With little money for less valued laundry.

From Wilner, via CoCoTimes LLC…

"For the Pac-12 schools headed into the Big Ten, the deal will prove ridiculously lucrative. The schools headed into the Big 12 and ACC will receive a nice uplift from their current CFP payments, but the checks won't come close to matching the Big Ten payouts:
USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington can expect approximately $21 million annually (per school), according to ESPN a four-fold increase from their current CFP revenue.
The ACC-bound schools, Stanford and Cal, are expected to collect about $13 million each over the course of the contract.
Meanwhile, Utah, Colorado, ASU and Arizona will receive about $12 million annually in the Big 12."

Bobodeluxe said:

---

With little money for less valued laundry.

From Wilner, via CoCoTimes LLC…

"For the Pac-12 schools headed into the Big Ten, the deal will prove ridiculously lucrative. The schools headed into the Big 12 and ACC will receive a nice uplift from their current CFP payments, but the checks won't come close to matching the Big Ten payouts:
USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington can expect approximately $21 million annually (per school), according to ESPN a four-fold increase from their current CFP revenue.
The ACC-bound schools, Stanford and Cal, are expected to collect about $13 million each over the course of the contract.
Meanwhile, Utah, Colorado, ASU and Arizona will receive about $12 million annually in the Big 12."

---

This is absurd

College football is on a quick and rapid descent into sucking. Every reincarnation of the playoffs, or bcs, or bowls in general is worse than the last.

If we were better run these past 8 years we would be in the B1G too.

The mishandling of athletics, especially conference consolidation, by Carol Christ and Jim Knowlton whom she hired, will likely cost Cal hundreds of $millions in total before it is all done and could still result in the demise of our program.

calumnus said:

---

If we were better run these past 8 years we would be in the B1G too.

The mishandling of athletics, especially conference consolidation, by Carol Christ and Jim Knowlton whom she hired, will likely cost Cal hundreds of $millions in total before it is all done and could still result in the demise of our program.

---

100%

Cal will get $13 million/year from the CFP in the new deal. The Pac-2 teams will get $360,000/year if they continue to pretend they are the lords of a 2-team "power" conference, and $1.8 million/year if they join up with the MWC teams.

Think about that the next time some schmuck says that Cal and Stanford should have stayed with the Pac-2.

calumnus said:

---

If we were better run these past 8 years we would be in the B1G too.

The mishandling of athletics, especially conference consolidation, by Carol Christ and Jim Knowlton whom she hired, will likely cost Cal hundreds of $millions in total before it is all done and could still result in the demise of our program.

---

they really need to fire Knowlton. He has cost us double digit millions, probably will approach triple digit millions by the end of these contracts.

How does he sleep at night knowning that his incompetence basically destroyed a once proud program. I am guessing he wipes his sweat on his forehead and tears in his eyes with his benjamins

Also why is the ACC so weak and giving into this ridiculous uneven payout structure?

If you look at history, FSU and Clemson has appeared in the CFP almost as many times as the SEC and Big 10 counterparts. It should be like

21 M Big 10
21 M SEC
17 M ACC
10 M Big 12


The Big12 commissioner is running circles around all the other commisioners. He had the leftovers after the TX and OU debacle, fended off the pac12, then destroyed it by taking the four corners, and then now has fought it to equal footing as a 2nd tier league. Let's be real, the Big 12 schools have neither the history, prestige, tradition, on field success, markets of any of the other 3 leagues yet Yormark is wielding his influence. Thats the type of guy we need leading our conference or our athletic department

Can someone explain to me how CFP is worth $1.3B per year to ESPN? There are about half as many cable subscribers as there were a decade ago and as the number of subscribers decreases, the prices increase to ameliorate the revenue drop. Which just accelerates the cord cutters.

I know ESPN needs more content and is creating the super sports streaming network with Fox and Warner Bros, but I'm not sure I see how this pencils out at all.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Can someone explain to me how CFP is worth $1.3B per year to ESPN? There are about half as many cable subscribers as there were a decade ago and as the number of subscribers decreases, the prices increase to ameliorate the revenue drop. Which just accelerates the cord cutters.

