Realignment talk not going away

[Gidnik 3268]

4 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Why would the BIG go to 20 without Notre Dame? 

Because they’re not going to stop at 20

[Trevor Belmont 19]

Unless a game is within 2 degrees of separation from impacting my team, idgaf. I’ll watch ISU shit the bed against Iowa because a good/highly ranked ISU is good for my team. I’ll watch Iowa vs OSU over OSU vs. Michigan because I don’t give a shit about any of those schools, but one matchup impacts my fandom and the other does not. If the blue blood schools no longer have any relevance to my school then I will stop watching blue blood schools completely. Maybe the the mouse, fox, big, and sec have it figured out and they will increase viewership from the casual fan looking for name vs. name matchups, but I don’t see it. 

[billfromlaketravis 11466]

4 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

Because they’re not going to stop at 20

I’m skeptical. I think Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon are the preferred four. 

[Gidnik 3268]

57 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

I’m skeptical. I think Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon are the preferred four. 

Of course they want Norte dame but nd ain’t going until either playoff access is reduced or scheduling becomes difficult and they lose rivals to big 10

[notre dame joe 187]

On 8/22/2022 at 11:10 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

I think Notre Dame would always get in the playoff.

I think it comes down to something like the Big 10 mandating their schools can't play Notre Dame in the non-conference.  With USC, Purdue, and Michigan State in that fold, I think Notre Dame would buckle finally.

I am confident that if we join a conference, the excuse will be a vague rumor that we had to do it for the playoff.

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

3 hours ago, Trojan Man said:

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.

In the Power 2 world, the national champion will have 2+ losses regularly.  Sometimes 3 or more...it's the reality of playing more heavyweight matchups.  Just like the NFL, people will still watch if the matchups are meaningful to the playoff.

[closetohumping 17440]

Big ten is basically going to be college version of nfl

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

9 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

I am confident that if we join a conference, the excuse will be a vague rumor that we had to do it for the playoff.

You don't think the threat of losing those rivalry games would be a motivator?

I'll be honest - when I heard USC was joining the Big 10, my mind immediately went to this being a power play to push Notre Dame.

[Zinhead 42]

13 hours ago, Gidnik said:

Because they’re not going to stop at 20

The end game for the BIG, which is 10 years out, is to absorb three or four PAC schools, three or four ACC schools, and ND. This will give them 24 to 25 schools that will include the best football brands outside the SEC. It won't be a conference, but more of a league to maximize the value of television rights. This is the model that will bring the highest return to their existing members. 

Since ND seems to want to stay independent for the next cycle, taking several PAC teams would make sense.  At this point, there are couple of things going on:

• None of the remaining PAC members merit a full share of revenue from the new BIG contract.
• The PAC schools are trying to maximize their collective media value, as well as protect it's high earners. This why you see feelers to SMU and SDSU about potential memberships, and talk of non-equal revenue sharing. 
• The BIG is waiting to see what the remaining collective media value of the PAC schools is, and how much each is worth individually.  
• Once there is some consensus as to their media value, the BIG will know how much of a discount to revenue each PAC member would need to make their admission to the conference financially feasible. 

The only schools the BIG would be looking at would be the remaining AAU schools in the PAC. This would include Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, Utah and Washington.   If I were the President of a BIG school, I would see which schools would be most willing to accept discounted financial distributions based on market value over the next cycle, and add the schools that bring the most academic and athletic prestige to the league.

[notre dame joe 187]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

You don't think the threat of losing those rivalry games would be a motivator?

I'll be honest - when I heard USC was joining the Big 10, my mind immediately went to this being a power play to push Notre Dame.

That will not be the official excuse because it appears that the BUG is strong-arming ND, which of course they are. 

39 minutes ago, Zinhead said:

The only schools the BIG would be looking at would be the remaining AAU schools in the PAC. This would include Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, Utah and Washington.   If I were the President of a BIG school, I would see which schools would be most willing to accept discounted financial distributions based on market value over the next cycle, and add the schools that bring the most academic and athletic prestige to the league.

 

ASU gets an invite before UoA.  There are just too many people in Phoenix. 

['stache 21812]

53 minutes ago, Zinhead said:

The end game for the BIG, which is 10 years out, is to absorb three or four PAC schools, three or four ACC schools, and ND. This will give them 24 to 25 schools that will include the best football brands outside the SEC. It won't be a conference, but more of a league to maximize the value of television rights. This is the model that will bring the highest return to their existing members. 

Since ND seems to want to stay independent for the next cycle, taking several PAC teams would make sense.  At this point, there are couple of things going on:

• None of the remaining PAC members merit a full share of revenue from the new BIG contract.
• The PAC schools are trying to maximize their collective media value, as well as protect it's high earners. This why you see feelers to SMU and SDSU about potential memberships, and talk of non-equal revenue sharing. 
• The BIG is waiting to see what the remaining collective media value of the PAC schools is, and how much each is worth individually.  
• Once there is some consensus as to their media value, the BIG will know how much of a discount to revenue each PAC member would need to make their admission to the conference financially feasible. 

