menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: The Rich Get Richer, But So Do the Poor
Page: 1 of 1
Mike Coleman
Administrator
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Near the Pristine Sandy Shores of Lake Erie, OH
Post Count: 1,999
mail
Mike Coleman
mail
Posted: 5/5/2015 1:57 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OhioCatFan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 15,697
mail
OhioCatFan
mail
Posted: 5/5/2015 9:07 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Thanks for posting this. Uncle Wes and I and a few others have made posts in the past saying that this was happening, but no one seemed to believe us. While things are getting a little better on the financial front with this extra money stream, I agree with perimeter that it's still stacked and crooked, but the G5 has been bought off and, thus, the spectrum of anti-trust lawsuits was ended. Too bad that the NCAA is not a public institution and its files are not subject to FOI requests, though they require some level of disclosure from their member institutions, even those private institutions that also are not subject to FOIA.
Last Edited: 5/5/2015 9:10:43 PM by OhioCatFan
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 5/5/2015 9:27 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Does anyone think that the G5 would have been successful with an anti-trust lawsuit if the P5 had just left the NCAA and formed their own division or just became independent of the NCAA? I don't really think so, but I'm not a lawyer. You can call it criminal, corrupt, a buyout or whatever, but I think the big guys held the trump cards and the G5 made the best deal available.
Last Edited: 5/5/2015 9:28:12 PM by colobobcat66
Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 5/6/2015 12:17 AM
settings_applications edit_note
Its not enough money to get the G5 on financial footing of the P5 but its enough money that it no longer makes sense to consider FCS as an option. Combined with TV money and paydays make it worth 3-4 million in revenue for a MAC school over FCS ball.
perimeterpost
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165
mail
perimeterpost
mail
Posted: 5/6/2015 12:41 AM
settings_applications edit_note
If the P5 could make more money without the G5 they would leave, it is about one thing- $$$$. The G5 decided being on the short end of the stick was better than risking it all with a lawsuit.

The P5 likes to pretend that they don't need the G5, but they do. Having half of the league economically disadvantaged is critical for their success.

The SEC will play 112 games this fall, 56 OOC games and 56 conference games.

Here's how the 56 OOC games for the SEC breakdown in 2015-

47- home
7- away
2- neutral

45- Non P5(G5 31, FCS 14)
11- P5

P5- 7 home, 2 away, 2 neutral
G5- 26 home, 5 away
FCS- 14 home, 0 away


47/56 OOC games at home. If the SEC only played other P5 opponents they could no longer get buyout home games and their total home games would decrease by 19. What is the direct economic impact of playing 19 fewer home games plus traveling for 19 additional road games? How many more games do the SEC teams lose simply by not having home field advantage? How many more games does the SEC lose by playing teams that are not economically crippled by them? What is the economic impact of losing bandwagon fans in Sept because national title hopes are already gone?

Other notes:
- 14/14 SEC teams play 1 FCS opponent.
- 12/14 SEC teams play 2 G5 teams at home. The other two each play 1 at home.
- 4/14 SEC teams play a G5 opponent on the road. None of these 4 teams play a P5 team.
- So Carolina plays the toughest schedule, playing 2 P5 teams at home (UNC and Clemson)
- Vandy is the only team to play 2 road games, G5 teams MTSU and Houston.


45 out of 112 games schedule for the SEC are vs non-P5 competition, teams that suffer significant financial disadvantages that are insured by the FBS revenue sharing model. That's 40% of all SEC games played this year.

The best kind of enemies are weak ones. And that's why the P5 won't break away from the G5.
Last Edited: 5/6/2015 12:46:53 AM by perimeterpost
OUPride
General User
OUP
Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 578
person
mail
OUPride
mail
Posted: 5/6/2015 9:37 AM
settings_applications edit_note
colobobcat66 wrote:expand_more
Does anyone think that the G5 would have been successful with an anti-trust lawsuit if the P5 had just left the NCAA and formed their own division or just became independent of the NCAA? I don't really think so, but I'm not a lawyer. You can call it criminal, corrupt, a buyout or whatever, but I think the big guys held the trump cards and the G5 made the best deal available.
The antitrust thing has always been a pipe dream. For one thing, this country has not vigorously pursued antitrust enforcement since the 1970s, but the main thing is that it doesn't cross the threshold of antitrust. If the G5, non-BCS, mid-majors (whatever you want to call them) are voluntary partners to an arrangement there is no antitrust. They're free to walk away. And if the G5 break off and leave, there is no antitrust issues so long as the P5 don't use their market power to stifle competition.

