Conference Realignment thread

[wolf from 73]

On 8/16/2024 at 7:14 PM, EvilPoke said:

The next key date is July 1, 2025. If the Pac-2 haven't convinced some schools to join them by then, it's much less likely after that - unless the Pac-2 want to shell out more of their war chest.

Gloria mentioned that the MWC was about to start media negotiations with potential media partners and hoped to have an agreement in place by next spring. Most of the estimates that I have seen seem to think the MWC media contract would generate from 7-10 million per team as the conference stands now. Jim Williams an industry insider estimates adding WS and OSU would only add about 10% to a new contract. If a new contract is in place by next spring the exit fees will go from 17 to about 20-23 million per team for more than 1 year notice and close to 40 million for less than 1 year notice. If the Pac-2 only generate 10% for the MWC nobody will pay anything to join them.

"The addition of Oregon State and Washington State would mean only a 10% to 15% increase in the current Mountain West deal, according to one veteran industry source with experience in television negotiations."

"I don't think it will be that much," countered Jim Williams, Emmy-winning sports media consultant. "I would think more like 10 [percent]. Fifteen percent is way too much." 

[Someone Else]

51 minutes ago, wolf from 73 said:

Gloria mentioned that the MWC was about to start media negotiations with potential media partners and hoped to have an agreement in place by next spring. Most of the estimates that I have seen seem to think the MWC media contract would generate from 7-10 million per team as the conference stands now. Jim Williams an industry insider estimates adding WS and OSU would only add about 10% to a new contract. If a new contract is in place by next spring the exit fees will go from 17 to about 20-23 million per team for more than 1 year notice and close to 40 million for less than 1 year notice. If the Pac-2 only generate 10% for the MWC nobody will pay anything to join them.

The addition of Oregon State and Washington State would mean only a 10% to 15% increase in the current Mountain West deal, according to one veteran industry source with experience in television negotiations. 

"I don't think it will be that much," countered Jim Williams, Emmy-winning sports media consultant. "I would think more like 10 [percent]. Fifteen percent is way too much." 

The question that needs to be answered is how much each school in the conference of 13 which includes OSU/WSU gets vs how much each school in a conference of 8 which includes OSU/WSU gets?

I don't know that answer but that's the question that needs to be asked and answered.

[wolf from 73]

On 8/16/2024 at 9:45 PM, Someone Else said:

The question that needs to be answered is how much each school in the conference of 13 which includes OSU/WSU gets vs how much each school in a conference of 8 which includes OSU/WSU gets?

I don't know that answer but that's the question that needs to be asked and answered.

That question has become irrelevant in light of the exit fees that would be levied against any departing MWC schools. Even AAC schools have a 27 month10 million exit fee or 18 million for a sooner exit. No matter how you look at it adding 6 teams would cost over 100 million between the Pac-2 and departing team fees. Add to that no media contract that would have to be negotiated after the schools officially join, bowl partners, schedules and so much more. In no world does it make sense for any school to jump into that potential dumpster fire. No combination of BOR would generate more than 10-12 million per team and would take years to break even on the exit fees. By that time College Football would look much different than today and that's a risk that no decent team would take.

[wolf from 73]

Wilner Mailbag: Likelihood of a super league (or super teams), ACC sustainability, the CFP’s future, WSU and OSU revenue sharing and more                                                                                                                                 https://sports360az.com/wilner-mailbag-likelihood-of-a-super-league-or-super-teams-acc-sustainability-the-cfps-future-wsu-and-osu-revenue-sharing-and-more/

[Someone Else]

7 hours ago, wolf from 73 said:

That question has become irrelevant in light of the exit fees that would be levied against any departing MWC schools. Even AAC schools have a 27 month10 million exit fee or 18 million for a sooner exit. No matter how you look at it adding 6 teams would cost over 100 million between the Pac-2 and departing team fees. Add to that no media contract that would have to negotiated after the schools officially join, bowl partners, schedules and so much more. In no world does it make sense for any school to jump into that potential dumpster fire. No combination of BOR would generate more than 10-12 million per team and would take years to break even on the exit fees. By that time College Football would look much different than today and that's a risk that no decent team would take.