The only schools the BIG would be looking at would be the remaining AAU schools in the PAC. This would include Arizona, Cal, Colorado, Oregon, Stanford, Utah and Washington.   If I were the President of a BIG school, I would see which schools would be most willing to accept discounted financial distributions based on market value over the next cycle, and add the schools that bring the most academic and athletic prestige to the league.

I think both BIG and SEC will be 24 soon and if the number I saw on ND is true they'll stay independent (no way BIG schools refuse to schedule them if they go that route). I really wish it would just happen now and not another ten years. If both raid the ACC they could probably just have it dissolved.

BIG adds: UO, UW, Stan, Cal, Duke, UNC, UVA, and one other (Pitt, GT, maybe BC for the TV market to the extent it still matters, possibly KU or CU?).

SEC adds: Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, and some combination of OKST (please?), KU (if not BIG), GT (if not BIG), WVU and maybe Pitt?. Maybe SEC sticks with 20 or so. I just hope it gets determined by 2024. 

Everyone else forms a new coast-to-coast conference.

Edited August 24, 2022 by 'stache

[Zinhead 42]

50 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

ASU gets an invite before UoA.  There are just too many people in Phoenix. 

ASU is not AAU, Arizona is. Remember that these are college presidents making the decision, not football fans. If they would not take Oklahoma over AAU status and lose their chance at Texas because of that, why would they even consider ASU? At least Oklahoma pays the sports bills, ASU does not.  

[Zinhead 42]

53 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think both BIG and SEC will be 24 soon and if the number I saw on ND is true they'll stay independent (no way BIG schools refuse to schedule them if they go that route). I really wish it would just happen now and not another ten years. If both raid the ACC they could probably just have it dissolved.

BIG adds: UO, UW, Stan, Cal, Duke, UNC, UVA, and one other (Pitt, GT, maybe BC for the TV market to the extent it still matters, possibly KU or CU?).

SEC adds: Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, and some combination of OKST (please?), KU (if not BIG), GT (if not BIG), WVU and maybe Pitt?. Maybe SEC sticks with 20 or so. I just hope it gets determined by 2024. 

Everyone else forms a new coast-to-coast conference.

The only schools in the ACC that the SEC would take are UNC and Virginia, with FSU and Clemson borderline. The BIG would add GT and maybe Miami to those four schools largely because their financial model is different. The other schools like NC State have media values well below the existing median for the SEC and BIG, they add no additional value to either league.

After the ACC GOR expires, you will have a 20 to 24 team BIG with or without Notre Dame, a 16 to 20 team SEC, and a 24+/- team Big 12 combined with the best PAC/ACC remnants. There will be an open playoff with the Big 12+ getting multiple teams in every year, but their media revenue will be a fraction of the BIG/SEC.

[Trojan Man 429]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

I think both BIG and SEC will be 24 soon and if the number I saw on ND is true they'll stay independent (no way BIG schools refuse to schedule them if they go that route). I really wish it would just happen now and not another ten years. If both raid the ACC they could probably just have it dissolved.

BIG adds: UO, UW, Stan, Cal, Duke, UNC, UVA, and one other (Pitt, GT, maybe BC for the TV market to the extent it still matters, possibly KU or CU?).

SEC adds: Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, and some combination of OKST (please?), KU (if not BIG), GT (if not BIG), WVU and maybe Pitt?. Maybe SEC sticks with 20 or so. I just hope it gets determined by 2024. 

Everyone else forms a new coast-to-coast conference.

I wish we could get to the endgame now too, but it won't happen until we're closer to the end of the ACC's GOR.  That's the key to getting to a spot where this dumbass sport can finally have some real stability.  It's in ESPN's best financial interests to keep the ACC together, the Big 10 doesn't want enough ACC teams to singlehandedly kill off the ACC and everyone else not chosen for the Big 10/SEC will go through a phase of denial and thinking they're too good for the Big 12 and holding out hope for a Big 10/SEC golden ticket like the leftover Pac teams are doing right now.

ESPN's deal with the ACC is the biggest bargain in their portfolio.  Why move a few of those teams to the SEC where they'll have to pay them several times more than what they get in the ACC?  ESPN still gets enough big ACC games to keep the conference alive (ACC/SEC rivalry games, Notre Dame visits, Clemson/FSU/Miami have a lot of future noncon games with LSU, Georgia, Alabama, A&M, Auburn, Florida so the huge discount they get on the ACC side of those home and homes offsets what they're paying the SEC).  Pray for some ACC teams to successfully challenge the GOR in court if you want this drama to end before the 2030s.

[BluTechsan 393]

BIG-A-P doesn’t really roll off the tongue but it can work.