In other words, if the P5 were to go to stadiums, sponsors and networks and strong arm them--probably through the threat of withholding access to their product--to not do business with the G5, that is an issue of collusion and antitrust. If, on the other hand, the G5 simply can't find a market for their product, it is not antitrust but rather the market at work. Just because some Utah politician or the Boise State president give some grandstanding speech about antitrust doesn't mean there is the basis for a case. My hunch is that the bean counters at the G5 conferences and schools have all done the numbers and surveyed the market landscape and realized that it is far more beneficial to the bottom line to take the scraps from the P5 than to go out and market our own product.
Deciduous Forest Cat
General User
DFC
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: OH
Post Count: 4,559
person
mail
Deciduous Forest Cat
mail
Posted: 5/6/2015 10:05 AM
settings_applications edit_note
I'd like more home games for the G5 to even things out, and I'd like unbiased selections for playoffs, tournaments, etc. but if the G5 wants more money, then sell more tickets, and get more viewers. The problem remains our own fans and alumni channeling money and viewership to other schools.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 5/6/2015 11:12 AM
settings_applications edit_note
OUPride wrote:expand_more
The antitrust thing has always been a pipe dream. ...

I would agree 100% with your assessment.

Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
... if the G5 wants more money, then sell more tickets, and get more viewers. The problem remains our own fans and alumni channeling money and viewership to other schools.

+1
perimeterpost
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165
mail
perimeterpost
mail
Posted: 5/6/2015 1:18 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Deciduous Forest Cat wrote:expand_more
I'd like more home games for the G5 to even things out, and I'd like unbiased selections for playoffs, tournaments, etc. but if the G5 wants more money, then sell more tickets, and get more viewers. The problem remains our own fans and alumni channeling money and viewership to other schools.
16 G5 teams sold more tickets than Wake Forrest last year so why does WF get 4X the revenue share as those teams?

There are 3 types of revenue streams in college football-
1. League revenue
2. Conference revenue
3. Team revenue

You cannot justify a disproportionate distribution of the first one by pointing to the results of the other two, good or bad.
OUPride
General User
OUP
Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 578
person
mail
OUPride
mail
Posted: 5/6/2015 7:41 PM
settings_applications edit_note
perimeterpost wrote:expand_more
I'd like more home games for the G5 to even things out, and I'd like unbiased selections for playoffs, tournaments, etc. but if the G5 wants more money, then sell more tickets, and get more viewers. The problem remains our own fans and alumni channeling money and viewership to other schools.
16 G5 teams sold more tickets than Wake Forrest last year so why does WF get 4X the revenue share as those teams?

There are 3 types of revenue streams in college football-
1. League revenue
2. Conference revenue
3. Team revenue

You cannot justify a disproportionate distribution of the first one by pointing to the results of the other two, good or bad.
You can't compare it to major leagues. That's totally apples and oranges. College football is not a league. It's separate, individual leagues (legal entities) entering into a contractual agreement to cooperate. That's fundamentally different than a major league structure, and those conferences are based on freedom of association. Yes, Indiana or Wake Forest or Iowa State don't carry their weight within their leagues, but the members of those conferences choose to keep them around for reasons that are their own to decide. That's their legal right. It's not their legal obligation to fund money losing sports programs at Ohio or Miami or Central Michigan.

The MAC schools have no more right to the sports dollars that the Big Ten schools generate than they do the research dollars or endowment dollars that the Big Ten schools generate. They do have the legal right to (provided there is no breech of any existing contracts) walk away from their relationship with the P5 leagues and go it alone or band together with other dissatisfied schools/leagues and go it alone together. If the product is so undervalued by their current partners, then surely entering into the free market will rectify that situation.

That's it. That's the option, and the fact that no G5 conference has chosen that route has to do with marketability and potential profits--not antitrust or collusion or the man's boot resting heavy on our necks. In fact, it's quite telling that the only G5 school (BYU) that has tried has, to date, failed and is desperately trying to get into the B12. And they have a global religious following and their own religious based network. How do you think it work out for OHIO or Akron?
perimeterpost
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165
mail
perimeterpost
mail
Posted: 5/6/2015 11:05 PM
settings_applications edit_note
FBS is absolutely a league. Ohio and Ohio State play for the exact same championship, that makes them more than just separate entities with a common interest.
OUPride
General User
OUP
Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 578
person
mail
OUPride
mail
Posted: 5/7/2015 7:49 AM
settings_applications edit_note
perimeterpost wrote:expand_more
FBS is absolutely a league. Ohio and Ohio State play for the exact same championship, that makes them more than just separate entities with a common interest.
So then why don't we leave? Freedom of association goes both ways. If our worth, value and brand is being so undervalued by our "league" partners, why don't we LEAVE and let the free market adjust things? We are free to do that, aren't we? BYU tried it, and it's worked out just swimmingly for them.