Perhaps you are correct.  I certainly don't know. 

Have you taken into consideration the affect that this potential settlement may have on individual schools?  Will all schools in the MW decide to opt-in?  Or opt-out?  If they don't all agree to be on the same page that may create conference instability.  Which could lead to a reduction or even an elimination of these exit fees since the conference may not be able to operate as a conference with each school going a different direction.

To me this situation is not as clear cut as it might appear. This is just my opinion.  I have no inside information.

[EvilPoke]

On 8/16/2024 at 11:42 PM, wolf from 73 said:

Wilner Mailbag: Likelihood of a super league (or super teams), ACC sustainability, the CFP’s future, WSU and OSU revenue sharing and more                                                                                                                                 https://sports360az.com/wilner-mailbag-likelihood-of-a-super-league-or-super-teams-acc-sustainability-the-cfps-future-wsu-and-osu-revenue-sharing-and-more/

A super League with only 24-32 teams? I've never seen that low a projection before - but that would be AWESOME for the MW schools. 

Suddenly all the Power 4 in name only would be on a much more even playing field with us.

[Wyobraska]

On 8/17/2024 at 7:29 AM, EvilPoke said:

A super League with only 24-32 teams? I've never seen that low a projection before - but that would be AWESOME for the MW schools. 

Suddenly all the Power 4 in name only would be on a much more even playing field with us.

I think 32 max or so makes the most sense.  Those elite schools don't want to share the money they generate 

[wolf from 73]

On 8/17/2024 at 5:41 AM, Someone Else said:

Perhaps you are correct.  I certainly don't know. 

Have you taken into consideration the affect that this potential settlement may have on individual schools?  Will all schools in the MW decide to opt-in?  Or opt-out?  If they don't all agree to be on the same page that may create conference instability.  Which could lead to a reduction or even an elimination of these exit fees since the conference may not be able to operate as a conference with each school going a different direction.

To me this situation is not as clear cut as it might appear. This is just my opinion.  I have no inside information.

 I don't think it has to be a full opt-in or out but could be a partial opt-in.  So much is fluid but those exit fees are based on the media contract and won't change unless the schools vote to change it.

[Brew_Poke]

On 8/16/2024 at 10:45 PM, Someone Else said:

The question that needs to be answered is how much each school in the conference of 13 which includes OSU/WSU gets vs how much each school in a conference of 8 which includes OSU/WSU gets?

I don't know that answer but that's the question that needs to be asked and answered.

Doesn't matter much, the break even point is likely 15-20 years.

[415hawaiiboy]

After the first year of the expanded CFP, the Pac2 will want to be part of that and part of a conference, even if G5. 

[Chalsean]

On 8/17/2024 at 2:03 PM, 415hawaiiboy said:

After the first year of the expanded CFP, the Pac2 will want to be part of that and part of a conference, even if G5. 

Do not underestimate the stupidity of PAC schools

[Someone Else]

6 hours ago, wolf from 73 said:

 I don't think it has to be a full opt-in or out but could be a partial opt-in.  So much is fluid but those exit fees are based on the media contract and won't change unless the schools vote to change it.

I am not certain but I don't think you can partial opt in. why would one school in a conference want to be all in while another school is only be partially in?  my thought is that every school in a conference will have to be on the same page, if not, the conference will likely split up (hence exit fees will no longer be a thing). jmo

[HawaiiMongoose]

On 8/17/2024 at 12:36 PM, Someone Else said:

I am not certain but I don't think you can partial opt in. why would one school in a conference want to be all in while another school is only be partially in?  my thought is that every school in a conference will have to be on the same page, if not, the conference will likely split up (hence exit fees will no longer be a thing). jmo

There's no partial opt in.  But it's important to understand that the proposed House settlement sets a ceiling for how much revenue a school shares with its athletes, not a floor.  That ceiling would be $21 million in the first year the settlement takes effect and would grow in subsequent years.  But any school opting in could choose to pay out less -- potentially much less if it has a G5-sized athletic budget.

