CFB PLAYOFF FINAL AND NO SEC

[stinger78]

The Big10 has 3 to 4 really good teams, but there is a big drop off to their next tier of teams. The SEC has 3 to 4 really good teams, but another 2 to 3 teams in the middle that are really good (ie not a big drop off).

In expanding the playoffs to 16 teams, I don’t think the Big10 Commissioner is going to pursue a format of a bunch of “at-large” picks because he knows the Big10 will probably max out at 4 whereas the SEC could get 5, 6 or even 7 teams. I think the Big10 commissioner will probably be leaning more towards the ACC, Big12, G5 line of thinking than the SEC’s line of thinking.

We can only hope.

 

[billga99]

The Big10 has 3 to 4 really good teams, but there is a big drop off to their next tier of teams. The SEC has 3 to 4 really good teams, but another 2 to 3 teams in the middle that are really good (ie not a big drop off).

In expanding the playoffs to 16 teams, I don’t think the Big10 Commissioner is going to pursue a format of a bunch of “at-large” picks because he knows the Big10 will probably max out at 4 whereas the SEC could get 5, 6 or even 7 teams. I think the Big10 commissioner will probably be leaning more towards the ACC, Big12, G5 line of thinking than the SEC’s line of thinking.

if you had top 6 conference champions and maxed conferences at 4 teams, that would leave 4 at large teams for conferences outside the SEC and Big Ten. That would seem a little more viable.

 

[RamblinRed]

The Big10 has 3 to 4 really good teams, but there is a big drop off to their next tier of teams. The SEC has 3 to 4 really good teams, but another 2 to 3 teams in the middle that are really good (ie not a big drop off).

In expanding the playoffs to 16 teams, I don’t think the Big10 Commissioner is going to pursue a format of a bunch of “at-large” picks because he knows the Big10 will probably max out at 4 whereas the SEC could get 5, 6 or even 7 teams. I think the Big10 commissioner will probably be leaning more towards the ACC, Big12, G5 line of thinking than the SEC’s line of thinking.

I doubt the B1G Commissioner will be thinking more like the ACC/B12/G5.

The Top 3 in the B1G were better than the Top 3 in the SEC, the next 3 in the SEC were better than the next 3 in the B1G - but who is to say that is how it will be in the future.
With their revenue streams i'd would'nt surprise me if the B1G Commissioner is going to think his top 5-6 are going to be better than the SEC's Top 5-6 over the long run.
He's got multiple programs that are sort of in down cycles - USC, WI. What if they rebound.

Both of those leagues are only thinking of one thing - how much can they control the entire college football enterprise.

 

[GT33]

I doubt the B1G Commissioner will be thinking more like the ACC/B12/G5.

The Top 3 in the B1G were better than the Top 3 in the SEC, the next 3 in the SEC were better than the next 3 in the B1G - but who is to say that is how it will be in the future.
With their revenue streams i'd would'nt surprise me if the B1G Commissioner is going to think his top 5-6 are going to be better than the SEC's Top 5-6 over the long run.
He's got multiple programs that are sort of in down cycles - USC, WI. What if they rebound.

Both of those leagues are only thinking of one thing - how much can they control the entire college football enterprise.

You're right about the Big10-11-now18. They're got Mich, Osu, Ore, Usc, Psu, Iowa, Wisc, Wash. Sparty used to have a real program also. They'll have 2-3 elite with another 4-5 pretty damn good programs every year, maybe more now they're allowed to pay players directly.

The sec got outflanked here & when the B12 catches up in a few years may find themselves to be #3 in the pecking order.

 

[RonJohn]

The sec got outflanked here & when the B12 catches up in a few years may find themselves to be #3 in the pecking order.

The Big12 isn't even #3 right now.

 

[Richard7125]

I doubt the B1G Commissioner will be thinking more like the ACC/B12/G5.

The Top 3 in the B1G were better than the Top 3 in the SEC, the next 3 in the SEC were better than the next 3 in the B1G - but who is to say that is how it will be in the future.
With their revenue streams i'd would'nt surprise me if the B1G Commissioner is going to think his top 5-6 are going to be better than the SEC's Top 5-6 over the long run.
He's got multiple programs that are sort of in down cycles - USC, WI. What if they rebound.

Both of those leagues are only thinking of one thing - how much can they control the entire college football enterprise.

Most on here want to lump the SEC and Big10 together as having the same mindset. I’m not too sure about that. I bet the SEC doesn’t like the Big10 making more money and I bet the Big10 wants to keep their advantage. I think the SEC will push for more at-large bids because I believe they think that is too their overall advantage (not to the SEC and Big10’s advantage). I think the Big10 will have a different opinion.

 

[RamblinRed]

Article on why the B1G may be the best positioned conference going forward (basic thesis: B1G schools have more money to throw around - due to media deal, huge fan bases, and rich alums due to the quality of the schools - then any other conference, and that will allow them to mitigate the SEC's geographic advantage in terms of talent by offering more money.)

