Realignment talk not going away

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

Schools like ISU, WVU, OK State, KSU, BYU, UCF, and Tech don't have much trouble filling the stadium for schools not named "Oklahoma" or "Texas" when their teams are reasonably competitive.  BYU and UCF have never really had much access to playing major powers at home and have had a lot of full houses.

There's a class of school who's fans care more about watching their own team than the other team.  It seems like blue blood fans aren't interested in non blue blood opponents, and that less successful programs or ones with smaller fanbases (Texas privates, KU, Houston) can only muster excitement for the biggest games, but there are quite a few programs in between those poles that draw well based more on their own squad than who they're playing.

Edited August 23, 2022 by Al_4_ISU

[TKthunder2 4991]

8 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Yeah and it would be a blip on the radar compared to pulling more fan interest from the top programs

2 conferences of 24 would cover more than 75%
3 conferences of 20 would cover nearly 90%
 

Dropping the bottom 8 from the P5/4 (think Oregon St, Wake Forest) would only drop by 1%.

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

47 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

2 conferences of 24 would cover more than 75%
3 conferences of 20 would cover nearly 90%
 

Dropping the bottom 8 from the P5/4 (think Oregon St, Wake Forest, BYU) would only drop by 1%.

FIFU

['stache 21813]

58 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Schools like ISU, WVU, OK State, KSU, BYU, UCF, and Tech don't have much trouble filling the stadium for schools not named "Oklahoma" or "Texas" when their teams are reasonably competitive.  BYU and UCF have never really had much access to playing major powers at home and have had a lot of full houses.

There's a class of school who's fans care more about watching their own team than the other team.  It seems like blue blood fans aren't interested in non blue blood opponents, and that less successful programs or ones with smaller fanbases (Texas privates, KU, Houston) can only muster excitement for the biggest games, but there are quite a few programs in between those poles that draw well based more on their own squad than who they're playing.

Our stadium holds 55,000 now. We broke 50K every game last year, including against FCS Missouri State. We were at capacity for Kansas (granted it was homecoming but was still Kansas). Attendance for Bedlam was 54,990. For TCU a few weeks earlier it was 54,549. I regularly attended games before 2020 and it's not a "reported" vs. "actual attendance" anomaly, the place is packed regularly. Yes, ticket prices for Bedlam are a lot more than for other games, but the other games aren't exactly cheap. It's one of the biggest complaints on OSU boards, ticket prices being too high. I had to go back to 2010 to find a home game with less than 50K (other than 2020 of course). But don't worry, we'll be told for the 685th time that only bluebloods matter and our own fans only care about bluebloods.

Edited August 23, 2022 by 'stache

[Guest]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

Let’s look at TCU. They were relegated with the SWC breakup and clawed their way back. They have had nationally competitive teams, and they sell themselves on fan support (they average sales of 44k tix in a 48k stadium) and their location in a metro region. 
 
When TCU joined the B12, I bought TCU season tickets (I live in Arlington). My idea was that when Texas was good, tickets to the TCU game were expensive. When both schools have good teams, they get really expensive. I figured I could buy season tix and sell all the other games on StubHub. I bought the base price tickets with no donation. 
 
I did this for a few years. I found that when TCU was good (as they were for the first few years), the market value of the tix pretty much matched what I paid. The cost was around $60 per ticket, and the Texas game was worth around $125-160, the OU game around $75-100, the BU, OSU and TT games around $45-60, the other B12 games around $15-30, the SMU game would (depending on SMU) go for $20-50, and the FCS patsy would go for $2-5 (basically worthless). 
 
When TCU struggled in recent years, the Texas and OU ticket values dropped a little and the other games’ values a lot. I stopped buying the season tickets; it just made more sense to go to StubHub for the one game every other year that I cared about and pay what they asked. 
 
Someone above mentioned the fans of all the programs that have 50k attendance. That 50k attendance gets a lot of support breadth and depth from playing the big ‘uns. Take that away, and they’re going to look a lot more like UH, post 1995. 

