Realignment talk not going away

[locodos 5591]

7 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

How about you just not ban our fans from buying tickets on the open market?

https://kslsports.com/500666/big-12-tcu-byu-tickets-single-game-keep-it-purple/

TCU, Baylor, and Houston pull this type of bush league bullshit regularly (Tech too to a different extent but since nobody wants to travel to Lubbock they don’t do this). This happens regularly to Texas fans that I couldn’t easily find a UT site complaining about this since it’s fairly normal for us.

Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it ain’t real.

Miami does that too, but the package comes with a tetanus booster and a fake gold chain

[thunderlounge 8415]

And a gram. 

[PittsburghTiger 6346]

On 3/26/2024 at 3:18 PM, CustersDoctor said:

So if the B1G takes UNC & Virg. And the SEC takes FSU & Clemson. Then the Big12 cherry picks the ACC. So here's a first look at the final three conferences.

 

If this is what will be then it makes more sense to go to one Super Best Friends Conference and put people in 12 different pods. Winners of the pods go to the college football playoffs. Also, just one TV contract for everyone in the Super Best Friends Conference.

['stache 22145]

OSU used to designate OU or UT, whichever was home, as a “premium” game you could only get with a season ticket. It was to get more season tickets sold, not to slight the opponent. Our fans hated it more than anyone else. They could still be found pretty easy on stubhub. We haven’t done that in a long time since season tickets and attendance have been strong on their own.

Edited April 5 by 'stache

[Hank Chinaski 6361]

3 hours ago, LTbear said:

Just as a Big XII fan who watches other Big XII games, the Texas vs Okie State series was damn fun for much of the last 15 years.

The series was a hell of a lot more fun during the decade before that IMO. 

Edited April 6 by Hank Chinaski

[bullet 1630]

12 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

You collectively bargain, and then pay out based on ratings.  Better ratings = more money.  That's how you sell the blue bloods on it.  Financial reward becomes merit based, not about being lucky as to who you hooked up with 150 years ago.  The whole conference model goes away completely in this system.  There is no Big 10 or SEC, there is just the 70 schools that were part of the major conferences, and they all have varying levels of value in this equation.

This model we've been heading towards where Purdue and Northwestern get to make as much money as Ohio State and Michigan while Oklahoma State and West Virginia don't even get to participate is so mind-numbingly stupid, and this model would end that immediately.

Schools are going to want something more certain than year to year ratings.

[Crockett 517]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

How about you just not ban our fans from buying tickets on the open market?

https://kslsports.com/500666/big-12-tcu-byu-tickets-single-game-keep-it-purple/

I mean TCU was not wrong to worry about a "sea of blue" happening at a DFW venue lol

[LTbear 4213]

1 hour ago, Hank Chinaski said:

The series was a hell of a lot more fun during the decade before that IMO. 

This is one of those moments where I just had some cognitive dissonance about how old I am. I was totally thinking back to the Vince Young years when I made that comment. 

[TKthunder2 5059]

3 hours ago, Crockett said:

I mean TCU was not wrong to worry about a "sea of blue" happening at a DFW venue lol

BYU can travel but Texas fans have outnumbered them in their own stadium before.

[CustersDoctor 585]

On 4/4/2024 at 8:19 AM, statsman said:

So, the presidents of Syracuse and West Virginia say, “This isn’t working! We need a new set up where we are in the top tier!”

mmmm-okay….

Exactly my thoughts when I saw this proposal. All the schools that should be relegated are getting together to try and make it look like its sensible to include everybody. I do think WVU is safe but maybe not Cuse.

[CustersDoctor 585]

So I used this paradigm to sort through and relegate some of 77 schools in the unwieldy everybody gets stay conference proposal.

There are 22 States that have multiple teams. Some of those need to be dropped, not only do they not deliver TV viewers, but because of local regional population, they never be able to deliver the eyeballs.

Here are the 22 states with multiple teams and who I would preserve.