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...-shifting-power-dynamics-from-south-to-north/

Jim Harbaugh strongly believed that if and when it became legal to pay college football players, Michigan would benefit.
Knowing the significant wealth emotionally invested in seeing Michigan football succeed, the then-Michigan head coach believed the Wolverines would have an advantage over the SEC schools he loved to poke at over the years,

"He reasoned it could only benefit Michigan if it became legal to share some of the spoils with the athletes," said Todd Anson, long a Harbaugh consigliere and a Central Michigan University trustee. "That was the impetus for him asking me to form a collective, which I did.

There may not be banners for generating the most revenue but in this current era of college football, financial resources are paramount and no one has more of them than the Big Ten.

"We're now moving in an era of deregulation and House settlement where your ability to perform and compete at the highest level is largely predicated on resources," Oregon athletic director Rob Mullens told CBS Sports. "We're all doing everything we can to identify additional resources and when you're in a league that has an outstanding media rights deal with incredible distribution and you can play – I think we played seven straight weeks on network TV and had outstanding ratings.

The population boom gave southern schools a recruiting advantage as Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and Texas annually produced a considerable amount of high-level talent.
Those recruiting advantages haven't gone away but this era has offered the cold-state schools up north an opportunity to minimize them with cold, hard cash.

Pay-for-play is technically against the NCAA rules but they have not been enforced for nearly a year since Judge Clifton Corker granted a preliminary injunction against the NCAA saying it likely violated federal antitrust law and that athletes prevented from knowing potential compensation before choosing a school would be hurt.

It has allowed for programs willing to aggressively spend to capitalize on the opportunity. It has also exposed an interesting wrinkle: In a pure money battle, the Big Ten is better positioned than the SEC and other conferences.

A super booster like Ellison or Nike co-founder and Oregon alumnus Phil Knight, the world's 52nd richest man with a net worth of $33 billion, is a massive advantage in this current unregulated recruiting world.
Meanwhile, the state of Alabama, which has dominated the sport in many ways, doesn't have anyone on the Forbes 400 list.

When compared to the SEC, the Big Ten dominated the 2025 US News Best National University Rankings, with 16 of its 18 schools placing in the top 100, while the SEC had five. Seven of the top 10 schools with the most living alumni are in the Big Ten including Ohio State (No. 8).

Through expansion, the Big Ten has cornered big markets like Los Angeles (USC and UCLA), New York (Rutgers), Washington, D.C. (Maryland) and Seattle (Washington). Those big markets plus the long-standing ones like Chicago, Detroit and Minneapolis give Big Ten schools fertile financial grounds to solicit donations, NIL deals and partnerships.

Of course, having the money is only half the battle. Those wealthy alums have to feel compelled to spend money on their alma mater's sports teams.
That last part has always been an area SEC schools have excelled in. In college towns like Tuscaloosa, Oxford and College Station, nothing is more important than the local football team. Fans build their social calendars around it – no fall weddings is a common refrain – while gameday visitors juice the local economy. As cliche as the SEC's slogan may be, it rings true: "It Just Means More."

That passion will be critical moving forward in a House settlement world where ticket revenue, jersey sales, donations and other financial contributions will pay for the annual $20.5 million revenue share payment with that number going up each year moving forward.

Legal battles aside, the Big Ten is well-positioned to succeed in this version of college football. It will be difficult, if not downright impossible, for any conference to go on the run the SEC did over the last two decades with the way NIL and the transfer portal has dispersed talent around the country. There will be plenty of back-and-forths in the years to come on whether the Big Ten or the SEC is college football's best conference.

But on Monday night in Atlanta, the Big Ten has a chance to cap an incredible season with its second consecutive national championship. It could be just the start of a new world where the defining slogan could be "It Just Means More Money."

 

[orientalnc]

@RamblinRed I wonder if the NYC market is doing as well for the BTN as they hoped? When I worked in Piscataway I would not have known Rutgers still had a football team if I had not been a serious sports fan. It seemed everyone in that market sees football as being the NFL almost exclusively. I took grad classes at Rutgers in the Fall and did not see much enthusiasm for football (compared to uga or Bama).

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Since the 60’s it’s always been about who paid more money. The only difference is the SEC dominated the under the table money era but now anyone can. Every conference has rich schools so I expect future champs to be spread out in the new open money era. SMU can easily buy a Natty. Oregon can too. USC could. Michigan, Ohio State, and ND can.

UGA bought Herschel and won. USC bought Bush. Auburn bought Cam. Osboure and Schnellenberger bought rosters. Switzer too.

 

[RonJohn]

@RamblinRed I wonder if the NYC market is doing as well for the BTN as they hoped? When I worked in Piscataway I would not have known Rutgers still had a football team if I had not been a serious sports fan. It seemed everyone in that market sees football as being the NFL almost exclusively. I took grad classes at Rutgers in the Fall and did not see much enthusiasm for football (compared to uga or Bama).

When Rutgers joined the Big10, it immediately added about $7-8 million per month to the revenue of the Big10 network. I don't know how much of the Big10 network revenue that the Big10 gets vs how much Fox gets. But for the last 12 years, the network has had an additional $85 million per year (conservatively) of revenue regardless of ratings. I would say that adding Rutgers worked out very well for the Big10.