TCU is making the Tech game tix a 3 game bundle in attempts to keep Tech fans in the metroplex from overrunning Amon G. Carter again.

It's laughable.

https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2022/07/20/tcu-forcing-rival-texas-tech-fans-to-purchase-multi-game-packages

Edited August 23, 2022 by slorch

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

3 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Our stadium holds 55,000 now. We broke 50K every game last year, including against FCS Missouri State. We were at capacity for Kansas (granted it was homecoming but was still Kansas). Attendance for Bedlam was 55,490. For TCU a few weeks earlier it was 54,549. Yes, ticket prices for Bedlam are a lot more than for other games, but the other games aren't exactly cheap. It's one of the biggest complaints on OSU boards, ticket prices being too high. I had to go back to 2010 to find a home game with less than 50K (other than 2020 of course). But don't worry, we'll be told for the 685th time that only bluebloods matter and everyone else only cares about bluebloods.

Yeah, I don't think OU or Texas cracks the Top 10 crowds at Jack Trice.  OK State does though.  Pokes' last 3 trips to Ames have been complete 100% sellouts at the current (61,500) capacity.  We're usually around 58K, which looks like a sellout on TV and in the stands but isn't quite.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2830]

With NIL, transfer rules etc., the only way to save this (at least in terms of making the sport very interesting) is to do relegation and promotion.  7 levels of 18 teams, divided by east and west.  Two open games at beginning of season for traditional rivalries.  8 regular season (counts for relegation), one level championship game. 

You could flatten the divisions so that you have 8 different groups, 4 A league and 4 B league, the champions all feed into a ranked playoff.

 

 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

23 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, I don't think OU or Texas cracks the Top 10 crowds at Jack Trice.  OK State does though.  Pokes' last 3 trips to Ames have been complete 100% sellouts at the current (61,500) capacity.  We're usually around 58K, which looks like a sellout on TV and in the stands but isn't quite.

Why not? I can see why UT wouldn't since that isn't a traditional rival and I know the OU series is incredibly lopsided, but there is a history with OU and they're more likely to be ranked high than UT when they head to Ames. 

 

UT & OU generally do well in Waco as we're so close to Austin and Dallas, but there isn't that much of a bump for them compared to generic replacement opponent

 

2021:

BYU- 48,016 (Homecoming)

Oklahoma- 46,782

Texas- 45,834

Tech- 43,901

WVU- 43,569

ISU- 42,539

Texas Southern- 42,461

 

Baylor was also unranked and 1-0 when Texas Southern came to Waco with a high of 94 that day compared to being #16 6-1 with a high of 70 degrees when UT came to town. If you remove that and assume that Texas Southern and UT were played in a vacuum and you round up then UT represented a 3.5K bump for BU over a replacement team.

 

I don't think attendance changes are going to be a major issue for the remaining B12. The issue is going to be TV funds and NIL.

Edited August 23, 2022 by SimonBolivar

[SimonBolivar 10958]

2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

With NIL, transfer rules etc., the only way to save this (at least in terms of making the sport very interesting) is to do relegation and promotion.  7 levels of 18 teams, divided by east and west.  Two open games at beginning of season for traditional rivalries.  8 regular season (counts for relegation), one level championship game. 

You could flatten the divisions so that you have 8 different groups, 4 A league and 4 B league, the champions all feed into a ranked playoff.

 

 

No school would ever volunteer for a system where there is that much uncertainty in their cash flow. Look at UT, why on earth would UT risk their big new SEC contract for the chance that they could be relegated. The same goes for all programs.

[utee94 15820]

1 minute ago, SimonBolivar said:

No school would ever volunteer for a system where there is that much uncertainty in their cash flow. Look at UT, why on earth would UT risk their big new SEC contract for the chance that they could be relegated. The same goes for all programs.

Exactly.  I love relegation in European soccer.  But there's no way any of the top schools are going to risk their athletic budgets for the chance of relegation.

College football just isn't analogous to pro soccer, or any other professional sport.  Football pays the bills for everyone and universities must have consistent athletic budgets-- they can't tolerate extreme changes.

