maybe I was listening to Van Halen when I posted that.
Power Conference schools being forced to sign a contract or risk membership
- Thread starter CycloneT
- Start date
Thus far there hasn't been widespread relegation.
This century, only 3 schools have been pushed out of what was at the time a major conference, or got left holding the bag while a major conference they were in dissolved while they had no landing place: Temple, Washington State, and Oregon State. In that time frame Louisville, Utah, TCU, Cincy, Houston, UCF, and BYU have all been added to the ranks of major conferences. Every one of those schools either has a larger fanbase, enrollment, or TV draw than the schools who have been pushed out.
There's been net inclusion - thus far. Yes, the narrative and money has shifted much more heavily to the SEC and Big 10, and that makes it feel like it's gotten more exclusive. But the actions at this point have kinda differed from the feel of the narrative.
As a result, college football has never had better ratings. If they were to start actual relegation on a wide scale (and going to a 40 team Super League would 100% be that), you would lose enough viewers that it wouldn't make up for the reduction in (the already extremely minimal amount of) sharing. The Big 10 and SEC are currently having their cake and eating it too. That would change if they become a separate division.
Why would ESPN/Fox want to devalue the B12/ACC. Fox and ESPN are more worried about Amazon and Netflix eventually stealing the Sec and B10 from them and If that happens they have nothing. ESPN and somewhat Fox thrive off college sports.
Yeah, I just don’t see the big motivation for the SEC and Big 10 to split off, when they are getting the best of all worlds right now. Keeping the Big 12 and ACC in the club while throwing them a little playoff scraps keeps their viewership maximized at very little cost.
And the networks have all the conferences competing against one another. A Big 10/SEC break off becomes essentially one league that has multiple networks competing for their rights. Maybe SEC/Big 10 would want this, but I’m still not convinced it’s necessarily a win for them. And the networks want content that can make them money. At current prices Big 12 and ACC being “in the club” brings in good viewership for the price.
A lot of people throw out ideas like the Big 10 and SEC want this breakaway, but I’ve never heard a convincing argument that a breakaway is clearly a better deal for the SEC, Big 10 or networks.
Absolutely the networks dont want a breakaway. A breakaway completely devalues B12/ACC. There is not enough content in the SEC/B10 to replace the value lost for shareholders. ACC/B12 having access to the playoff skyrockets their value. If the Pac12 somehow got Autonomy again for example their media value would probably triple from where it is now
What if those state laws are unconstitutional? *IF* the SEC and Big Ten schools actually sign this contract, it would indicate to me that the schools/NCAA are ready to go to court against the state NIL laws. Barring the NCAA and the schools getting an anti-trust exemption from Congress, it's really the only play they have left.
Agree completely. I'm just not seeing the motivation to devalue the B12 and ACC to get them cheap. It's like someone wanting a better price on a car, so their strategy is to go beat the hell out of it with a baseball bat. If it was as simple as getting cheap stuff on the air, just put on more air guitar competitions.
It's not like the Big 10 and SEC have not had opportunities to sign agreements with one another or work to box out the ACC and Big 12 from the playoff. The Big 10 and SEC keep the ACC and Big 12 engaged in the playoff because it makes sense for them business-wise.
What about if the Big 10 and SEC go to 20-24 teams each? They have enough teams to fill all timeslots right now anyways. But the networks know Purdue-Indiana aren't going to get the eyeballs. So ESPN and Fox orchestra more brand names to the Big 10 and SEC. They'll pay more to the Big 10 and SEC and offset that by paying less to the ACC and Big 12.
Honest question, do you think if none of the changes in cfb happened that you would have continued to watch other conferences play football instead of realizing that you want to be outside exploring nature and fishing/hiking?
I’m trying to get a read here because I see a lot of posts like this and I always wonder if people feel like they wouldn’t have made this life change away from watching sports (into other activities like your outside stuff) or not if nothing ever had changed
They aren’t increasing to that degree Each may add a couple ACC teams but they already have all the brand names.
On what OTA channel will those games be. Are they really gonna pay 90M dollars to put bottom tier games on ESPN2 or FS1. They could pay the B12 ACC half that to get their mid tier games and put them on Thurs/Fri or after dark Sat, something the B10/SEC don't want to do or flat out refuse to do.
If they triple or quadruple dip on the same time slots from the same conference they are diluting their own investment by drawing from the same viewer base. If the B12/ACC are still viewed as strong they expand into a different viewer base.
