AP: New Big 12 out to prove bigger bank accounts don't always mean better football teams in 12-team CFP

[TopFrog]

New Big 12 out to prove bigger bank accounts don't always mean better football teams in 12-team CFP​

Story by RALPH D. RUSSO, AP College Football Writer

SCOTTDALE, Ariz. (AP) — Before the realigned Big 12 — sans Oklahoma and Texas —even kicks off, the expanded College Football Playoff’s new revenue structure has created a perception that the conference is no longer the equal of the Big Ten and Southeastern Conference.

Instead of a Power Five, college football now has a “Big Two,” with the expanded SEC, now home to the Sooners and Longhorns, and Big Ten at the top of the pack.

Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark's job is to push back against the narrative that bigger bank accounts automatically means better football teams.

Read more at https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ot...ter-football-teams-in-12-team-cfp/ar-AA1o0b6u

 

[The TCU Football Jerk]

Do bigger back accounts necessarily mean better football?

No. But they usually do.

 

[DeuceBoogieNights]

Good luck with that.

 

[Wexahu]

Do bigger back accounts necessarily mean better football?

No. But they usually do.

No, it's not always about the money, in normal circumstances.

The Tampa Bay Rays can compete with the Yankees (and have, very successfully) by drafting the right players, developing them, and being smart about putting a team together and roster management. If the Yankees could steal the best Rays players on an annual basis by money-whipping them, the Rays wouldn't stand a chance.

In today's college football, they don't draft players, you can develop them but you're probably developing them for someone else (the more you succeed at development, the more likely you lose the player to a higher bidder), and putting a team together and roster management is a joke because you have no idea who will be on your team from year to year.

 

[Limey Frog]

Do bigger back accounts necessarily mean better football?

No. But they usually do.

At a certain point the cost differential will enable the big boys to outcompete the competition by not permitting the competition on the field at all. The G5 schools are clearly going to end up dropping down a level and separating because they just won't be able to meet the costs of fielding a program at Big Ten levels of revenue sharing. Clemson, FSU, and the few other schools who can generate the TV revenue to be attractive to the big 2 will sort into those leagues. That will leave a bunch more middling programs to sort into the Big 12 with all the middling programs we already have. The question will be whether those 20-ish programs plus Wazzu, Oregon State, Syracuse, BC, etc. can stay in touch with the Big Ten and SEC or will also have to drop down to the G5 level. We'll see. As I've written before, I could live with TCU dropping down to what would essentially be D2 at that point, so long as enough quality programs and our most important rivals are there as well.

If we can play Baylor, Tech, and all the programs in the current Big 12 plus the middle of the ACC, I don't really care if we're playing a different and lower budget version of the game to Alabama and Ohio State. If Baylor were in the Big Ten and we were playing SMU and Toledo, I think I'd jump off a building.

 

[helcap]

Do bigger back accounts necessarily mean better football?

No. But they usually do.

Except for the Aggies

 

[HG73]

At a certain point the cost differential will enable the big boys to outcompete the competition by not permitting the competition on the field at all. The G5 schools are clearly going to end up dropping down a level and separating because they just won't be able to meet the costs of fielding a program at Big Ten levels of revenue sharing. Clemson, FSU, and the few other schools who can generate the TV revenue to be attractive to the big 2 will sort into those leagues. That will leave a bunch more middling programs to sort into the Big 12 with all the middling programs we already have. The question will be whether those 20-ish programs plus Wazzu, Oregon State, Syracuse, BC, etc. can stay in touch with the Big Ten and SEC or will also have to drop down to the G5 level. We'll see. As I've written before, I could live with TCU dropping down to what would essentially be D2 at that point, so long as enough quality programs and our most important rivals are there as well.

If we can play Baylor, Tech, and all the programs in the current Big 12 plus the middle of the ACC, I don't really care if we're playing a different and lower budget version of the game to Alabama and Ohio State. If Baylor were in the Big Ten and we were playing SMU and Toledo, I think I'd jump off a building.