I suppose if you paid every school at every level the exact same, it could work. That way relegation would just change the level of opponents, and not the cash flow.  But which of the top revenue schools are ever going to vote for THAT?

 

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

4 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Why not? I can see why UT wouldn't since that isn't a traditional rival and I know the OU series is incredibly lopsided, but there is a history with OU and they're more likely to be ranked high than UT when they head to Ames. 

 

UT & OU generally do well in Waco as we're so close to Austin and Dallas, but there isn't that much of a bump for them compared to generic replacement opponent

 

2021:

BYU- 48,016 (Homecoming)

Oklahoma- 46,782

Texas- 45,834

Tech- 43,901

WVU- 43,569

ISU- 42,539

Texas Southern- 42,461

 

Baylor was also unranked and 1-0 when Texas Southern came to Waco with a high of 94 that day compared to being #16 6-1 with a high of 70 degrees when UT came to town. If you remove that and assume that Texas Southern and UT were played in a vacuum and you round up then UT represented a 3.5K bump for BU over a replacement team.

 

I don't think attendance changes are going to be a major issue for the remaining B12. The issue is going to be TV funds and NIL.

Stadium expanded to 61,500 in 2015.  

OU attendance:

-2016 (Thursday night game):  50,662

-2018 (Saturday afternoon):  58,479

-2020 (COVID):  13,724

UT attendance

-2015 (Saturday night game):  53,616

-2017 (Thursday night game):  51,234

-2019 (Saturday night game):  58,946

-2021 (Saturday night game):  61,500

 

So I did misspeak, Texas has been part of a sellout at Jack Trice, but last season had 4/6 home games totally sold out, and the KU game was like 900 tickets away.  OU has played at Jack Trice 3 times since the current expansion, and 2 of those have had extenuating circumstances that limited attendance (school night game in '16, COVID in '20).

[Vertigo 20284]

39 minutes ago, slorch said:

TCU is making the Tech game tix a 3 game bundle in attempts to keep Tech fans in the metroplex from overrunning Amon G. Carter again.

It's laughable.

https://www.si.com/extra-mustard/2022/07/20/tcu-forcing-rival-texas-tech-fans-to-purchase-multi-game-packages

You  guys should buy the tickets anyway and then make their stadium look like a ghost town for two other home games, plus play a defacto road game against Tech. 

[Trojan Man 429]

Even beyond the financial aspect, promotion/relegation in college sports is an absurd idea because of the inherent roster churn and limited eligibility.  When teams (especially G5 teams) massively overachieve and have the kind of historic year that could get them promoted one big reason you'll always see is because they have a very experienced roster full of 2-4 year starters that know their system/playbook like the back of their hand, have maxed out their physical development, have lots of chemistry playing together etc.  They have massive turnover the following year because all those guys graduate.

Cincinnati last year to this year is a prime example.  They are losing a ton of talent from their playoff team.  They won't totally fall off because they have a good staff and they have recruited well for their level of competition, but if their playoff run got them promoted to the Big 10 for this upcoming season they'd get their asses handed to them breaking in a bunch of new starters recruited to play in the American.  Then they either get sent back to the American, or if they have some kind of adjustment grace period now they're selling "Come help us win 6 games and make some Tuesday night bowl in December" to recruits and trying to survive as a little fish in a big pond instead of the big fish in the little pond.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2830]

Yeah, I'm just frustrated.   I'm thinking the only way it could ever get off the ground is if the schools that are left out of realignment just say fuck it, we're going to break off and form our own competitive relegation promotion league.  They get it off the ground, and then design it so that the larger teams would be interested in joining for some financial reason. Hell if I know what that reason is. 

 

 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2830]

16 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I suppose if you paid every school at every level the exact same, it could work. That way relegation would just change the level of opponents, and not the cash flow.  But which of the top revenue schools are ever going to vote for THAT?

Let alone the Supreme Court.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18549]

29 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Why not? I can see why UT wouldn't since that isn't a traditional rival and I know the OU series is incredibly lopsided, but there is a history with OU and they're more likely to be ranked high than UT when they head to Ames. 