BIG30PACC ? 

PBA United ?

Coast2Coast ?

NOGAS ?

 

👀

 

 

[LTbear 4168]

Man, if the B1G does take more PAC teams, George Kliavkoff is going to be REALLY pissed at the Big XII.

[HouClone 10]

If it goes to a 16 game playoff and Sankey and Warren are successful in strong arming everybody for no automatic qualifiers and all committee rankings, this could mean as others said here 6 SEC teams, 6 Big 10 teams, ND, 3 others.  This could cheapen Rivalry Week and cheapen the conference Championship games. 

You have the Iron Bowl with 9-2 Alabama and 10-1 Auburn.  LSU is at already at 10-1 for the SEC West heading to the championship game.  Saban and Auburn's coach trot out 2nd string QBs so that they don't get hurt as Alabama and Auburn are expected into the CFP playoffs.  At halftime, 2nd stringers are in and 3rd stringers come in the 4th quarter.   

In the championship game, LSU is up 21 pts at half.  Florida's coach pulls a Dan Mullen and starts sending in 2nd and 3rd stringers as Florida is also guaranteed a spot in the CFP. 

Same goes for Ohio State and Michigan as they take it easy on their players to get them healthy for the Championship game or for the playoffs.    

Rivalry week in future years ends up being Week 9 or 10 with a non-conference crap team schedule Week 12 for the SEC and Big 10.   What a sh!t show. 

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2022 by HouClone

[FartingDreamer 138]

17 hours ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

In the Power 2 world, the national champion will have 2+ losses regularly.  Sometimes 3 or more...it's the reality of playing more heavyweight matchups.  Just like the NFL, people will still watch if the matchups are meaningful to the playoff.

Not in the same numbers,.  

[TKthunder2 4991]

I could see ESPN pushing the ACC to take West Virginia/Cincinnati or Memphis/UConn to get to 16+ND that way even if they lose a school or two to the B1G/SEC they’d still have plenty of inventory to complete the contract. It also might help give them an excuse to funnel some more $ (small amount) to the ACC and calm down some of the butthurt.

[TKthunder2 4991]

4 hours ago, Zinhead said:

The only schools in the ACC that the SEC would take are UNC and Virginia, with FSU and Clemson borderline. The BIG would add GT and maybe Miami to those four schools largely because their financial model is different. The other schools like NC State have media values well below the existing median for the SEC and BIG, they add no additional value to either league.

Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, UVA, and VT all have a chance at the SEC. NCSU might, only if they miss out on UNC.

[HouClone 10]

40 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

I could see ESPN pushing the ACC to take West Virginia/Cincinnati or Memphis/UConn to get to 16+ND that way even if they lose a school or two to the B1G/SEC they’d still have plenty of inventory to complete the contract. It also might help give them an excuse to funnel some more $ (small amount) to the ACC and calm down some of the butthurt.

West Virginia fits better in the ACC for sure.  But unless ESPN is giving much more money to the ACC, whey would West Virginia move?  The Big 12 is likely going to get more than the ACC in a few years.  But even if the ACC still makes more money, if the ACC gets picked apart by the Big 10 and SEC, are the ACC remnants going to keep the band together or try for a Big 12 invite?  The Big 12 will say, "Ok, we'll accept Pittsburgh, Va Tech, ..".   No way are they going to take West Virginia who bailed on the Big 12.   

[TKthunder2 4991]

2 minutes ago, HouClone said:

West Virginia fits better in the ACC for sure.  But unless ESPN is giving much more money to the ACC, whey would West Virginia move?  The Big 12 is likely going to get more than the ACC in a few years.  But even if the ACC still makes more money, if the ACC gets picked apart by the Big 10 and SEC, are the ACC remnants going to keep the band together or try for a Big 12 invite?  The Big 12 will say, "Ok, we'll accept Pittsburgh, Va Tech, ..".   No way are they going to take West Virginia who bailed on the Big 12.   

Fit and rivalries.  If the money is right (obviously concern #1 & #2) there is no reason for West Virginia to stay when they are only 1 of 3 schools West of Iowa.

Even after the defections West Virginia, Pitt, Louisville, Cincinnati, Virginia Tech, NC State, Syracuse, Boston College is a solid core that could easily be expanded with more regional East Coast (East Coast adjacent) members.

[Trojan Man 429]

3 hours ago, HouClone said:

If it goes to a 16 game playoff and Sankey and Warren are successful in strong arming everybody for no automatic qualifiers and all committee rankings, this could mean as others said here 6 SEC teams, 6 Big 10 teams, ND, 3 others.  This could cheapen Rivalry Week and cheapen the conference Championship games. 