We already dropped down. We'll make half the TV money of the B1GSEC. Eventually the players will be paid from the TV revenue and be under contract, which will will eliminate the portal. The B1GSEC will have twice the money to pay players not including the illegal aggy NIL that will surely continue especially in the SEC. But at least with no portal we should be able to sign and develop players without fear of developing them for the B1GSEC. Big12 teams should be able to somewhat compete and do fairly well in the CFP. And fans will still watch the Big12 because it will have a fairly distinct geographic footprint and tons of alumni. The money difference should narrow due to the competitiveness of the Big12 vs the B1GSEC. Lots of bodybag opponents in the B1G and more than a few in the SEC resulting in non-cometitive games.

Somebody will thrive in the Big12. We just need for it to be us. But I sure don't want to drop back to G5.

 

[The TCU Football Jerk]

At a certain point the cost differential will enable the big boys to outcompete the competition by not permitting the competition on the field at all. The G5 schools are clearly going to end up dropping down a level and separating because they just won't be able to meet the costs of fielding a program at Big Ten levels of revenue sharing. Clemson, FSU, and the few other schools who can generate the TV revenue to be attractive to the big 2 will sort into those leagues. That will leave a bunch more middling programs to sort into the Big 12 with all the middling programs we already have. The question will be whether those 20-ish programs plus Wazzu, Oregon State, Syracuse, BC, etc. can stay in touch with the Big Ten and SEC or will also have to drop down to the G5 level. We'll see. As I've written before, I could live with TCU dropping down to what would essentially be D2 at that point, so long as enough quality programs and our most important rivals are there as well.

If we can play Baylor, Tech, and all the programs in the current Big 12 plus the middle of the ACC, I don't really care if we're playing a different and lower budget version of the game to Alabama and Ohio State. If Baylor were in the Big Ten and we were playing SMU and Toledo, I think I'd jump off a building.

Meh. We did it with mwc money.

 

[Limey Frog]

Meh. We did it with mwc money.

Yes, but back then Wisconsin couldn't just call Tank Carder and offer him $1M to switch teams.

 

[The TCU Football Jerk]

Yes, but back then Wisconsin couldn't just call Tank Carder and offer him $1M to switch teams.

That's a separate issue from conference tv money.

Edit: And frankly I don't mind us being a tier down. I've had with the current state of big time football as it is anyway.

 

[Limey Frog]

That's a separate issue from conference tv money.

Edit: And frankly I don't mind us being a tier down. I've had with the current state of big time football as it is anyway.

It could be a separate issue. Until we get the pay and transfer rules figured out it functionally isn't. If we can get some roster stability and some enforceable contracts, I agree with you. TCU's football DNA since the Fran/GP era has been to win with less. If we can actually keep our players, there's no reason we can't keep doing that. I'll take TCU's chances of doing twice what Aggy does on half the money over the long haul.

 

[Wexahu]

That's a separate issue from conference tv money.

Edit: And frankly I don't mind us being a tier down. I've had with the current state of big time football as it is anyway.

The disparity in conference money is not the issue. Free agency is the problem.

 

[The TCU Football Jerk]

The disparity in conference money is not the issue. Free agency is the problem.

The original point was about conference money. No moving the goal line.

 

[The TCU Football Jerk]

It could be a separate issue. Until we get the pay and transfer rules figured out it functionally isn't. If we can get some roster stability and some enforceable contracts, I agree with you. TCU's football DNA since the Fran/GP era has been to win with less. If we can actually keep our players, there's no reason we can't keep doing that. I'll take TCU's chances of doing twice what Aggy does on half the money over the long haul.

Transfer and pay are separate issues from the original point of conference money. That was the point I was making.

Transfer and pay affect the Big Boys too. That's a separate issue.

 

[Limey Frog]

Transfer and pay are separate issues from the original point of conference money. That was the point I was making.

Transfer and pay affect the Big Boys too. That's a separate issue.

Somewhat; though the more TV money conferences have the less their member schools need booster donations, which can then be redirected to NIL.