 

UT & OU generally do well in Waco as we're so close to Austin and Dallas, but there isn't that much of a bump for them compared to generic replacement opponent

 

2021:

BYU- 48,016 (Homecoming)

Oklahoma- 46,782

Texas- 45,834

Tech- 43,901

WVU- 43,569

ISU- 42,539

Texas Southern- 42,461

 

Baylor was also unranked and 1-0 when Texas Southern came to Waco with a high of 94 that day compared to being #16 6-1 with a high of 70 degrees when UT came to town. If you remove that and assume that Texas Southern and UT were played in a vacuum and you round up then UT represented a 3.5K bump for BU over a replacement team.

 

I don't think attendance changes are going to be a major issue for the remaining B12. The issue is going to be TV funds and NIL.

No way that Baylor charged the same price for tickets to Texas as they did for Texas Southern. I bet they were probably what, 10X the price? I just looked on their website and you can get into their game against Albany for $10. They cheapest ticket against Kansas is $50. So, they may have the same number of people but no way in hell are they getting the same gate revenue.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

3 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

No way that Baylor charged the same price for tickets to Texas as they did for Texas Southern. I bet they were probably what, 10X the price? I just looked on their website and you can get into their game against Albany for $10. They cheapest ticket against Kansas is $50. So, they may have the same number of people but no way in hell are they getting the same gate revenue.

Sorry I misread the prompt. I thought we were discussing attendance itself and not revenue associated with opponents.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18549]

4 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Sorry I misread the prompt. I thought we were discussing attendance itself and not revenue associated with opponents.

You probably didn't. I only half ass read this thread and I have jet lag, so take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.  I only jumped in because of the last comment about TV funds and NIL.  The leftovers are going to take a bath on the TV cash for sure, but it's going to cost them gate revenue too. Not only can they bump up the single game day cost, but they can make you buy 3 for 1 package or season tickets to get Texas and OU. Nobody is going to choke down the Kansas game just so they can go see TCU. 

[utee94 15820]

36 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Yeah, I'm just frustrated.   I'm thinking the only way it could ever get off the ground is if the schools that are left out of realignment just say fuck it, we're going to break off and form our own competitive relegation promotion league.  They get it off the ground, and then design it so that the larger teams would be interested in joining for some financial reason. Hell if I know what that reason is. 

 

 

I understand, I really do.

Like I said I really like relegation/promotion in professional soccer.  It's just that college athletics don't operate like pro sports, and they were never supposed to do so.

Edited August 23, 2022 by utee94

[statsman 5461]

I think the way it will work is the senior division will have the B10 and SEC. Then there will be the B10 junior conference and SEC junior conference. The senior conferences will have 16 - 20 permanent members and four “open” memberships based on promotion and relegation. 

What’s in it for the juniors? $40M per year media payments, a chance at $100M if promoted, and a guaranteed two games (one home, one away) against senior schools. 
 
If Baylor and OSU are too good to agree, UTSA and Tulsa won’t. 

[closetohumping 17440]

27 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

You probably didn't. I only half ass read this thread and I have jet lag, so take whatever I write with a huge grain of salt.  I only jumped in because of the last comment about TV funds and NIL.  The leftovers are going to take a bath on the TV cash for sure, but it's going to cost them gate revenue too. Not only can they bump up the single game day cost, but they can make you buy 3 for 1 package or season tickets to get Texas and OU. Nobody is going to choke down the Kansas game just so they can go see TCU. 

Some of the leftovers do have rabid fan bases that don't care about the opponent.  What else are you going to do in WVA or Iowa?  

[utee94 15820]

10 minutes ago, statsman said:

I think the way it will work is the senior division will have the B10 and SEC. Then there will be the B10 junior conference and SEC junior conference. The senior conferences will have 16 - 20 permanent members and four “open” memberships based on promotion and relegation. 

What’s in it for the juniors? $40M per year media payments, a chance at $100M if promoted, and a guaranteed two games (one home, one away) against senior schools. 
 