And where exactly does your Trotskyist paradise end? What makes things "equal?" Do all schools split regular season television revenue equally? Not even MLB does that. Well, schools with big stadiums derive even more of their revenue advantage from tickets than anything else. Should all ticket sales money be thrown into one big pot and split up evenly. Let's have a draft because players choosing to play for certain schools just reinforces the inequality.

The reality is that Ohio is what it is and Ohio State is what it is due to decisions (and investments I might add) that each school chose to make or not make a century ago. Rather than actually enjoying Ohio sports for what they are some people seemingly put more effort into this scheming and internalized rage about what they are not. Ohio is never going to be Ohio State or even Minnesota. That ship sailed before any of us were ever born.

Personally, I think the greatest outrage about Ohio and other MAC schools athletics departments is not that they don't get to be OSU but, rather, that they force students to pay nearly 10% of their tuition towards this quixotic quest to try and be OSU.
perimeterpost
General User
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165
mail
perimeterpost
mail
Posted: 5/7/2015 4:32 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Why don't we leave? What? Where would we go? Free market? What are you talking about, these are silly questions. We are in the highest division of college football, there is nowhere else to go to. Why is that not obvious to you?

Trotskyist paradise? What? How on earth do you equate splitting LEAGUE revenue in a way that EVERY OTHER SPORTS LEAGUE ON PLANET EARTH decides to with communism? This is just an absurd suggestion. I clearly stated in my previous post that you responded to that I was referring to league revenue only and NOT conference level tv contracts or team level ticket sales and merchandising.

You ignored everything I said to make an argument that doesn't make any sense.
Athens
General User
A
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 5,454
person
mail
Athens
mail
Posted: 5/7/2015 7:10 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OUPride wrote:expand_more
[QUOTE=perimeterpost]
The reality is that Ohio is what it is and Ohio State is what it is due to decisions (and investments I might add) that each school chose to make or not make a century ago. Rather than actually enjoying Ohio sports for what they are some people seemingly put more effort into this scheming and internalized rage about what they are not. Ohio is never going to be Ohio State or even Minnesota. That ship sailed before any of us were ever born.
I am a long time Ohio fan who was not born yesterday. There was a 20 years ago when it was thought that Baylor and Northwestern had no future and should be kicked out of their conferences immediately. Baylor is now contending for the national title. Northwestern once in a while has a big year but is now regularly solid out of the Big Ten. Baylor of course has an edge located in Texas. Northwestern is located in Illinois an average football recruiting state. Do you think if Northwestern was located in Ohio it would have more football success through the years? I do. When you look at our potential located in Ohio for recruiting and being OHIO the school only a 10 hour drive from Florida the easiest pipeline to tap into this program has the long term potential to be a contender for a New Year's Day Bowl. OHIO is one of the best jobs in the MAC and has an ACC level game day environment. Same goes for basketball. Saul Phillips says openly the Ohio job is the best in the MAC. Call me an optimist if you want but I feel good about our athletic future.
colobobcat66
General User
C66
Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,744
person
mail
colobobcat66
mail
Posted: 5/7/2015 8:31 PM
settings_applications edit_note
perimeterpost wrote:expand_more
[QUOTE=Deciduous Forest Cat]I'd like more home games for the G5 to even things out, and I'd like unbiased selections for playoffs, tournaments, etc. but if the G5 wants more money, then sell more tickets, and get more viewers. The problem remains our own fans and alumni channeling money and viewership to other schools.
16 G5 teams sold more tickets than Wake Forrest last year so why does WF get 4X the revenue share as those teams?

There are 3 types of revenue streams in college football-
1. League revenue
2. Conference revenue
3. Team revenue

You cannot justify a disproportionate distribution of the first one by pointing to the results of the other two, good or badWake Forrest has paid whatever dues it took to be a part of the ACC. Things have changed since they joined, but they're in the league and that's probably where they will stay for a while.
Showing Messages: 1 - 15 of 15
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)