I know ESPN needs more content and is creating the super sports streaming network with Fox and Warner Bros, but I'm not sure I see how this pencils out at all.

---

This is speculation, so dont run to the bank with this, but the ratings and therefore advertising money may be bigger.

If ESPN turns a profit on some of the truly crap bowl games out there, they should be able to sell the CFP quite well.

golden sloth said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

---

This is speculation, so dont run to the bank with this, but the ratings and therefore advertising money may be bigger.

If ESPN turns a profit on some of the truly crap bowl games out there, they should be able to sell the CFP quite well.

---

ESPN pays almost nothing for the truly crap bowl games. They don't have to draw large audiences or charge huge rates for commercials to turn a profit on those.

The expanded CFP amounts to effectively taking some of the second tier and third tier bowl games and re-branding them as Really Important Playoff Games. It works for March Madness -- on Thursday evening, for example, Gonzaga is playing McNeese State and Kansas is playing Samford. No one except relatives of the players and coaches would watch if those were regular season games, but call them NCAA Tournament games, and stick 'em in everyone's bracket pool, and poof, TV viewers magically appear.

But there is one big difference: regular season games against patsies don't mean anything. But this is "win or go home," so every playoff game is important. And every playoff has big upset potential. Bracket Busters. People tune in for the off chance they'll witness history. Witness a Cinderella story in the making.

TandemBear said:

---

But there is one big difference: regular season games against patsies don't mean anything. But this is "win or go home," so every playoff game is important. And every playoff has big upset potential. Bracket Busters. People tune in for the off chance they'll witness history. Witness a Cinderella story in the making.

---

also, people go to parties or other locations such as sports bars for playoff games, so they numbers of eyeballs watching are larger than the reduced number of subscribers might suggest. As long as advertisers are willing to pay it makes economic sense.

Seems it's less about the sheer number of cable subscriptions lost and more about consolidation. There is still a relatively inelastic demand for advertising but a more and more constrained venue in which to advertise.

Yes the number of subscribers have reduced by half, but ratings for live sporting events, normalized by the entire pool of possible viewers has increased by just as much. Look at it this way, the people cutting the cord aren't rednecks watching nascaar.

As more people cut the cord, the more likely the chance that anyone watching live tv, where they will sit in front of ads, is watching live sports. Now there is a seriously competitive market for advertising during Nascaar, CFB, and NFL. BTW thats why the number of ads during a CFB event is now unbearable. Inelastic demand - create as much inventory as possible. So yes the price of advertising has increased.

BancroftSteps said:

---

Seems it's less about the sheer number of cable subscriptions lost and more about consolidation. There is still a relatively inelastic demand for advertising but a more and more constrained venue in which to advertise.

Yes the number of subscribers have reduced by half, but ratings for live sporting events, normalized by the entire pool of possible viewers has increased by just as much. Look at it this way, the people cutting the cord aren't rednecks watching nascaar.

As more people cut the cord, the more likely the chance that anyone watching live tv, where they will sit in front of ads, is watching live sports. Now there is a seriously competitive market for advertising during Nascaar, CFB, and NFL. BTW thats why the number of ads during a CFB event is now unbearable. Inelastic demand - create as much inventory as possible. So yes the price of advertising has increased.

---

Do you have data on this? My understanding was that young people are far less likely to sign up for cable, regardless of location. At some point soon, the cord cutters will be the good demographic and the cable subscribers will be like my dad - they won't understand what's being advertised and even if they did they wouldn't be the target audience.





By comparison, Amazon Prime Video has 110M+ subscribers and Netflix has 60M+.

Cable's reach is dropping faster than I think anyone anticipated and there is no end in sight.

> By comparison, Amazon Prime Video has 110M+ subscribers and Netflix has 60M+.
> Cable's reach is dropping faster than I think anyone anticipated and there is no end in sight.

yeahbut it's not just an either/or deal, some of us have cable and netflix (and lots of nflx stock)
# old farts R us

BearSD said:

---

Cal will get $13 million/year from the CFP in the new deal. The Pac-2 teams will get $360,000/year if they continue to pretend they are the lords of a 2-team "power" conference, and $1.8 million/year if they join up with the MWC teams.