You have the Iron Bowl with 9-2 Alabama and 10-1 Auburn.  LSU is at already at 10-1 for the SEC West heading to the championship game.  Saban and Auburn's coach trot out 2nd string QBs so that they don't get hurt as Alabama and Auburn are expected into the CFP playoffs.  At halftime, 2nd stringers are in and 3rd stringers come in the 4th quarter.   

In the championship game, LSU is up 21 pts at half.  Florida's coach pulls a Dan Mullen and starts sending in 2nd and 3rd stringers as Florida is also guaranteed a spot in the CFP. 

Same goes for Ohio State and Michigan as they take it easy on their players to get them healthy for the Championship game or for the playoffs.    

Rivalry week in future years ends up being Week 9 or 10 with a non-conference crap team schedule Week 12 for the SEC and Big 10.   What a sh!t show. 

 

 

 

Homefield advantage for the higher seeds in the playoff is how you prevent this.  Nobody is resting starters when another loss is the difference between a first round game of hosting UCF vs traveling to Penn State.  Moving playoff games other than the title game to campus is the silver lining of college football becoming more and more all about the money.  Why continue giving bowls a cut of the revenue when you can keep it all and also make things easier on your fans by not requiring them to travel every round?  On campus games are so much more fun both in person and on TV than some sterile NFL stadium that is a thousand miles away from each team.

[hawkfan 60]

Yes, on campus playoff games will be wild and cool.  Whether the expansion is to 12 or 16, first two rounds of games will be in college stadiums, hopefully the semi-finals too, with the natty hosted at a neutral site.  If the top two seeds are guaranteed home field throughout, you can bet they won't be resting any starters.

I kinda prefer a 12 school playoff, I feel like you could still do a limited bowl slate on NYE/NYD if the playoff was only 12 and it would still be interesting.  Eliminate conference affiliations and just draft it so it's #13 vs #14 in one game, #15 vs #16 in the next, etc., etc.

Natty should be played in the evening on NYD after the limited bowl slate concludes that day, so you still get a bunch of good college football on NYD as God intended.

Edited August 25, 2022 by hawkfan

[bullet 1596]

1 hour ago, hawkfan said:

Yes, on campus playoff games will be wild and cool.  Whether the expansion is to 12 or 16, first two rounds of games will be in college stadiums, hopefully the semi-finals too, with the natty hosted at a neutral site.  If the top two seeds are guaranteed home field throughout, you can bet they won't be resting any starters.

I kinda prefer a 12 school playoff, I feel like you could still do a limited bowl slate on NYE/NYD if the playoff was only 12 and it would still be interesting.  Eliminate conference affiliations and just draft it so it's #13 vs #14 in one game, #15 vs #16 in the next, etc., etc.

Natty should be played in the evening on NYD after the limited bowl slate concludes that day, so you still get a bunch of good college football on NYD as God intended.

I like the quarterfinals on the traditional NYD.  But yes, homefield advantage for 1st round.

[closetohumping 17440]

1 hour ago, hawkfan said:

Yes, on campus playoff games will be wild and cool.  Whether the expansion is to 12 or 16, first two rounds of games will be in college stadiums, hopefully the semi-finals too, with the natty hosted at a neutral site.  If the top two seeds are guaranteed home field throughout, you can bet they won't be resting any starters.

I kinda prefer a 12 school playoff, I feel like you could still do a limited bowl slate on NYE/NYD if the playoff was only 12 and it would still be interesting.  Eliminate conference affiliations and just draft it so it's #13 vs #14 in one game, #15 vs #16 in the next, etc., etc.

Natty should be played in the evening on NYD after the limited bowl slate concludes that day, so you still get a bunch of good college football on NYD as God intended.

Love the idea of on campus playoff games.  It's got to be earned. Also takes away from the "fans can't afford to travel to multiple playoff games" argument.

[Satchel 6938]

3 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Miami, FSU, Clemson, UNC, Duke, UVA, and VT all have a chance at the SEC. NCSU might, only if they miss out on UNC.

I agree. Clemson FSU and Clemson ooze MAGA.

[closetohumping 17440]

7 hours ago, Satchel said:

I agree. Clemson FSU and Clemson ooze MAGA.

Clemson must be real Maga if you listed them twice.  I’m guessing your preference is for us to join the B1G?

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

1 hour ago, closetohumping said:

Clemson must be real Maga if you listed them twice.  I’m guessing your preference is for us to join the B1G?

The Big 10 - home to such bastions of non-MAGAness as Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, and Ohio.

[closetohumping 17440]

27 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

The Big 10 - home to such bastions of non-MAGAness as Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, and Ohio.

Yep.  I’m not gonna pull up voting numbers etc but the B1G is probably every bit as Maga and maybe less diverse.  Anyways let’s drop it or we will be banished to Bolivia 

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

3 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

Yep.  I’m not gonna pull up voting numbers etc but the B1G is probably every bit as Maga and maybe less diverse.  Anyways let’s drop it or we will be banished to Bolivia 

It's definitely a silly metric for conference affiliation, regardless of one's politics.

