I read something awhile ago suggesting this could/should happen. NFL tv deals are up here shortly, too I think. Having the games spread out over numerous networks would be a great idea.
For you realignment geeks (like me)....
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
I read something awhile ago suggesting this could/should happen. NFL tv deals are up here shortly, too I think. Having the games spread out over numerous networks would be a great idea.
Won't happen because taking the top teams in every league will result in some power programs falling apart (imagine making Bama play Ohio St/Clemson/Penn St/Texas every week their fans would not accept the losses).
Also, there is plenty of advertising to be sold on these live games given solid ratings that all P5 teams get (variance in ratings largely dependent on time slot and network, but even the poor ratings are good vs. whatever else is on that can be DVR'd)...
https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/
The NFL will never do anything that does not involve selling the entire product. They aren't trying to make your viewing experience more pleasurable, they are trying to make as much money as possible...
Why limit to 32 teams...just because the NFL has 32 teams...hogwash. The Power 5 set up right now...64 teams...is already in position to make this happen...breaking away from the traditional NCAA structure seems more likely to me. Plus, the conference themselves have self preservation ideals that will drive how this moves forward. I do like that the writer recognizes that USC is all that the PAC 12 has to offer in the way of "elite...top 32" schools...putting the other 11 schools in the bottom 32. Ouch.
Same as basketball but w/o play-in games. Makes perfect sense. So probably will never happen.
Kinda like realigning based on geographical proximity.
That'd be fine. We don't play in the NFL now, and no one cares. If the best 25-30 teams essentially form another pro-league, and ISU isn't in it, so be it. It will take some getting used to with different competition and likely different conferences forming, but we would end up playing other programs on a similar level to us. I'll still watch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_land-grant_universities
precisely
we need to stop acting like they dont need iowa states and minnesotas and even rutgers and kansas of the world.
texas and oklahoma need iowa state and kansas state and baylor way more than they think. without crappy programs there would not be blue blood programs. they can all play this little brother big brother ratings game argument buts its bs! college sports are awesome because of upsets, and cinderalla stories.
and for guy mad about no caps
TELL THE ELTIES TO LEAVE AND WE WILL CREATE A NEW COLLEGE FOOTBALL LEAGUE BASED ON FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BOUNDARIES AND ALL LAND GRANT UNIVERSITIES ARE INVITED. (sorry does not include the hawkeyes, they arent a land grant uni)
precisely
we need to stop acting like they dont need iowa states and minnesotas and even rutgers and kansas of the world.
texas and oklahoma need iowa state and kansas state and baylor way more than they think. without crappy programs there would not be blue blood programs. they can all play this little brother big brother ratings game argument buts its bs! college sports are awesome because of upsets, and cinderalla stories.
and for guy mad about no caps
TELL THE ELTIES TO LEAVE AND WE WILL CREATE A NEW COLLEGE FOOTBALL LEAGUE BASED ON FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT BOUNDARIES AND ALL LAND GRANT UNIVERSITIES ARE INVITED. (sorry does not include the hawkeyes, they arent a land grant uni)
I'm glad you asked this question. The answer is that the fans seem to want it...
Mythical nation champion, not good enough.
Eight or ten team conferences, not good enough.
Traditional powers saddled with unsexy home league opponents (in the Big 12), not good enough.
BCS playoff, not good enough.
CFP, not good enough.
I'd love to be wrong but the evidence keeps showing that America wants NFL lite...at which point I'll quit watching. But I'll be in the minority.
But that's just it...they DON'T think. I'd guess that a majority of OU or UT fans, if asked today would want to leave the big 12.
Oooh "Market forces are gathering......"
Nothing scarier than market forces, the Mongolians of the 21st century. Build a wall! Or call in air strikes or something.
Nothing scarier than market forces, the Mongolians of the 21st century. Build a wall! Or call in air strikes or something.
Missouri is not a liability academically. They are an AAU school. They were one of the stronger academic schools in the old Big 12. You have a point with Nebraska, though.
I love the Pac 12 tries to take an academic angle while remaining silent on the 4 Cali schools planning to have their sports programs consist of hired guns.
The NFL model would be great, at first, but the networks would need to consider why college sports is more than just inferior play to the professional leagues. The collegiate model isn’t amateurism as much as it is regionalism, traditions, and pageantry. As ISU can attest, what is commercialized is more than on-field play.
Once the novelty wore off, you’d have the same stratification of “haves” with-in the 4 conference, 28 or 32 team league, and a minor league to the NFL. Someone has to lose, and without a salary cap and draft, it would be the same teams every year, with less of a natural audience.