1. Oregon (2). Drop OSt

2. Washington(2). Drop Wazzou

3. Cali (4) Keeps them all, I know CalStan have been under performing for years, I just keep thinking they'll wake up.

4. Arizona (2). Both teams stay

5. Utah (2) is indeed a low pop state, but both schools deliver good home attendance as well as decent to good TV numbers. Plus their rivalry delivers on a national scale.

6. Kansas (2) Population doesn't deserve two teams. Since football drives the money. Kansas has to go.

7. Iowa (2). Neither school has terrible numbers. ISU has one of the most loyal fanbases anywhere. Their attendance is good whether they suck or not. Both teams stay.

8. Oklahoma (2). Smaller pop state but of course OU stays, but so does OSt, they have the best numbers of the New16.

9. Texas (7) Yes, I said SEVEN schools. That is stupid. It needs to be Four like Cali. Bye Bye BU, UH & SMU. This somehow leaves us with TCU. But they perform better than, BU, UH & SMU.

10. Michigan(2) keep both schools.

11. Illinois (2) Illinois stays, see ya to NorthWestern. Illinois numbers aren't great, but the state population is good.

12. Indiana (3), Keeps ND, loses Purdue & Indiana

13. OHIO (2). No more Bearcats.

14. Kentucky (2). UK numbers are doing well enough to stay and so does Louisville.

15. Mississippi(2) Not big enough for two teams. Farewell, Miss St.

16. Georgia (2) Georgia Tech just doesn't move the needle. To bad, I kind of always liked them.

17. South Carolina (2) keeps both schools.

18. North Carolina (4). The ninth most populous state somehow has four teams in the 77. Only UNC & NCST can stay. No more Duke or Wake

19. Tennessee (2). Vandy should in no way get to stay.

20. Pennsylvania (2). Both schools stay. Pitt is marginal in some books, but they do as well as anybody else in the bottom half

21. Florida (4). Third most populous state deserves four but UCF is on the cusp of not making it.

22. Alabama (2) Both schools stay.

There are 11 states with one team. These states keep their representation 1. Minnesota 2. Wisconsin 3. West Virginia 4. Missouri 5. Colorado 6. Nebraska 7. Arkansas 8. Louisiana. 9. New York. These two state and their markets get relegated. 10. New Jersey 11. Maryland.

That is a total 50 teams. This strategy reduces fat while retaining most of the states viewers. If you want to cut to 48 you'd drop TCU & UCF, then have 4 12 team conferences.

[bullet 1630]

He's baaaack!  Actually the Dude of WV never left, after all, he's immortal, but just changed to his real name, Christopher Lambert.  And his FSU and Clemson talk just won't go away.

So from others who do subscribe to his twitter, ESPN is brokering a deal whereby the ACC lets FSU and Clemson go to the SEC, sublicenses their rights to ESPN to use in the SEC and takes a cut.  Meanwhile, ESPN agrees to exercise their option to renew the ACC contract from 2027-2036.  That option expires in 2025.

Its just way too complicated for the Dude to have thought of it himself, so someone did tell him this.  And it really does make sense, even if the source is the Dude.  Its a win for FSU and Clemson, who get to go to the SEC and make more money.  Its a win for the ACC who get rid of a couple of whiners, get their contract renewed and cash in on part of FSU/Clemson's FMV.  Its a win for ESPN who keeps FSU and Clemson and gets even better matchups in the SEC, although they do pay a little more.  Its a win for the SEC who seal up the southeast and get a couple more national brands.

 

[oSuJeff97 3439]

Can't wait for The Dude's always accurate season predictions as well.

Watching him predict a WVU win for every single game, then disappear for days after each loss and then come back and do it all over again the next week was always a treat.

['stache 22145]

24 minutes ago, bullet said:

He's baaaack!  Actually the Dude of WV never left, after all, he's immortal, but just changed to his real name, Christopher Lambert.  And his FSU and Clemson talk just won't go away.

So from others who do subscribe to his twitter, ESPN is brokering a deal whereby the ACC lets FSU and Clemson go to the SEC, sublicenses their rights to ESPN to use in the SEC and takes a cut.  Meanwhile, ESPN agrees to exercise their option to renew the ACC contract from 2027-2036.  That option expires in 2025.