[closetohumping 17440]

1 minute ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It's definitely a silly metric for conference affiliation, regardless of one's politics.

Agreed.  I know the academics want to be associated with the coasts but to me football doesn't diminish my degree or increase it's prestige.  There's a lot of everything, everywhere. 

[Texzilla58 4735]

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.

Your assumptions are wrong because you’re grasping at making up reasons to make your useless argument. First, the left out schools are still going to be on TV. They just won’t be making the big money but the thirst for live content is still huge. So Iowa State-West Virginia will still be on TV getting the same meager ratings.

But the additions of Texas and OU complete the SEC and will make for a complete slate of great games every week. Eyeballs will follow.

[ChickenNuggets 1626]

19 hours ago, 'stache said:

I think both BIG and SEC will be 24 soon and if the number I saw on ND is true they'll stay independent (no way BIG schools refuse to schedule them if they go that route). I really wish it would just happen now and not another ten years. If both raid the ACC they could probably just have it dissolved.

BIG adds: UO, UW, Stan, Cal, Duke, UNC, UVA, and one other (Pitt, GT, maybe BC for the TV market to the extent it still matters, possibly KU or CU?).

SEC adds: Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT, and some combination of OKST (please?), KU (if not BIG), GT (if not BIG), WVU and maybe Pitt?. Maybe SEC sticks with 20 or so. I just hope it gets determined by 2024. 

Everyone else forms a new coast-to-coast conference.

Wouldn't that dilute the value of the TV contracts were the SEC to expand? Why spread the same market across more schools - I'm not sure they add that much value and likely would lead to diminishing returns. Also, it would seriously complicate scheduling when you consider all the existing rivalry games. I just don't think the school presidents in the existing conferences are eager to bring in more at this time. I haven't looked closely at the economics of it all, but that would be my concern with expansion.

[FartingDreamer 138]

29 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

Your assumptions are wrong because you’re grasping at making up reasons to make your useless argument. First, the left out schools are still going to be on TV. They just won’t be making the big money but the thirst for live content is still huge. So Iowa State-West Virginia will still be on TV getting the same meager ratings.

But the additions of Texas and OU complete the SEC and will make for a complete slate of great games every week. Eyeballs will follow.

 

This succinctly sums up my point in a nutshell.

 

https://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=29157648&tab=top10

"The NFL is a better on-field product than CFB, and its not particularly close. So the casual football fan without any ties to a university tends to watch the NFL. As you remove more & more schools from the highest level of CFB the fans who follow those programs interest in their team wanes. And when fans stop caring about their own programs they aren't going to watch your programs either, which impacts your viewership significantly. So without a robust and relevant FBS, the B1G & SEC will no longer attract the viewership to warrant these huge TV deals. Andy's point about CFP access is a good one, because even as the B1G/SEC separate themselves financially, so long as there is a clear path to a national championship the other schools & fans will remain engaged despite being at a disadvantage".

Edited August 25, 2022 by FartingDreamer

[thunderlounge 7824]

2 minutes ago, FartingDreamer said:

This succinctly sumps up my point in a nutshell.

You and they certainly need a sump pump for that opinion, yes. 

[FartingDreamer 138]

2 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

You and they certainly need a sump pump for that opinion, yes. 

Oof....  thanks for catching that.  

Care to explain how interest won't wane if teams those fans follow are no longer involved in the greater picture context of the sport?  I think its both arrogant and naive to think that they will suddenly switch allegiances with the same level of attachment and interest to those "P2" teams involved in an NFL-lite.  

[statsman 5461]

I don’t know how to break it to you, fd, but BYU already isn’t involved in the greater picture context of the sport. 

[BurntOrange&White 39931]

3 minutes ago, statsman said:

I don’t know how to break it to you, fd, but BYU already isn’t involved in the greater picture context of the sport. 

If Mormons can will their religion into existence they can do the same with college football 🏈 

[FartingDreamer 138]

Just now, statsman said:

I don’t know how to break it to you, fd, but BYU already isn’t involved in the greater picture context of the sport. 

That's not true at all.  BYU has the SOS to make the CFB Playoff or a NY6 bowl game and a upper-half P5- level fanbase and national following that makes it relevant when we are winning.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

On 8/21/2022 at 2:35 PM, camel at sea said:

I wonder what, if anything, that Disney might be able to offer the Irish to keep them under their own umbrella.  The Big Ten deal will be tough to pass up.

I also wonder what NBC does if the Irish join the Big Ten.  Would they want a Saturday double-header?  Those reports of wanting "shoulder programming" for an independent Notre Dame doesn't preclude a desire for shoulder programming for a Big Ten game of the week.