While I'm not a big fan of Jon Wilner's prognostications, I agree with this comment from his "Mail Bag" column earlier today:

The revenue-sharing piece of the House v NCAA settlement features a permissive cap, meaning schools can decide if they want to share the maximum.

Our hunch is that most, if not every school in the Power Four conferences will hit the $21 million cap while most, if not every school in the Group of Five will offer significantly less.

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/wsu-cougar-football/likelihood-of-a-super-league-pac-2-revenue-sharing-and-more-mailbag/

So a G5 school that opts in would have the discretion to pay only a nominal amount of revenue sharing to its athletes, while still enjoying the benefit of being allowed to increase its scholarship counts part way or all the way to the roster maximums set by the proposed settlement in whatever sports it chooses.  This would give the school flexibility to try to stay at least somewhat competitive with the power conference schools in selected niche sports.  For example, I could see Hawaii opting in and then increasing its scholarship counts to the settlement roster maximums in not only football and basketball but also baseball and men's and women's volleyball -- all while paying out very little in revenue sharing.

Given the above I think most G5 schools will want to opt in, and if so it should be pretty easy for schools in a G5 conference to get on the same page with respect to opting in.

[Wyobraska]

On 8/17/2024 at 4:36 PM, Someone Else said:

I am not certain but I don't think you can partial opt in. why would one school in a conference want to be all in while another school is only be partially in?  my thought is that every school in a conference will have to be on the same page, if not, the conference will likely split up (hence exit fees will no longer be a thing). jmo

"In the new compensation model, each school would be permitted but not required to set aside up to $21 million in revenue to share with athletes per year, though as revenues rose, so could the cap."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/ncaa-signs-deal-change-landscape-college-sports-paying-student-athlete-rcna153852

[wolf from 73]

On 8/17/2024 at 4:40 PM, HawaiiMongoose said:

There's no partial opt in.  But it's important to understand that the proposed House settlement sets a ceiling for how much revenue a school shares with its athletes, not a floor.  That ceiling would be $21 million in the first year the settlement takes effect and would grow in subsequent years.  But any school opting in could choose to pay out less -- potentially much less if it has a G5-sized athletic budget.

While I'm not a big fan of Jon Wilner's prognostications, I agree with this comment from his "Mail Bag" column earlier today:

The revenue-sharing piece of the House v NCAA settlement features a permissive cap, meaning schools can decide if they want to share the maximum.

Our hunch is that most, if not every school in the Power Four conferences will hit the $21 million cap while most, if not every school in the Group of Five will offer significantly less.

https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/wsu-cougar-football/likelihood-of-a-super-league-pac-2-revenue-sharing-and-more-mailbag/

So a G5 school that opts in would have the discretion to pay only a nominal amount of revenue sharing to its athletes, while still enjoying the benefit of being allowed to increase its scholarship counts part way or all the way to the roster maximums set by the proposed settlement in whatever sports it chooses.  This would give the school flexibility to try to stay at least somewhat competitive with the power conference schools in selected niche sports.  For example, I could see Hawaii opting in and then increasing its scholarship counts to the settlement roster maximums in not only football and basketball but also baseball and men's and women's volleyball -- all while paying out very little in revenue sharing.

Given the above I think most G5 schools will want to opt in, and if so it should be pretty easy for schools in a G5 conference to get on the same page with respect to opting in.

What you just stated is what I was referring to. I could have said opt-in but only at a partial amount of the full cap. The question that I responded to seemed to imply that is was all in at 21 million or not in at all.