If Baylor and OSU are too good to agree, UTSA and Tulsa won’t. 

I understand why teams would want to sign on for promotion.

Who on Earth would vote in favor of potential relegation?

 

 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2830]

12 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Who on Earth would vote in favor of potential relegation?

Stanford.  Vandy.  Perennial middling and lower ranked programs who don't see much of an upside of staying the course. 

And teams like Texas and Notre Dame who would rather be independent anyway. 

You set up a league with a structure that people would like and hope to pick off teams from the big leagues.  You also would couldn't have limitless lowest league.

 

 

[Texas Wahoo 3395]

34 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Some of the leftovers do have rabid fan bases that don't care about the opponent.  What else are you going to do in WVA or Iowa?  

And yet I had to buy a 3 pack in order to buy tickets to the Texas WVU game at least one year.

[bullet 1596]

38 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I understand why teams would want to sign on for promotion.

Who on Earth would vote in favor of potential relegation?

 

 

The rare college football fan who follows soccer?!

I think its mainly G5 fans who promote the idea.

the idea should be relegated to the trash heap.

[statsman 5461]

39 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I understand why teams would want to sign on for promotion.

Who on Earth would vote in favor of potential relegation?

 

 

The permanent members (all the incumbents, I.e. MSU, Vandy, Iowa, Northwestern, etc. ) won’t be in danger of relegation. You would only have four senior spots in play. A promoted team can keep its spot by winning enough games while playing the senior schedule. 

[bullet 1596]

22 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Does anybody know if the media rights escalator applies to Oregon/Washington or just Notre Dame? 

The PAC is never going to get a new TV deal if Oregon is openly flirting with the Big Ten. 

Tech might get their wish and add the Corner Schools. 

Ask and ye shall receive.  Maybe somebody in the TV world or Big 10 read your post! https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2022/08/22.aspx

"If Notre Dame joins the Big Ten within the next seven years, CBS, Fox and NBC know exactly how much extra they will have to pay in rights fees. That specific dollar figure, which is not publicly known, is spelled out in the contracts.

No other school is mentioned in these deals by name, and the contracts don’t assign a dollar figure to any other school that may join the conference, according to several sources. Notre Dame is the only school that has specific language about escalators.

If, say, the Big Ten adds two West Coast teams, the networks have agreed to have good-faith conversations with the conference about opening their deals and adjusting their rights fees. But the specific increases are not spelled out in the contract language, I’m told.

Having a specific number attached to Notre Dame provides the conference and the Fighting Irish with some certainly for the value of their rights if the Irish do decide to join the Big Ten...."

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

Forget promotion/relegation.  It will NEVER happen in CFB, ever.  Mandel is an idiot but he nailed it as to why:

Quote

Is promotion and relegation the way forward? — Nathan J., Whitefish Bay, Wis.

I’ve been reading The Club, an excellent book about the birth of the Premier League, and the parallels to conference realignment are eerie. Still, I have no idea why people think college sports relegation is remotely realistic.

If you’re a professional club that gets relegated and suddenly loses tens of millions in league revenue overnight, your insanely rich owner can help cover the gap. Whereas if South Carolina suddenly got relegated from the SEC to the Sun Belt and saw its $50 million conference revenue drop to, say, $15 million — welp, there goes the soccer, tennis, swimming and track teams, not to mention a bunch of layoffs in the athletic department, probably a drastic cutback in health and academic services and firing a whole bunch of coaches and replacing them with cheaper ones.

Relegation: It’s all fun and games until you remember there are actual humans involved.

 

52 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Stanford.  Vandy.  Perennial middling and lower ranked programs who don't see much of an upside of staying the course. 

And teams like Texas and Notre Dame who would rather be independent anyway. 

You set up a league with a structure that people would like and hope to pick off teams from the big leagues.  You also would couldn't have limitless lowest league.