Its just way too complicated for the Dude to have thought of it himself, so someone did tell him this.  And it really does make sense, even if the source is the Dude.  Its a win for FSU and Clemson, who get to go to the SEC and make more money.  Its a win for the ACC who get rid of a couple of whiners, get their contract renewed and cash in on part of FSU/Clemson's FMV.  Its a win for ESPN who keeps FSU and Clemson and gets even better matchups in the SEC, although they do pay a little more.  Its a win for the SEC who seal up the southeast and get a couple more national brands.

 

And the ACC adds the Greenland Glaciers and the Indonesia Inuits to ensure they have all four ocean coasts covered, because reasons. 

[66BUFF 2608]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

And the ACC adds the Greenland Glaciers and the Indonesia Inuits to ensure they have all four ocean coasts covered, because reasons. 

And then of course they can challenge the Klingons for interstellar domination.

[Darth Tron 1158]

7 hours ago, bullet said:

He's baaaack!  Actually the Dude of WV never left, after all, he's immortal, but just changed to his real name, Christopher Lambert.  And his FSU and Clemson talk just won't go away.

So from others who do subscribe to his twitter, ESPN is brokering a deal whereby the ACC lets FSU and Clemson go to the SEC, sublicenses their rights to ESPN to use in the SEC and takes a cut.  Meanwhile, ESPN agrees to exercise their option to renew the ACC contract from 2027-2036.  That option expires in 2025.

Its just way too complicated for the Dude to have thought of it himself, so someone did tell him this.  And it really does make sense, even if the source is the Dude.  Its a win for FSU and Clemson, who get to go to the SEC and make more money.  Its a win for the ACC who get rid of a couple of whiners, get their contract renewed and cash in on part of FSU/Clemson's FMV.  Its a win for ESPN who keeps FSU and Clemson and gets even better matchups in the SEC, although they do pay a little more.  Its a win for the SEC who seal up the southeast and get a couple more national brands.

 

[CustersDoctor 585]

21 hours ago, bullet said:

He's baaaack!  Actually the Dude of WV never left, after all, he's immortal, but just changed to his real name, Christopher Lambert.  And his FSU and Clemson talk just won't go away.

So from others who do subscribe to his twitter, ESPN is brokering a deal whereby the ACC lets FSU and Clemson go to the SEC, sublicenses their rights to ESPN to use in the SEC and takes a cut.  Meanwhile, ESPN agrees to exercise their option to renew the ACC contract from 2027-2036.  That option expires in 2025.

Its just way too complicated for the Dude to have thought of it himself, so someone did tell him this.  And it really does make sense, even if the source is the Dude.  Its a win for FSU and Clemson, who get to go to the SEC and make more money.  Its a win for the ACC who get rid of a couple of whiners, get their contract renewed and cash in on part of FSU/Clemson's FMV.  Its a win for ESPN who keeps FSU and Clemson and gets even better matchups in the SEC, although they do pay a little more.  Its a win for the SEC who seal up the southeast and get a couple more national brands.

 

This sounds like a terrible deal for most of the remaining ACC members. Because about eight of them would be financially better off in the XII. And though increasing the XII to XIV would seem unwieldy it would be an opportunity to kill off a conference and to relegate some bad performers. Now we all know that UNC & Virginia keep floating B1G rumors, I don't think the B1G is ready to expand even more. The BigXII would gladly expand further, its not like they'd be messing up some comfortable consistency. There are only 6 original BigXII members left. So the Big12 should go after these schools: UNC, VIRG, VTECH, PITT, NCST, MIAMI, LOUIS. The eighth school would be one of these: Cuse, GTech or Duke. Hard pass on WAKE, BC, CAL, STAN and SMU. There's no reason for the eight schools who could go to the BIGXII to get locked in to a bad deal that doesn't expire for 12 years. They should get into a deal that is monetarily better and expires in 2031. Thus if you're UNC & UV, Your B1G dream could come true in seven years.

[gatormarc 937]

On 4/8/2024 at 12:37 PM, CustersDoctor said:

21. Florida (4). Third most populous state deserves four but UCF is on the cusp of not making it.

Miami is a dying brand. Just leave them out and take UCF.