 

I think to make the numbers work for NBC they'd get whatever ND game existed, always at 3:30, away or home.   The only way to guarantee those is if they have a Big Ten conference slate.   So if they play Stanford at Stanford or Maryland at Maryland or Iowa at ND, always on NBC at 3:30.   The double header would be a west coast Big Ten match up or a big prime match up, depending on who picks when that week.

That would be worth a lot for NBC.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

Streaming surpasses cable as top way to consume TV

Streaming has officially topped cable as the most popular method by which Americans consume television content, according to new data from Nielsen.

Why it matters: Just as cable's victory over broadcast ushered in waves of change to U.S. media, streaming's rise will continue to bring new businesses and cultural forces to the fore.

Details: Streaming now makes up more than one-third of all television consumption in the U.S., according to data from Nielsen's monthly Gauge study of TV consumption.

Netflix continues to be the top streaming platform, taking 7.7% of total share of TV consumption in July. YouTube, Amazon Prime Video and Disney+ increased their share of viewing time last month to 7.3%, 3% and 1.8%, respectively, while HBO Max held steady at 1%.

Yes, but: Traditional TV, which includes both cable and broadcast consumption, still collectively makes up the majority of TV viewing in the U.S., for now.

But if the rate of these categories' decline continues, streaming could very well surpass traditional television as the primary way Americans consumer TV content in the next few years.

While the total amount of TV consumption has remained consistent in the past year, the amount that Americans have streamed has increased 22.6%, compared to declines in cable and broadcast of 8.9% and 9.8%, respectively.

What to watch: With more live sports rights moving to streaming, that trend seems likely. Nielsen noted that sports viewing drove the biggest decline for cable.

[camel at sea 589]

On 8/23/2022 at 9:51 PM, 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.

Let's game this out:

B1G (20), thus
B12 (16) 

But Disney's hold on the ACC gets a lot stronger.  Getting the money to work out, in the B1G, will be difficult at 20+ member schools... especially if Disney uses the ACC GOR to run out the clock on the cable box era.  

[hawkfan 60]

538 with a numerical breakdown of expansion candidates for the B1G, interesting article:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-should-the-big-ten-expand-next-we-crunched-the-numbers/

I agree the B1G's final number will be 24 with some of the ACC members after it finalizes a western expansion.

[Zinhead 42]

1 hour ago, ChickenNuggets said:

Wouldn't that dilute the value of the TV contracts were the SEC to expand? Why spread the same market across more schools - I'm not sure they add that much value and likely would lead to diminishing returns. Also, it would seriously complicate scheduling when you consider all the existing rivalry games. I just don't think the school presidents in the existing conferences are eager to bring in more at this time. I haven't looked closely at the economics of it all, but that would be my concern with expansion.

If you break down the colleges in the SEC into three tiers based on value, you get the following:

Top Tier – Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Texas

MidTier – Auburn, Mizzou, Tennessee, Texas A&M

Low Tier – Arkansas, Kentucky, Ole Miss, MSU, South Carolina, Vanderbilt

In order to add value to the conference, any additions would have to be above the Mid-Tier line, or bring in new markets. Going through the ACC schools, FSU and Clemson meet the SEC mid-tier, but they don’t add new markets. UNC also meets the mid-tier line, while Virginia would be toward the low end of the mid-tier, but both bring in large new markets.

None of the other ACC schools do much for the SEC as they compare unfavorably to the current mid-tier SEC schools in terms of value and market.  Schools like VT and NCST are similar to OKState, TTU and Iowa State, strong football centric schools that are saddled with below median valuations.

Also, while the BIG has restricted distributions to new members in order to make them financially viable, the SEC has never done this. All of the recent SEC additions were admitted as full members. The addition of Arkansas and South Carolina allowed for the creation of the new conference championship which paid their way in. Texas A&M and Missouri were mid-Tier schools that brought new markets and were financially additive to the conference, and Texas and Oklahoma both are top tier schools with new markets.

Given these factors, if the SEC misses on UNC/UVA once the ACC Gore expires, I don’t think they will expand.

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

1 hour ago, FartingDreamer said:

 

This succinctly sums up my point in a nutshell.

 

https://www.cougarboard.com/board/message.html?id=29157648&tab=top10

"The NFL is a better on-field product than CFB, and its not particularly close. So the casual football fan without any ties to a university tends to watch the NFL. As you remove more & more schools from the highest level of CFB the fans who follow those programs interest in their team wanes. And when fans stop caring about their own programs they aren't going to watch your programs either, which impacts your viewership significantly. So without a robust and relevant FBS, the B1G & SEC will no longer attract the viewership to warrant these huge TV deals. Andy's point about CFP access is a good one, because even as the B1G/SEC separate themselves financially, so long as there is a clear path to a national championship the other schools & fans will remain engaged despite being at a disadvantage".