Think about that the next time some schmuck says that Cal and Stanford should have stayed with the Pac-2.

---

But if I'm reading the article correctly, Cal & Stanford will get $13M over the life of the contract, whereas the ex-Pac12 teams now in the B1G will get $21M annually. So yes, Cal will receive 6x more per year than the Pac-2, but will only receive one tenth of the annual payout of our ex-conference mates in the B1G. In the long run, I fear the outcome for Cal will be the same as if we had stayed with the Pac-2.

EDIT:
Nevermind, read that wrong.
"In the ACC, the schools will get more than $13 million annually and Big 12 schools will get more than $12 million each."

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/39766079/college-football-playoff-espn-agree-deal-2031-32

TandemBear said:

---

But there is one big difference: regular season games against patsies don't mean anything. But this is "win or go home," so every playoff game is important. And every playoff has big upset potential. Bracket Busters. People tune in for the off chance they'll witness history. Witness a Cinderella story in the making.

---

That's the point. By slapping the "playoff" or "tournament" label on the game, they turn a low-value game into a game people watch. It's like putting mayonnaise in chickenshtt and serving it up as chicken salad.

"At some point soon, the cord cutters will be the good demographic and the cable subscribers will be like my dad - they won't understand what's being advertised and even if they did they wouldn't be the target audience."

So yes, this is one way this can change and I think this is how it eventually will. The advertisers should progressively observe a diminished roi. Spamming ads to disinterested parties can't be an effective model, right? I don't know. There's some complexities here and it's not so intuitive. One thing is for certain: advertisers are still following this model at the moment, and that's the engine that's behind this whole thing. They're using old metrics in a new paradigm. Things have to adapt; this is an industry in need of disruption.

I'm just spitballing. So yeah, I have no data backing this up, sorry.

BearSD said:

---

Cal will get $13 million/year from the CFP in the new deal. The Pac-2 teams will get $360,000/year if they continue to pretend they are the lords of a 2-team "power" conference, and $1.8 million/year if they join up with the MWC teams.

Think about that the next time some schmuck says that Cal and Stanford should have stayed with the Pac-2.

---

WSU and OSU will now each receive $3.6 million in the expanded playoffs. As reported previously, Cal and Stanford will make $13 million and the Big-12 schools will make $12 million.

We will see what Gould gets in media rights.

BearSD said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

But there is one big difference: regular season games against patsies don't mean anything. But this is "win or go home," so every playoff game is important. And every playoff has big upset potential. Bracket Busters. People tune in for the off chance they'll witness history. Witness a Cinderella story in the making.

---

That's the point. By slapping the "playoff" or "tournament" label on the game, they turn a low-value game into a game people watch. It's like putting mayonnaise in chickenshtt and serving it up as chicken salad.

---

Wow, missed the point again. When you lose a regular season game against a patsie, you don't "go home." You play out the rest of the season. Not sure I should even have to repeat this...

91Cal said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

With little money for less valued laundry.

From Wilner, via CoCoTimes LLC…

"For the Pac-12 schools headed into the Big Ten, the deal will prove ridiculously lucrative. The schools headed into the Big 12 and ACC will receive a nice uplift from their current CFP payments, but the checks won't come close to matching the Big Ten payouts:
USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington can expect approximately $21 million annually (per school), according to ESPN a four-fold increase from their current CFP revenue.
The ACC-bound schools, Stanford and Cal, are expected to collect about $13 million each over the course of the contract.
Meanwhile, Utah, Colorado, ASU and Arizona will receive about $12 million annually in the Big 12."

---

This is absurd

---

Want to compare how much Cal is receiving from the ACC versus other former Pac 12 schools

1. You say USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington receive $21 million annually bur didn['t say for how many years. How many years do they receive those payments.

2. How msny yrstd fo do Utah, Colorado, ASU and Arizona received $12 million annually from the Big 12?

3. You say Cal and Stanford will receigve $13 annually over the course of their contract. How many years is in their contract?