[The Dog 44861]

Not really news to us but this guy got the actual documents:

Texas agreement conditional on Oklahoma:

Oklahoma agreement conditional on Texas:

 

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

Why is that newsworthy?

[statsman 5693]

59 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Why is that newsworthy?

Because this is a Texas board. Because OU is our most hated rival. 

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

16 minutes ago, statsman said:

Because this is a Texas board. Because OU is our most hated rival. 

I’m saying that it seems like everyone always assumed this was the arrangement 

[statsman 5693]

I have met Sooners who said they had an invite without Texas. 

[thunderlounge 8415]

2 minutes ago, statsman said:

I have met Sooners who lied and said they had an invite without Texas. 

 

fify

 

It's 12:14 and ou still sucks

[CastHorn 902]

On 4/11/2024 at 8:44 AM, bullet said:

He's baaaack!  Actually the Dude of WV never left, after all, he's immortal, but just changed to his real name, Christopher Lambert.  And his FSU and Clemson talk just won't go away.

 

I have this vague memory of coming home from baseball practice my freshman year of high school and tuning into a FSU/Clemson to Big12 segment on College Football Live. Dude of WV had drum up so much Twitter discourse it went mainstream for an afternoon. That was my first instance of monitoring misinformation infiltrating national media in real time. There was no way this guy that the olds on the Shag clown daily has an ESPN segment, his tweets were even cited if I’m not mistaken. 

['stache 22145]

2 hours ago, statsman said:

I have met Sooners who said they had an invite without Texas. 

 But why would they say that? There’s never been a world where there was disagreement among OU\TX in joining the SEC. I remember that David Boren publicly tried to join the PAC without UT but we’re told no. Just one of many key mistakes by the now rotting corpse of the PAC.

[tbone_ 14451]

I have met Sooners who said they had an invite without Texas. 

I have met Sooners who eat their own shit

['stache 22145]

1 minute ago, tbone_ said:

I have met Sooners who eat their own shit

Have you met any who don’t?

[CustersDoctor 585]

3 hours ago, CastHorn said:

I have this vague memory of coming home from baseball practice my freshman year of high school and tuning into a FSU/Clemson to Big12 segment on College Football Live. Dude of WV had drum up so much Twitter discourse it went mainstream for an afternoon. That was my first instance of monitoring misinformation infiltrating national media in real time. There was no way this guy that the olds on the Shag clown daily has an ESPN segment, his tweets were even cited if I’m not mistaken. 

This was about the same time a poster on TexAgs was posting legit insider information about recruiting violations at OU. After getting scooped by message board posters, some main stream media elements began watching message boards more closely. By doing this, they seldom gleaned good information and were often duped.

[TKthunder2 5059]

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/college-football-super-league-pitch-deck-1234775652/amp/
 

[DFW Horn 6654]

33 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/college-football-super-league-pitch-deck-1234775652/amp/
 

I don't hate it, but a 14-game season is too long for "student athletes", IMO.

SWC SWC SWC!

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

41 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/college-football-super-league-pitch-deck-1234775652/amp/
 

Swap Mizzou for Wisconsin and sign my ass up.

['stache 22145]

I like it but it’s 50 years too late. This is what it should have been from the start (with some variations). A bunch of those programs would say no.

[TKthunder2 5059]

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

I like it but it’s 50 years too late. This is what it should have been from the start (with some variations). A bunch of those programs would say no.

Yep. A super league of all teams isn’t a super league. The whole plan where they say the teams with the most eyeballs takes home the biggest paycheck and regional divisions don’t align. USC will get more eyeballs in the Big Ten than they did in the P10, Texas will get more in the SEC than the SWC. That’s of the big reasons why reverting back to regional conferences would not happen.

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

7 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Yep. A super league of all teams isn’t a super league. The whole plan where they say the teams with the most eyeballs takes home the biggest paycheck and regional divisions don’t align. USC will get more eyeballs in the Big Ten than they did in the P10, Texas will get more in the SEC than the SWC. That’s of the big reasons why reverting back to regional conferences would not happen.