I know you want to believe this.  That doesn't make it all true.  Let's stipulate things we can agree on, from above:

• The NFL is a better on-field product than college - mmm, sure.  It's pro, it's the top 2% of college players doing it as their job.  It's also antiseptic and vanilla.  I'd argue if we expand the product definition to include tradition, emotional connection to your university, the pageantry of the full experience, etc that college is better but whatever, it's not germane to this discussion.
• That CFB fan interest will wane if their team is relegated out of a Power conference - again, maybe?  We can cite counter-examples too, like TCU and UCF that have grown fan interest, or even SMU whose interest looks like a reverse bell curve with a big valley after SWC exit and death penalty and they've been building ever since into a pretty solid program with support.  Their fans didn't suddenly disappear, in fact they grew.
• CFP access - I agree that there should be CFP access for non-P2 programs.  I don't think anyone is suggesting a B1G/SEC-only playoff.  Now how do you balance the access is the question.  AQs for non P2 programs seems silly if the Big12 champion has 2 losses vs. a 2-loss 3rd place SEC or B1G team who is stronger, played a much harder schedule and is ranked higher.  But I could see reserving a semi-AQ if the Big12, PAC-whatever or ACC champ is top-15 or top-20 or passes some additional bar.  In a 12 team playoff, 2-4 of those AQs seems ok and the rest based in ranking.

Now the stuff we might not agree on:

• There are only about 5-6 programs in any given year that have the ability to actually win the playoff.  They aren't BYU, Baylor, Cincinnati, Ok State or even mid-tier B1G or SEC programs.  It's currently Alabama, OSU, Clemson, Georgia and maybe 1-2 others.  In the 4-team CFP a smaller program might have the "puncher's chance" but it's like 5%.  Cincinnati was the best example of the past 15 years, and they wilted.  So no, those programs currently don't have a chance to win the championship, nor should that be  their measurement of success.  Competing for a conference title, beating their rival, and upsetting a blue blood (and before you say it, YES I'm aware of the irony of this statement considering the relative success of teams like ISU, Baylor, and OkState vs. Texas in the past decade).  It's the illusion of access to the playoff and the dream we're talking about preserving, not the reality.
• This gets even harder in the expanded CFP because now instead of having to beat 2 great teams to win, you a have to beat 4 of them.  Teams outside the top tier of the new B1G and SEC aren't built for that.  Good coaching can't overcome that.  You need to stack top 5 recruiting classes, probably top 3 year over year over year AND have good coaching AND have good development AND the right facilities AND proper NIL support AND demonstrated success of putting athletes in the NFL.  Only a handful of teams have all of that.  In the coming years, the only ones who will have all of that are the top of the B1G and SEC which is basically true today with the possible exception of Clemson.
• IF what you're claiming about smaller fanbases losing interest due to lack of access to a "clear path to a national championship" (direct quote from above) were true...we'd already be seeing it for the past decades.  Because those teams don't have a clear path to a national championship as things stand today.
• You might say viewership is down, but it's down overall for everything.  Live sports and CFP pull big shares relative to everything else.  Especially the marquee matchups between blue bloods.  Those 4M+ viewership games are what is driving the realignment, going to 9 conference games in the SEC, etc - creating more of that inventory.  

The butthurt here seems driven more by programs seeing their market value highlighted and codification of the status quo vs. something new.  There's still the Vanderbilt and Indiana issue but no system is perfect, we're not building it from a clean sheet.  I feel for the ISUs of the world who will take a revenue haircut. But they probably shouldn't have had the higher revenues to begin with.

[camel at sea 589]

11 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

I know you want to believe this.  That doesn't make it all true.  Let's stipulate things we can agree on, from above:

• IF what you're claiming about smaller fanbases losing interest due to lack of access to a "clear path to a national championship" (direct quote from above) were true...we'd already be seeing it for the past decades.  Because those teams don't have a clear path to a national championship as things stand today.
• You might say viewership is down, but it's down overall for everything.  Live sports and CFP pull big shares relative to everything else.  Especially the marquee matchups between blue bloods.  Those 4M+ viewership games are what is driving the realignment, going to 9 conference games in the SEC, etc - creating more of that inventory.  

 

A clear path doesn't have to be a realistic path.  Those are two different things.  The Cincinnati Bearcats played in the CFP last year.  Their path was clear, even if winning the whole thing once they got there was unrealistic.  If you kick those mid tier schools to to the curb, and they don't have even an unrealistic path, why would their fans continue to watch?  Fans of those type of schools comprise a significant percentage of the "casual" fans.

Put this idea in another area:  Creighton basketball draws 17K for home games.  Those are serious CBB fans who watch other big games when said games are on.  Are they ever going to win a natty at Creighton?  Probably not.  But they have a clear path via the tourney.  Don't give them access to the NCAA tourney and their fans lose interest.  The sport loses some of its "casual" fans.  Cut too many fanbases like that out of the process and it's death by many cuts.