 

[orientalnc]

When Rutgers joined the Big10, it immediately added about $7-8 million per month to the revenue of the Big10 network. I don't know how much of the Big10 network revenue that the Big10 gets vs how much Fox gets. But for the last 12 years, the network has had an additional $85 million per year (conservatively) of revenue regardless of ratings. I would say that adding Rutgers worked out very well for the Big10.

Wow!

 

[UgaBlows]

@RamblinRed I wonder if the NYC market is doing as well for the BTN as they hoped? When I worked in Piscataway I would not have known Rutgers still had a football team if I had not been a serious sports fan. It seemed everyone in that market sees football as being the NFL almost exclusively. I took grad classes at Rutgers in the Fall and did not see much enthusiasm for football (compared to uga or Bama).

Enthusiasm for Rutgers or lack thereof is irrelevant when it comes to carriage fees for the NY tv market

 

[RamblinRed]

Just like taking MD was to get the carraige rates for the DC/Balt market, taking Rutgers was about getting carraige rates for the NYC market.
Whether either of those teams are good or have a large following were largely irrelevant in the calculations.

Also, the NE is primarily a pro sports area since they have had them for longer than other areas of the country (there is a reason college football is king in the South - it was the only game), but there are alot of B1G alumni in the NYC area and the ability to try to tap all that money there is a big deal for the B1G.

 

[stinger78]

When Rutgers joined the Big10, it immediately added about $7-8 million per month to the revenue of the Big10 network. I don't know how much of the Big10 network revenue that the Big10 gets vs how much Fox gets. But for the last 12 years, the network has had an additional $85 million per year (conservatively) of revenue regardless of ratings. I would say that adding Rutgers worked out very well for the Big10.

This is difficult to believe.

 

[yeti92]

Also, the NE is primarily a pro sports area since they have had them for longer than other areas of the country (there is a reason college football is king in the South - it was the only game), but there are alot of B1G alumni in the NYC area and the ability to try to tap all that money there is a big deal for the B1G.

and still is for a lot of states. Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Oklahoma, aka half the SEC, has no higher level to watch in-state.

By comparison, the ACC has South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, 4 teams total in non-NFL states.

 

[Jim Prather]

I'm not entirely sure you can include Virginia in that list given the proximity of the Washington Redskins/Commanders.

 

[orientalnc]

When Rutgers joined the Big10, it immediately added about $7-8 million per month to the revenue of the Big10 network. I don't know how much of the Big10 network revenue that the Big10 gets vs how much Fox gets. But for the last 12 years, the network has had an additional $85 million per year (conservatively) of revenue regardless of ratings. I would say that adding Rutgers worked out very well for the Big10.

Just like taking MD was to get the carraige rates for the DC/Balt market, taking Rutgers was about getting carraige rates for the NYC market.
Whether either of those teams are good or have a large following were largely irrelevant in the calculations.

Also, the NE is primarily a pro sports area since they have had them for longer than other areas of the country (there is a reason college football is king in the South - it was the only game), but there are alot of B1G alumni in the NYC area and the ability to try to tap all that money there is a big deal for the B1G.

I don't think you can isolate the NYC data from the Baltimore/DC data since those markets were added at the same time the B1G renegotiated their media deal with Fox, CBS & NBC. I don't argue that those new markets were irrelevant, but a lot was happening at the same time. Clearly, the B1G media deal is huge.

 

[yeti92]

I'm not entirely sure you can include Virginia in that list given the proximity of the Washington Redskins/Commanders.

I thought about that, and the Commanders do have their headquarters and some other facilities in Northern Virginia. Just trying to appear unbiased and technically correct.

 

[RonJohn]

I don't think you can isolate the NYC data from the Baltimore/DC data since those markets were added at the same time the B1G renegotiated their media deal with Fox, CBS & NBC. I don't argue that those new markets were irrelevant, but a lot was happening at the same time. Clearly, the B1G media deal is huge.

I wasn't discussing Fox, CBS, nor NBC, nor the large media contract. When the SEC network first started, it charged 25 cents per subscriber in non-SEC DMAs. It charged $1.30 per subscriber in areas that had and SEC team. I haven't seen estimates for the Big10 Network. I am just assuming they are similar. That is more than $1 per subscriber per month, just for the Big10 Network. Not counting the rest of New York, NYC has around 7.5 million TV homes. $1 per home per month would be more than $85 million per year. I don't have exact figures, just interpolation of other data. That interpolation leads me to believe that $85 million per year impact to the Big10 Network revenue is a very conservative estimate.

 

[Root4GT]

and still is for a lot of states. Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Oklahoma, aka half the SEC, has no higher level to watch in-state.

By comparison, the ACC has South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, 4 teams total in non-NFL states.

I would not count Virginia in that group. The formerly Redskins, now Commanders 100% dominate the Market in Northern Virginia where the largest concentration of the State's population lives. This whole region is a Pro Sports area and the Commanders dominate about 90% of the air / print time. The Nationals, Capitals and Wizards barely move the needle as far as interest goes. For football, VT is a very very distant second and UVA is simply an after thought!