[Gasherbrum]

Under the proposed NCAA model, schools can share up to 22% of their revenue  with athletes not to exceed the estimated $ 21 million 2025-26 cap. Based on the 22% limit, the average MWC school could share $ 4,369,661 with its athletes:

https://nil-ncaa.com/mw/

Under the proposed model, participation is optional, schools could elect not to share revenues, or share less than the 22% limit. Of course not participating will likely put that school at a recruiting disadvantage.

The school has complete discretion in how it distributes revenue sharing to its athletes. 

[EvilPoke]

On 8/17/2024 at 9:30 AM, Wyobraska said:

I think 32 max or so makes the most sense.  Those elite schools don't want to share the money they generate 

In no particular order:

1. Ohio State 

2. Michigan 

3. Notre Dame 

4. Bama

5. Georgia 

6. Tennessee 

7. Texas

8. Oklahoma 

9. Texas am

10. Penn State 

11. USC 

12. Oregon 

13. Washington 

14. Florida State 

15. Clemson 

16. LSU

17. Auburn 

18. Florida 

19. Nebraska 

20. Wisconsin 

21. Iowa

22. Arkansas

23. Michigan State

The last 9? Depends on who wants to shell out the $$$$$ and brings in the ratings.

Carolina? Mizzou? Kentucky? Utah? Colorado? Louisville? Arizona/State? Miami? Virginia? Ole Miss? 

 

[Someone Else]

3 hours ago, Wyobraska said:

"In the new compensation model, each school would be permitted but not required to set aside up to $21 million in revenue to share with athletes per year, though as revenues rose, so could the cap."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/ncaa-signs-deal-change-landscape-college-sports-paying-student-athlete-rcna153852

 

I think my main thought is regardless of what the amount is to be shared (whether it be 21 mil or something less) I would think that all schools in a conference will have to be on the same page, meaning they all have to agree to share equally.

Additionally, where is all this money coming from?  Most of the schools in the MWC will have a very hard time coming up with the money to pay the past SAs who are getting compensation from this settlement, the money for revenue sharing with SAs going forward, and the money for additional scholarships they feel they need to add. 

Finally you need to remember that any added scholarship to a men's program like football (20) & basketball (2) must be either matched by an increase of scholarships on the women's side or an equal decrease from the men's sports side.

I just don't see all of the schools in the MWC being on the same page here.  I definitely could be completely wrong but I think there is a lot more here than meets the eye.

[Gasherbrum]

Of the $ 2.8 billion House settlement, the NCAA will pay 40% directly from reserve funds, and member schools will pay the other 60% via withheld NCAA distributions over the next 10 years. For whatever reason, non P5 schools will be paying a disproportionately high portion of the 60%. The $ 2.8 million includes over $600 million in fees to the plaintiffs lawyers.

 

[Wyobraska]

On 8/17/2024 at 9:18 PM, Someone Else said:

I think my main thought is regardless of what the amount is to be shared (whether it be 21 mil or something less) I would think that all schools in a conference will have to be on the same page, meaning they all have to agree to share equally.

Additionally, where is all this money coming from?  Most of the schools in the MWC will have a very hard time coming up with the money to pay the past SAs who are getting compensation from this settlement, the money for revenue sharing with SAs going forward, and the money for additional scholarships they feel they need to add. 

Finally you need to remember that any added scholarship to a men's program like football (20) & basketball (2) must be either matched by an increase of scholarships on the women's side or an equal decrease from the men's sports side.

I just don't see all of the schools in the MWC being on the same page here.  I definitely could be completely wrong but I think there is a lot more here than meets the eye.

Each school would have to pay their portion of the settlement but I don't think the MW is going to stipulate how much you have to pay athletes of the $21 million a school is allotted.  The schools who don't pay as much just won't be as competitive probably.  

I agree though it is a huge change and some schools might need to decide if they want to fund sports at this level for all of the reasons you mentioned