Two things I don't understand about expansion

[JS School]

I don't pay attention to this as much as some of you, so maybe can explain this.

1. If the Big 10 and SEC teams are going to be receiving 75 mil per year, why would they want to add more teams? Other than ND, it seems like no other school would add enough revenue to divide up the pie into more pieces and also increase the per team payout.

2. I thought a major reason for going to a 12 team playoff was to include all major conference champions, but schools seem more interested in money than conference championships. If it seems that the 12 best teams are all going to be in two conferences, is the playoff just going to turn into a bunch of regular season rematches or a Big 10/SEC Challenge tournament? Would the networks be okay with that?


It seems to me that instead of trying to persuade other teams to join, the ACC should be trying to persuade ESPN that the direction things are headed is not in their best interest in regard to viewership. The networks should be telling the Big 10 and SEC they are not paying for what they are trying to achieve.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I don't pay attention to this as much as some of you, so maybe can explain this.

1. If the Big 10 and SEC teams are going to be receiving 75 mil per year, why would they want to add more teams? Other than ND, it seems like no other school would add enough revenue to divide up the pie into more pieces and also increase the per team payout.

2. I thought a major reason for going to a 12 team playoff was to include all major conference champions, but schools seem more interested in money than conference championships. If it seems that the 12 best teams are all going to be in two conferences, is the playoff just going to turn into a bunch of regular season rematches or a Big 10/SEC Challenge tournament? Would the networks be okay with that?


It seems to me that instead of trying to persuade other teams to join, the ACC should be trying to persuade ESPN that the direction things are headed is not in their best interest in regard to viewership. The networks should be telling the Big 10 and SEC they are not paying for what they are trying to achieve.

I dont see how Oregon and Washington (or anyone) is worth the $75 million/year it would take to keep everyone's payout the same. Its rumored the P12 deal is only worth $200 million total for 10 teams. So would Oregon and Washington really be worth $150 million and then Utah, AZ, ASU, Cal, Stan, Or St, WSU, 1 expansion team really only worth $50 million combined

 

[pittmeister]

I dont see how Oregon and Washington (or anyone) is worth the $75 million/year it would take to keep everyone's payout the same. Its rumored the P12 deal is only worth $200 million total for 10 teams. So would Oregon and Washington really be worth $150 million and then Utah, AZ, ASU, Cal, Stan, Or St, WSU, 1 expansion team really only worth $50 million combined

Correct. Expansion has to make sense to the members they already have. If they're not making more money, they won't be invited....They aren't taking less money.

 

[Pitt2006]

Correct. Expansion has to make sense to the members they already have. If they're not making more money, they won't be invited....They aren't taking less money.

Well that is where it becomes interesting. If Pitt says, we will go to the SEC for half of what other teams get paid, do you take it? Also, conference expansion will eventually lower payouts for most. No one wants to watch the same teams over and over. The CFP title game had the lowest viewership in years. That is not sustainable for increased payouts, particularly with cord cutting, etc. People will also password share, pirate, group watch, etc. If anything, they need more conferences with viable paths. Like the basketball tourney. The superbowl maintains viewership due to parity, which the NCAA lacks and has no regulation over. The more us laypeople feel included, the more we will watch. Mostly likely a Big 4 would achieve some semblance of this with a quality G5 fifth.

 

[Burgh15]

What is more remarkable is how top-loaded the Big 10 is. They're getting a lot of money with a lot of bad college football programs in the league. Is there ever a point in which they trim some of the fat at the bottom and load up on better depth, while still maintaining a 16-team conference? Or do they need the bottom dwellers for teams like Penn State to pad wins?