When there's a playoff that all these leagues feed into, instead of provincial bowl games, I think that would go away.  Because all of these divisions feed into the same national playoff, every game has theoretical relevance in relation to every other game.  NFL fans on the east coast don't ignore the games on the west coast because at the end of the day those are all teams that their team could have to play, and the big brands would draw eyeballs from everywhere in this arrangement.

These aren't conferences that are little clubs of like-mindedness and camaraderie.  They are divisions that constitute a larger league.  Because every D1 fanbase in America has a stake in this final outcome, there will be nationwide interest.

If the SEC and Big 10 wall themselves off, no one outside is going to care all that much.  There are enough people "inside" that circle to be quite financially viable, but maxing out financially tends to come from having the most people invested and watching.  The NFL has never outright attempted to alienate potential viewers.

Edited April 18 by Al_4_ISU

['stache 22145]

We’ve known for about 40 years now that college football is different (basketball too to a lesser extent) because it generates revenues unlike other college sports. Football should have broken off sometime back then to align differently than for other sports. UCLA vs. Penn State makes sense for football since the revenues would still far outweigh the costs, but makes zero sense for soccer or gymnastics.  

It feels now like the conversation is trending towards college sports being dissolved if they don’t make money. That’s never what collegiate athletics was meant to be about, it was an anomaly that college football became so popular (Coach Iba at OSU thought basketball and baseball would be the money makers and boy was he wrong). We’re already seeing schools drop programs, and without going full cloak room, I foresee Title IX going away soon and obliterating women’s college sports.

I really don’t like what the future looks like for these other sports. I might be overthinking the negatives, but I can’t shake the thought that other collegiate sports are going to shrink quickly in this new world where Stanford softball has to travel 4000 miles for several of its away games.

Edited April 18 by 'stache

[closetohumping 17818]

20 hours ago, statsman said:

I have met Sooners who said they had an invite without Texas. 

Sure thing. Texas has always been the prize.  Remember Borens “we are. It wallflowers” comment?

[PittsburghTiger 6346]

I’ve been a proponent of the Super Best Friends Conference.

I think it has to go that way. Attendance is on a 20-year slide.

The biggest obstacle is the individual conference TV deals. If there is one massive deal, for everyone in the SBFC then it can work. Twelve pods, winners of the pods go to the playoffs. Non-pod games rotate each year.

[TKthunder2 5059]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

When there's a playoff that all these leagues feed into, instead of provincial bowl games, I think that would go away.  Because all of these divisions feed into the same national playoff, every game has theoretical relevance in relation to every other game.  NFL fans on the east coast don't ignore the games on the west coast because at the end of the day those are all teams that their team could have to play, and the big brands would draw eyeballs from everywhere in this arrangement.

These aren't conferences that are little clubs of like-mindedness and camaraderie.  They are divisions that constitute a larger league.  Because every D1 fanbase in America has a stake in this final outcome, there will be nationwide interest.

If the SEC and Big 10 wall themselves off, no one outside is going to care all that much.  There are enough people "inside" that circle to be quite financially viable, but maxing out financially tends to come from having the most people invested and watching.  The NFL has never outright attempted to alienate potential viewers.

There are 32 NFL teams. Talk to fans in San Diego and St. Louis and previous other cities/markets like Cleveland, Baltimore, and Houston about them never alienating viewers (as a former Oiler fan but not Texan fan I laugh at that).

If people don’t go to games, buy merchandise, or watch they pack up and leave. Acting like the NFL would NEVER pull a Super League plan out of its ass is folly. If they expanded from 32 to 60 teams and half the league was being subsidized you can absolutely bet that the Dallas Cowboys and most successful friends would cut bait and abandon ship.

The NFL is also not a good model for CFB due to their TV deals and market agreements. Without the Sunday ticket most people can only watch 6 games a week live. It’s not the same.

Edited April 18 by TKthunder2

[thunderlounge 8415]

Just the same shit we beat to death a week or so ago.

This is nothing but a “gonna be left behind” group trying to force their way in.