The TV side gets more of the big brand on big brand games by moving the big brands into the B1G and SEC, expanding the playoff, etc.  None of that has to mean eliminating the 1-2M viewer games (viewer numbers which are also hard to achieve otherwise) by cutting the B12/PAC/ACC out of the top tier.  

[hawkfan 60]

It seems pretty clear to me at this point we will end up with 3 super conferences - the B1G, the SEC, and the P5 leftovers which will form their own league that will be worth of watching and granting access to a 12-16 school playoff.

I think those 60-ish schools breaking away and agreeing to only play each other under a new governance structure is where this heads eventually.

I could see eventually where they agree to an NFL-like preseason where power programs could host a couple pre-season games against G5/FCS schools that are used strictly to evaluate their roster.

[Zinhead 42]

1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

• There are only about 5-6 programs in any given year that have the ability to actually win the playoff.  They aren't BYU, Baylor, Cincinnati, Ok State or even mid-tier B1G or SEC programs.  It's currently Alabama, OSU, Clemson, Georgia and maybe 1-2 others.  In the 4-team CFP a smaller program might have the "puncher's chance" but it's like 5%.  Cincinnati was the best example of the past 15 years, and they wilted.  So no, those programs currently don't have a chance to win the championship, nor should that be  their measurement of success.  Competing for a conference title, beating their rival, and upsetting a blue blood (and before you say it, YES I'm aware of the irony of this statement considering the relative success of teams like ISU, Baylor, and OkState vs. Texas in the past decade).  It's the illusion of access to the playoff and the dream we're talking about preserving, not the reality.

The four team playoff gives teams that have made it into the playoff a big boost in recruiting, which then improves their chances of getting back into the playoffs. This feedback loop is why we see the same teams in the playoff every year. Unless a draft is instituted or a head coach changes, the feedback loop is difficult to break since talent accumulation (recruiting) is so important to college football. However, expanding the playoff to 12 or 16 schools will also expand the teams that can benefit from this feedback loop. The talent that is currently concentrated in the top 5-6 schools will be diffused to a group of 10 or 15 that will likely be playoff regulars. In this scenario, with talent more spread out than it currently is, it is much more likely that a BYU, Baylor, Cincy, or OK State level school can take advantage of HOF coach and make a deep run into the playoffs.  

Edited August 25, 2022 by Zinhead

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

 

• IF what you're claiming about smaller fanbases losing interest due to lack of access to a "clear path to a national championship" (direct quote from above) were true...we'd already be seeing it for the past decades.  Because those teams don't have a clear path to a national championship as things stand today.
• You might say viewership is down, but it's down overall for everything.  Live sports and CFP pull big shares relative to everything else.  Especially the marquee matchups between blue bloods.  Those 4M+ viewership games are what is driving the realignment, going to 9 conference games in the SEC, etc - creating more of that inventory.  

The butthurt here seems driven more by programs seeing their market value highlighted and codification of the status quo vs. something new.  There's still the Vanderbilt and Indiana issue but no system is perfect, we're not building it from a clean sheet.  I feel for the ISUs of the world who will take a revenue haircut. But they probably shouldn't have had the higher revenues to begin with.

Blue bloods do have larger fanbases largely due to building generational fans with consistent success over decades.   That being said, all it gives them is a higher potential audience.   A 6-6 blue blood or a blue blood playing in a game they're getting smoked draws terribly.   In the reverse, a non-blue blood with a great winning season will out draw the blue blood, especially if its a competitive game going into the 4th.   They lack the casual fans, however, who like the team because their parents liked the team, etc.  90% of ND's fans never attended the school.   Hell the entire town of Beverly IL, home of the Southside Irish Parade, bleeds gold and most went to Eastern Illinois.    That's what a blue blood gets you.

Consolidation will not help everyone though.   The benefit to putting big brands into the same conference is that you can guarantee someone will be good.  So for network executives, they're giddy.   If Bama has a bad year, someone will have a good one.   The Big 12's demise is a good sign of this.   Its only been OU for a decade.   For TV networks that's not much to hang a hat on.   You had two, and got one.   So if 50% is your number, having 6 is better than 2, because now 3 will carry water for the rest. 

Advantage: Networks

However, with 9 conference games that gives sixteen-team league 72 losses to spread around.   While in any given year 2-3 will be elevated to gods, 13-14 will be taken out of commission.   They'll be paid to be fodder, even blue blood fodder as a 6 win Georgia won't demand the audience it does when it has 11 wins.   Oklahoma and Nebraska's brands are built on perennial 10 win seasons after beating the tar out of whatever conference's version of the Washington Generals exists.  Even with a playoff performance like Cincinatti.  Those years are likely to become much more difficult and rare.   And, much like Nebraska, you'll start to see a degradation of brands as much as you'll see an elevation.  

The money is good.   The exposure is outstanding.   But the bar is still 10 wins a year to stay in the conversation, so the stakes are much, much higher.