes one premier G? conference is going to form. Possibly two depending on how future CFP payouts are structured. If you look at the G5 map you will see most of the better non G5 programs are in the central area on east. BYU is an anomaly. Those teams, plus the left overs of the B12 are probably going to be able to command the highest media price, and will be able to handle high travel costs. Everyone else will be forced to extremely regional conferences.

IF we had 5000 MGC members and 10,000 season ticket holders come 2025, then I think the we would be in great position to be included. When you look at the B12 the leftovers will probably be teams that don't deliver a market because they are either 1) in too remote a location (Ex: Iowa St, Texas Tech) or, 2) don't produce enough alumni (Baylor, TCU). Add to that the higher end G5 teams (Houston? Memphis? ???) and you have a great G5 conference.

That top conference will have the enough prestige where their champion can get included into whatever the future playoff system allows. Everyone else will be shut out.

1 hour ago, TheColonyEagle said:

2. If there's an official split and no one will ever move up again, are we going to get a return on all the facility investment?

I still think having a team in the top division (FBS) is well worth the exposure as long as it is successful.

Cerebus · November 21, 2017

1 hour ago, wardly said:

In my opinion football will become a gate revenue sport for G5 programs, as the P5 conferences will get all the t.v.money.To me that means the G5 programs will have to look at reducing costs, creating regional rivalries , and shrinking their conference footprint.

This is probably right although there will probably one "special" G5 that is strong enough to get media attention and votes, therefore some diminished access to the future CFP. All the other G5 will be de facto if not de jure locked out.

Cerebus · November 21, 2017

1 hour ago, golfingomez said:

While this could potentially be beneficial to those of us in CUSA/Sunbelt. I still think that the schools in the AAC are getting a bigger payout and wouldn't have much motivation to jump ship before absolutely needing to.

They are getting it now, but I don't think it will be significant in the next round. And every single one of them will sell their own mother to be part of the B12 cast offs group.