For non-rev sports, maybe. But definitely not football, or basketball, and pretty sure not baseball either.

When revenue sports cannot make the money they need to, non-rev sports fall behind. This proposal would lead to a lot of the non-rev sports falling away. Why? Because of cutting their nose to spite their face, and severely weakening the revenue products.

 

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

40 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

There are 32 NFL teams. Talk to fans in San Diego and St. Louis and previous other cities/markets like Cleveland, Baltimore, and Houston about them never alienating viewers (as a former Oiler fan but not Texan fan I laugh at that).

If people don’t go to games, buy merchandise, or watch they pack up and leave. Acting like the NFL would NEVER pull a Super League plan out of its ass is folly. If they expanded from 32 to 60 teams and half the league was being subsidized you can absolutely bet that the Dallas Cowboys and most successful friends would cut bait and abandon ship.

The NFL is also not a good model for CFB due to their TV deals and market agreements. Without the Sunday ticket most people can only watch 6 games a week live. It’s not the same.

The NFL didn't force those moves, the owners did.

I don't think the NFL is a good model for CFB, but blowing up the conferences as we know them, making geographic playing arrangements, and distributing revenue on an earned basis is a far more logical path than the one we're on.

What you have in CFB right now is the potential of the actual haves bringing a bunch of subsidized schools with them into another division.  If you're going to do that, it might as well be more inclusive in terms of who actually gets to compete, and end the subsidization.  I think in a Super League with merit based revenue, you'd see the Texases of the world make more, and the Purdues make less.  And that makes complete sense.

Edited April 18 by Al_4_ISU

['stache 22145]

15 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

https://www.sportico.com/leagues/college-sports/2024/college-football-super-league-pitch-deck-1234775652/amp/
 

 

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

We’ve known for about 40 years now that college football is different (basketball too to a lesser extent) because it generates revenues unlike other college sports. Football should have broken off sometime back then to align differently than for other sports. UCLA vs. Penn State makes sense for football since the revenues would still far outweigh the costs, but makes zero sense for soccer or gymnastics.  

It feels now like the conversation is trending towards college sports being dissolved if they don’t make money. That’s never what collegiate athletics was meant to be about, it was an anomaly that college football became so popular (Coach Iba at OSU thought basketball and baseball would be the money makers and boy was he wrong). We’re already seeing schools drop programs, and without going full cloak room, I foresee Title IX going away soon and obliterating women’s college sports.

I really don’t like what the future looks like for these other sports. I might be overthinking the negatives, but I can’t shake the thought that other collegiate sports are going to shrink quickly in this new world where Stanford softball has to travel 4000 miles for several of its away games.

To follow up on my own thread, I'd really like to see this alignment (with some tweaks) for non-revenue sports, and maybe even for basketball (although as a Big XII member the new alignment is going to be stout as hell). Only exception is there would be no need for the relegation/promotion division. UT, OU, and maybe even Aggy, probably don't want to play SMU and UH regularly as conference opponents in football, but why not in baseball/softball/tennis/rowing/etc.? Let's make something like this happen for non-revenue sports already. I think there could be some traction there, especially since those sports usually have more open spots for big non-conference matchups, i.e., UT v. Vandy in baseball, OSU v. Iowa in wrestling, etc.

Edited April 18 by 'stache

[hook me 2163]

12 hours ago, 'stache said:

I like it but it’s 50 years too late. This is what it should have been from the start (with some variations). A bunch of those programs would say no.

6 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

When there's a playoff that all these leagues feed into, instead of provincial bowl games, I think that would go away.  Because all of these divisions feed into the same national playoff, every game has theoretical relevance in relation to every other game.  NFL fans on the east coast don't ignore the games on the west coast because at the end of the day those are all teams that their team could have to play, and the big brands would draw eyeballs from everywhere in this arrangement.

These aren't conferences that are little clubs of like-mindedness and camaraderie.  They are divisions that constitute a larger league.  Because every D1 fanbase in America has a stake in this final outcome, there will be nationwide interest.