Couple of questions that need to be answered before we get to this super conference. How many teams are there going to make the grade? Currently there are 34 teams between the B10 and SEC, so is the number for this new league 40 or how many. There are still to many quality teams out there for the B10 and SEC to leave them on the outside,. Teams like ND, Florida St, Clemson and others are going to want to be in that league. Are there teams currently in B10 and SEC that will not want to make the comment to play in the league? Until those questions are answered, nothing is going to happen.
Obviously different person, but I would say that I am less interested in college football now and watch significantly less of it mostly because of the changes that have been made (conference realignment, nil, transfer rules, etc.). It makes sense that I would lose some interest compared to when I was little/right out of college, but not this much. If these changes hadn’t taken place, I don’t think my interest would have dropped nearly as much
I’ve also reduced my athletic donations to the bare minimum and could easily see myself dropping my season tickets and giving up my fandom all together if we continue to move away from amateurism and the “student” athlete. And that’s something I never would have expected if you had told me that when I first got season tickets. My goal was to be one of those people who were recognized at the game for having season tickets for decades
48 teams is a number that gets floated around often. It could go a few ways, one were the big 10 and sec just go to 24 each off their current conferences, which does not bode well for ISU. Another way is 48 teams that want to play at the top level, pay their players and split rights break off which may honestly be better for ISU. There is a lot of crap at the bottom of those 2 leagues. Honestly if you were building out a product from scratch ISU checks a lot of boxes, it’s unfortunate that this has gotten this far. The best solution for the networks, fans, and the sport by far was the take the top 80 teams, split them by region/rivalry, pool the rights and then have a 16 team playoff without the conference championship games. Each round robin conference winner gets in then the next 8 best teams. You pay the teams a flat rate, then a prorate for playoff appearances and the number of eyeballs they draw.
What a great question!! Of course I can't speak for others, but from my perspective, I'm not one to be a bandwagon viewer.
I, steadfastly took interest (note I would've said "watched", but having graduated in 1983 and then living in L.A. "watched' was something of a hard fought discovery) Iowa State and my Chicago teams. But, even in the bars, I could gauge my interest in watching other teams because those screens were simultaneously all on other games. But, nay. On commercials, I turned to my friends instead of watching other games. Oh sure, there was that other group in the corner erupting into a fervor which would garner my curiosity. And, yes, I'd look to the replay. But, that was the extent of it. As soon as the game was over, I was outside at the beach or in the mountains hang gliding.
Also, of significance, I was the kid no one could tear away from the TV when watching my Cubs, Bears, Blackhawks, or Bulls. But, if you graph my interest over the years, I've gradually lost interest. And, I can attribute that to several factors, but none more prevalent than the de-personalization of the sport. As a kid, half the fun was that I didn't have to learn to like a new player year over year. Can you imagine if Ernie Banks migrated from team to team?
Sports has become so 'tabloid'. So much so, that I've found other interests ... except when Iowa State plays. I need to have my head examined.
Seems that 48 is too small a number, but 80 is too large of one. Looking at athletic budgets, if you do 48 schools you are leaving out leaving out schools like KSU, Washington St., Colorado, Cincinnati and Houston. Go to 60 and you go down to schools like Memphis, UNLV and San Diego St. Really you get past 60 and the picking become pretty slim with a lot of MAC and MWC schools, but does include Boise. ISU is listed at #39 on the list.
NCAA Finances: Revenue & Expenses by School - USA TODAY
Which are the most profitable college athletic programs in the country? See a ranked listed, including total revenue and expenses. Brought to you by USA TODAY.
sportsdata.usatoday.com
Connecticut (relegated for football from the old Big East, no longer relegated for BB)
South Florida
This isn’t happening but the only school that anyone would blink an eye being left out on your list is Colorado and that’s really only thanks to the current Deion bumpSeems that 48 is too small a number, but 80 is too large of one. Looking at athletic budgets, if you do 48 schools you are leaving out leaving out schools like KSU, Washington St., Colorado, Cincinnati and Houston. Go to 60 and you go down to schools like Memphis, UNLV and San Diego St. Really you get past 60 and the picking become pretty slim with a lot of MAC and MWC schools, but does include Boise. ISU is listed at #39 on the list.
NCAA Finances: Revenue & Expenses by School - USA TODAY
Which are the most profitable college athletic programs in the country? See a ranked listed, including total revenue and expenses. Brought to you by USA TODAY.sportsdata.usatoday.com
They were only briefly called up and had been D1AA programs within a few years of their inclusion. Wazzu, Oregon State, and Temple had been long time members of big time college sports. It's not the same, IMO.