 

 

Wait, wut?  You think that a Vandy is going to take a tens of millions of dollars cut to AD revenue, likely forcing them to sacrifice multiple non-rev sports for the privilege of playing in a lower league?  In what world does that make sense?  Stanford is not a representative case, they're the only university I know of (maybe Harvard) with such a massive endowment that they don't even care about the money side of sports, and even they were talking about cutting non-rev sports recently too.

[hawkfan 60]

34 minutes ago, bullet said:

Ask and ye shall receive.  Maybe somebody in the TV world or Big 10 read your post! https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/SB-Blogs/Newsletter-Media/2022/08/22.aspx

"If Notre Dame joins the Big Ten within the next seven years, CBS, Fox and NBC know exactly how much extra they will have to pay in rights fees. That specific dollar figure, which is not publicly known, is spelled out in the contracts.

No other school is mentioned in these deals by name, and the contracts don’t assign a dollar figure to any other school that may join the conference, according to several sources. Notre Dame is the only school that has specific language about escalators.

If, say, the Big Ten adds two West Coast teams, the networks have agreed to have good-faith conversations with the conference about opening their deals and adjusting their rights fees. But the specific increases are not spelled out in the contract language, I’m told.

Having a specific number attached to Notre Dame provides the conference and the Fighting Irish with some certainly for the value of their rights if the Irish do decide to join the Big Ten...."

We can probably make an educated guess that the $10B number that got thrown around was the "ND Clause".

[The Original Greaser Bob 2830]

15 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Wait, wut?  You think that a Vandy is going to take a tens of millions of dollars cut to AD revenue, likely forcing them to sacrifice multiple non-rev sports for the privilege of playing in a lower league?  

No, I don't think anyone is going to give up money.  The idea would be that there are going to be a whole lot of have nots over the next few years who will never under any circumstances be able to compete and they might want to be forward thinking. 

I'm going to stop because this isn't what this thread is about.  But I am thinking that the superleagues are essentially driving the others out, and those others could form an "ABA" that could be pretty enjoyable.  To the point of perhaps setting up a new "league" that might eventually appeal to the superleague to come back and join it or take it over in a way that works for the superleague teams.  

 

 

[Texzilla58 4735]

Stanford.  Vandy.  Perennial middling and lower ranked programs who don't see much of an upside of staying the course. 
And teams like Texas and Notre Dame who would rather be independent anyway. 
You set up a league with a structure that people would like and hope to pick off teams from the big leagues.  You also would couldn't have limitless lowest league.
 
 

You seem to believe that because you don’t like the current situation that is happening, where basically the bigs are moving away from the NCAA and the left out schools, that this relegation thing should work. Sorry no one that’s in the group is going to ever choose a path that might put them on the outs.

If there were a magic wand, and old conference ties didn’t matter, you’d see even more segmentation and the Vanderbilts, Nortwesterns, and Rutgers getting left out for a 24-32 team superconference, and then another 36-48 in regional major conference, and the rest on the outs. Tv would like it, and the big fan bases would like it. You might not like it. No one gives a shit about watching Kansas St vs Utah. Or anything similar. Except their fans.

[Zinhead 42]

3 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Stanford.  Vandy.  Perennial middling and lower ranked programs who don't see much of an upside of staying the course.

 

 

 

Stanford has won their conference three times in the past decade.  That is pretty good for a perennial middling and lower ranked program. 

[HouClone 10]

4 hours ago, closetohumping said:

Some of the leftovers do have rabid fan bases that don't care about the opponent.  What else are you going to do in WVA or Iowa?  

That is why I don't want any pro teams in Iowa.  Oklahoma State basketball used to be packed but not so much anymore since the Thunder came to town.  

[closetohumping 17440]

27 minutes ago, HouClone said:

That is why I don't want any pro teams in Iowa.  Oklahoma State basketball used to be packed but not so much anymore since the Thunder came to town.  

Yep.  I live out here in SoCal, and often times, there are quite a few things I'd rather do than watch a USC game.  Not a USC fan, but even if that were the case.

[Sandman 3403]

Relegation is so dumb. Imiagine a school gets bumped down a peg. Not only do you lose the money but you think these kids are gonna just stay there? Especially the seniors, they'll say Fuck This and take the first bus out of town to a better program. 