If the SEC and Big 10 wall themselves off, no one outside is going to care all that much.  There are enough people "inside" that circle to be financially viable, but maxing out financially tends to come from having the most people invested and watching.  The NFL has never outright attempted to alienate potential viewers.

The problem with that is you're talking about double the amount of teams in this scenario vs. the NFL, NFL teams have more games outside of their division than inside of it on a yearly basis which makes other divisions somewhat more interesting, & the parity in the NFL driven by the draft & front offices keep the NFL interesting by teams going through natural peaks and valleys. 

No matter how many teams would have said "yes" to this setup 50 years ago, the moment satellite/cable became widespread we would see a similar progression as we have now. When Nebraska vs. OU was only one of 3 games you could watch on a given Saturday it was the shit & kids wanted to go to those schools to play on TV in that game (or fill in any other rivalry game) which helped keep the dominant programs dominant. With streaming and 20 different games on that you can flip back-and-forth between there is no scarcity driven interest to make me want to watch Cincy vs Indy (or any other game featuring completely meh programs that UT will never play) so the only drive to watch a game would be if it's your team, a rival you want to lose, or a good matchup. 

[Al_4_ISU 12629]

7 minutes ago, hook me said:

The problem with that is you're talking about double the amount of teams in this scenario vs. the NFL, NFL teams have more games outside of their division than inside of it on a yearly basis which makes other divisions somewhat more interesting, & the parity in the NFL driven by the draft & front offices keep the NFL interesting by teams going through natural peaks and valleys. 

No matter how many teams would have said "yes" to this setup 50 years ago, the moment satellite/cable became widespread we would see a similar progression as we have now. When Nebraska vs. OU was only one of 3 games you could watch on a given Saturday it was the shit & kids wanted to go to those schools to play on TV in that game (or fill in any other rivalry game) which helped keep the dominant programs dominant. With streaming and 20 different games on that you can flip back-and-forth between there is no scarcity driven interest to make me want to watch Cincy vs Indy (or any other game featuring completely meh programs that UT will never play) so the only drive to watch a game would be if it's your team, a rival you want to lose, or a good matchup. 

 In the proposed set up I think you would see far more interesting out of division match ups than you see today, and that's one thing that would likely raise the value of this product.

The games you're describing will have a baked in audience consisting of those fanbases and probably no one else.  Not any different than today.  What would be different is that in a set up that completely removes the narrative driven subjectivity that has pushed college football to it's current insanity, there is no incentive for the heavy hitters in different divisions to avoid each other outside of divisional play. 

Right now basically every team in the country plays 1 (many play 3) boring-ass tune up games.  This is all because average programs are trying to squirrel away wins for bowl eligibility and the major programs are trying to avoid non-conference blemishes to their playoff resume.  When those games don't matter towards who makes the playoffs, you open the door for better early season games.  You could even make it a rule that teams can't schedule outside the 80 (or whatever).

There's an opportunity and way to structure this that makes it a gain for almost every program in the country if it's done right.

[Horn of Gabriel 1886]

From the link above RE: Super League:

NIL

The deck proposes a national broadcast NIL (BNIL) construct whereby players receive pro rata shares of a collectively bargained “FB Player Pool,” which would come from the Super League’s TV money. That money would be distributed as follows: 5% to all rostered freshmen, 15% to all rostered sophomores, 30% for all rostered juniors and 50% for all rostered seniors and graduate students. 

As another means of maintaining competitive equity, the pitch deck proposes a cap that would constrain how much a program’s athletes could cumulatively earn via NIL. The suggested “NIL Roster Cap” would mandate that individual NIL payments for football players at a single school not exceed those earned via group licensing and broadcast NIL (BNIL) deals.

If a school exceeds the cap for a season, then it would be punished by losing transfer slots, and possibly scholarship slots. If, on the other hand, a school were to fall below 80% of a pre-established “NIL Roster Floor” for two consecutive seasons, it would be relegated to the Under League until it could sustain a full season above the floor.