Once the novelty wore off, you’d have the same stratification of “haves” with-in the 4 conference, 28 or 32 team league, and a minor league to the NFL. Someone has to lose, and without a salary cap and draft, it would be the same teams every year, with less of a natural audience.
Last edited:
What is fascinating about that article? I could barely finish it because it was so poorly written and the one sentence paragraphs are effing awful.
There's some stuff in here that really rings true and stuff that really just seems unlikely to happen.
The comments about the fact that Amazon and Netflix are not actually going to fight over the media rights for College Football make total sense. It never seemed like that was going to happen, and having an article from people out in big Tech land pointing that out just helps confirm it. There's no money in it for the streaming services. To compete with ESPN, Fox and CBS they would have to invest so much money to actually build up a staff that could run it, then pay billions of dollars for marginal return. Makes no sense. I could possibly see NBC try to expand its college football presence, but that's about it.
This idea that there would be a 30-32 team "NFL-like" league developed seems very unlikely. It would no longer be college football at that point. I can see how network executives would want it to be that way - they would likely make a lot more money. You wouldn't have to pay the ISUs of the world big bucks anymore. Pay the 30-32 teams a 10-20% increase for rights, give the rest a 50-75% decrease, and you come out way ahead. The leftovers of college football would essentially become like the FCS where you don't have to pay them that much and they don't get on TV that often.
I just don't see it working for the fans and the teams. It's like other have said - the same problem happens at colleges like Harvard. If you have a school composed of all 4.0 high school students, some have to get C's and D's. That's hard to take for a 4.0 student and so those Ivy League schools had to adjust how they did admissions. When Texas or Michigan becomes the Cleveland Browns, that's going to be hard. Then you've got the fans of the other 30+ P5 teams who no longer play half their historical competition and rivals who will probably become a lot less enthusiastic about supporting their team. Even fans of the big teams will probably lose heart after a while.
I could see the P5 separating into its own league, but I can't see them pulling the top 32 teams because it would totally transform the sport.
The comments about the fact that Amazon and Netflix are not actually going to fight over the media rights for College Football make total sense. It never seemed like that was going to happen, and having an article from people out in big Tech land pointing that out just helps confirm it. There's no money in it for the streaming services. To compete with ESPN, Fox and CBS they would have to invest so much money to actually build up a staff that could run it, then pay billions of dollars for marginal return. Makes no sense. I could possibly see NBC try to expand its college football presence, but that's about it.
This idea that there would be a 30-32 team "NFL-like" league developed seems very unlikely. It would no longer be college football at that point. I can see how network executives would want it to be that way - they would likely make a lot more money. You wouldn't have to pay the ISUs of the world big bucks anymore. Pay the 30-32 teams a 10-20% increase for rights, give the rest a 50-75% decrease, and you come out way ahead. The leftovers of college football would essentially become like the FCS where you don't have to pay them that much and they don't get on TV that often.
I just don't see it working for the fans and the teams. It's like other have said - the same problem happens at colleges like Harvard. If you have a school composed of all 4.0 high school students, some have to get C's and D's. That's hard to take for a 4.0 student and so those Ivy League schools had to adjust how they did admissions. When Texas or Michigan becomes the Cleveland Browns, that's going to be hard. Then you've got the fans of the other 30+ P5 teams who no longer play half their historical competition and rivals who will probably become a lot less enthusiastic about supporting their team. Even fans of the big teams will probably lose heart after a while.
I could see the P5 separating into its own league, but I can't see them pulling the top 32 teams because it would totally transform the sport.
I was thinking the same thing. It would make recruiting to Ames even tougher.
I think this is right...for all the sound and fury about realignment, I question two assumptions:
1. How much even the bluebloods (the top 20-30 programs) really want to split off. In that model they all play one another, and suddenly what was a "bad" season in the current setup (7-5 and a better bowl than they deserve thanks to name recognition) becomes 2-10 and a full-on, fire-the-coach freakout in an NFL-lite system. Many of these programs will immediately find that they're in a smaller, more elite pond but be surprised to realize that they're also the smallest fish in that pond.
2. How much the networks really want to break up these conferences. I sure got the impression ESPN got a little squeamish last time around about what had happened, particularly when it came out that they were trying to engineer some of these changes behind the scenes. Do they want blood on their hands?
Meh, it’s about money. It’s what the fans want only in the sense fans pay to see their team, or blue bloods/big brand teams. There’s motivation to pay for the latter and limit paying the former. The Alabama, OU, UT, types bring in more money for networks, and as such, there is motivation to limit the number of schools. Too little teams though would reduce product differentiation from the NFL. Where is the sweet spot? It’s likely true that initially 32 teams could make more per school than having 64, but I don’t see it being sustainable
Not sure why cw posted this. It's a whole article about nothing happening