[tonedeaf 56]

Fuck Baylor.  Those coattail riding backstabbing ass wipes.  I am so glad to be separating from those fuckheads.  I hope they rot in hell. 

[FartingDreamer 138]

16 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Yeah and it would be a blip on the radar compared to pulling more fan interest from the top programs

Those numbers aren't accurate, they are likely based on tv ratings, which isn't a true indicator of fanbase given that many CFB fans watch other games besides those involving their own teams.  Trust me, CFB viewership will go down as those fans of teams being excluded will no longer have the same level of interest they once had.  They're not going to switch allegiances and maintain the same viewership numbers since those fans will simply tune out.  

Edited August 23, 2022 by FartingDreamer

[statsman 5461]

Well, that’s a good point. In English soccer, fans of smaller teams that have been relegated down, like Bolton, don’t bother watching FA Cup or Champions League games. 
 
Wait a minute,…they actually do. They watch all of the big matchups. 

[TKthunder2 4991]

1 hour ago, FartingDreamer said:

Those numbers aren't accurate, they are likely based on tv ratings, which isn't a true indicator of fanbase given that many CFB fans watch other games besides those involving their own teams.

Too lazy to read the “Note” line on the source data in the graphic, but we should trust your opinion?

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

1 hour ago, FartingDreamer said:

Those numbers aren't accurate, they are likely based on tv ratings, which isn't a true indicator of fanbase given that many CFB fans watch other games besides those involving their own teams. 

I see you've reached the bargaining stage, congrats!

Quote

Trust me, CFB viewership will go down as those fans of teams being excluded will no longer have the same level of interest they once had.  They're not going to switch allegiances and maintain the same viewership numbers since those fans will simply tune out.  

This is untrue, they'll watch.  Even if they don't, the fan bases of the Power 2 programs are so massively large in comparison, and the matchups are going to be so much better that every week will be must-see TV when it's TX/Bama, TX/Georgia, TX/FL, TX/OU, TX/Auburn, etc, no one is going to miss that.  And if some G8 fans don't watch, that's fine because it will MORE than be made up for by new fans watching awesome football at the highest college level.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, FartingDreamer said:

Those numbers aren't accurate, they are likely based on tv ratings, which isn't a true indicator of fanbase given that many CFB fans watch other games besides those involving their own teams.  Trust me, CFB viewership will go down as those fans of teams being excluded will no longer have the same level of interest they once had.  They're not going to switch allegiances and maintain the same viewership numbers since those fans will simply tune out.  

That data says Syracuse has a Top 15 fanbase.  It's garbage.

[FartingDreamer 138]

10 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

I see you've reached the bargaining stage, congrats!

This is untrue, they'll watch.  Even if they don't, the fan bases of the Power 2 programs are so massively large in comparison, and the matchups are going to be so much better that every week will be must-see TV when it's TX/Bama, TX/Georgia, TX/FL, TX/OU, TX/Auburn, etc, no one is going to miss that.  And if some G8 fans don't watch, that's fine because it will MORE than be made up for by new fans watching awesome football at the highest college level.

They're not as big as you think they are and no, they won't just jump ship and adopt new teams.  That''s not realistic. 

[Okie State 3818]

I'm just ready for some awesome football at the highest college level!

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

 

 

[HouClone 10]

1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

I see you've reached the bargaining stage, congrats!

This is untrue, they'll watch.  Even if they don't, the fan bases of the Power 2 programs are so massively large in comparison, and the matchups are going to be so much better that every week will be must-see TV when it's TX/Bama, TX/Georgia, TX/FL, TX/OU, TX/Auburn, etc, no one is going to miss that.  And if some G8 fans don't watch, that's fine because it will MORE than be made up for by new fans watching awesome football at the highest college level.

Not happening.  If left out, schools aren't going to adopt a team or watch because it is on. 

Texas will be included in everything, but if an alternate universe and Texas is in a non P2 conference with no hope to win it all as excluded, you watching the P2 teams duke it out?