=====

So lemme get this straight...after YEARS of Texas competing with one arm tied behind our back watching Bama, Auburn, and the rest of the SEC and other big programs drop bags and pay players under the table, we are now supposed to accept a "NIL cap" just when we're ramping up what should be our biggest (now fully legal) advantage?  I don't think so...besides this will just re-introduce the illegal bag game and circumvent the rules again so the cheaters prosper.  No thanks, status quo is actually in our favor for once.

[Mitch Cumsteen 18963]

32 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

So lemme get this straight...after YEARS of Texas competing with one arm tied behind our back watching Bama, Auburn, and the rest of the SEC and other big programs drop bags and pay players under the table, we are now supposed to accept a "NIL cap" just when we're ramping up what should be our biggest (now fully legal) advantage?  I don't think so...besides this will just re-introduce the illegal bag game and circumvent the rules again so the cheaters prosper.  No thanks, status quo is actually in our favor for once.

Disregarding that, there is no way that putting a cap on someone's ability to earn money off of their own name, image and likeness would stand up in court. The NCAA already tried this and the Supreme Court took a giant shit on them.

[statsman 5693]

This argument that a P2, M2 and G5 setup will lose college football fans is overblown. In FBS, we already see a 20-80 split of fans (20% of the programs have 80% of the fans). Are the networks really supposed to strategize so as to not lose the 20% of fans that follow the lower 80% of programs?

Although, I do understand why the M2 teams want revenue sharing with the P2 and salary caps. 

Edited April 18 by statsman

[Texas Wahoo 3631]

15 minutes ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Disregarding that, there is no way that putting a cap on someone's ability to earn money off of their own name, image and likeness would stand up in court. The NCAA already tried this and the Supreme Court took a giant shit on them.

It would have to be collectively bargained between the schools and the players.

[TKthunder2 5059]

14 minutes ago, statsman said:

Although, I do understand why the M2 teams want revenue sharing with the P2 and salary caps. 

I also want a piece of that revenue sharing for me too if we’re just giving things away…and a line of super models ready to blow me on demand whenever I feel like it, while we’re at it.

[hook me 2163]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

 In the proposed set up I think you would see far more interesting out of division match ups than you see today, and that's one thing that would likely raise the value of this product.

The games you're describing will have a baked in audience consisting of those fanbases and probably no one else.  Not any different than today.  What would be different is that in a set up that completely removes the narrative driven subjectivity that has pushed college football to it's current insanity, there is no incentive for the heavy hitters in different divisions to avoid each other outside of divisional play. 

Right now basically every team in the country plays 1 (many play 3) boring-ass tune up games.  This is all because average programs are trying to squirrel away wins for bowl eligibility and the major programs are trying to avoid non-conference blemishes to their playoff resume.  When those games don't matter towards who makes the playoffs, you open the door for better early season games.  You could even make it a rule that teams can't schedule outside the 80 (or whatever).

There's an opportunity and way to structure this that makes it a gain for almost every program in the country if it's done right.

So your understanding is that games like UT vs. Bama, which have legitimate playoff ramifications at the moment, are MORE likely to be played when they don't mean anything other than potential for injury? That sounds exactly backwards to me. They would be treated like NFL preseason games with starters playing limited reps in preparation for the "real" season that has actual ramifications. I'm also not sure what joy fans from schools like SMU, Vandy, Purdue, etc. would take from a season that has little to no chance of being meaningful other than potentially upsetting the big dog in their division on their way to a perennial 4-10 season. I know we make fun of all the stupid bowls around here, but I'm assuming fan bases for schools like yours & KU are actually pretty happy when they go 6-6 or 7-5 or even 8-4 and make one of those bowls more years than not. What incentive does Northwestern ever have for investing in their football program if there's little to no chance of ever making the playoffs with UM & OSU in their division, no bowl game to celebrate on the few years they're not complete dogshit, & no chance of being left out because they suck?

If it's a GAIN for ALMOST every school in the country, what schools is it NOT a gain for? I'm going to guess it's BEST for all the lower & mid-level schools that see the writing on the wall & will soon be begging to be inside the bunker when the door gets closed & the nuke goes off. This is in no way a gain for the schools that are already fed up with having to support their little brothers & cousins because they happen to be in close proximity to them geographically speaking & shared a conference 40 years ago.