[TKthunder2 4991]

4 minutes ago, HouClone said:

Not happening.  If left out, schools aren't going to adopt a team or watch because it is on. 

Texas will be included in everything, but if an alternate universe and Texas is in a non P2 conference with no hope to win it all as excluded, you watching the P2 teams duke it out?

Plenty of Rice, Houston, TCU, SMU “fans” switched to following Texas or aggy after the SWC fell apart.  Maybe not right away but most did eventually.

This would be like me saying I stopped watching college football last year after Texas was eliminated from the playoffs or conference title which is dumb. I didn’t watch as many games but I still watched the big games like the Bedlam, the Iron Bowl or tOSU/UM, CCG, and the playoffs even though my team wasn’t involved in any of those.

But yes let’s pretend college football will lose massive amount of viewers and fans despite all the evidence and historical evidence to the contrary.

[HouClone 10]

15 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Plenty of Rice, Houston, TCU, SMU “fans” switched to following Texas or aggy after the SWC fell apart.  Maybe not right away but most did eventually.

This would be like me saying I stopped watching college football last year after Texas was eliminated from the playoffs or conference title which is dumb. I didn’t watch as many games but I still watched the big games like the Bedlam, the Iron Bowl or tOSU/UM, CCG, and the playoffs even though my team wasn’t involved in any of those.

But yes let’s pretend college football will lose massive amount of viewers and fans despite all the evidence and historical evidence to the contrary.

We'll see.  Yeah, maybe, people will tune them out for a few years and come around to watch them.

You watch as your team has a chance to win it all to start the season.  I also watch Bedlam, Georgia-Florida, Michigan-Ohio State, etc.  I'll watch something like Northwestern - Wisconsin if they are on too. But if my school is excluded even before the season starts, not going to watch any of those games week 1, week 10, or playoffs.

 

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

This is untrue, they'll watch.  Even if they don't, the fan bases of the Power 2 programs are so massively large in comparison, and the matchups are going to be so much better that every week will be must-see TV when it's TX/Bama, TX/Georgia, TX/FL, TX/OU, TX/Auburn, etc, no one is going to miss that.  And if some G8 fans don't watch, that's fine because it will MORE than be made up for by new fans watching awesome football at the highest college level.

I have some apprehension about this.  Super conferences will lead to more losses for programs that demand better because they play each other more often.  Lets say Texas or Oklahoma plays the five straight games you just outlined to open SEC play and they go 1-4 or 2-3 in them.  How much hype is left around their season?  Do you feel better about that than if you opened Big 12 play 5-0 or 4-1?  Will 7-4 OU playing 6-5 Arkansas in a forced rivalry during rivalry week be a bigger deal than Bedlam was last year between a pair of top 10, 10-1 teams?  I watched every play of that Bedlam game but I wouldn't tune in for a snap of that hypothetical so-so OU/Arkansas game.

The teams that win will kill it in ratings, but there will be far fewer fucks given about 7 win SEC OU than there have been about 10-12 win Big 12 OU.  And football at the highest level isn't always awesome.  90% of the semifinal games have been complete shit.  Dating back to the BCS more title games than not are terrible.  I know the difference in money between Big 10/SEC and non-Big 10/SEC is forcing everyone who can to join the Big 10/SEC just to keep up but it's hard to convince myself consolidating every big time program into two conferences is healthy for the sport.  There's a reason no pro league puts all their best teams/biggest draws into the same division or two.

[bullet 1596]

https://www.750thegame.com/listen-brett-mcmurphy-talks-cfb-on-the-bft/

 

McMurphy on Big 10 expansion.  He's saying Big 10 + 4 in the west is very likely.

[billfromlaketravis 11466]

11 minutes ago, bullet said:

https://www.750thegame.com/listen-brett-mcmurphy-talks-cfb-on-the-bft/

 

McMurphy on Big 10 expansion.  He's saying Big 10 + 4 in the west is very likely.

Why would the BIG go to 20 without Notre Dame?