Some should ask him if he was taking a dumb when he posted it. Not sure why. Just seems like a question we should ask.
For you realignment geeks (like me)....
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
I don't really think that's the case - it's not the fans driving the changes that result in total structural changes to conferences and NCAA FBS football. The fans drive changes to improve how the game plays out on the field and how we determine who is the national champion. The media companies and school ADs and presidents drive realignment for money and pride.
Mythical National Champion - Fan Driven, but not a structural change
8/10 Team Conference - Money Driven, major structural change
"Unsexy Home League Opponents" - Not actually a driver of change, just talk by fans to justify why their schools changing conferences was a good thing after the fact. You did not see (for example) Missouri fans saying they needed to leave the B12 because they couldn't get any good competition until AFTER their school was already deep down the path of going to the SEC.
BCS "Playoff" - Fan Driven, but not a major driver of structural change.
CFP - Fan Driven, no change has happened, but would not result structural change.
The significant changes and realignments were driven by schools and conferences wanting more money, or by the pettiness of school administrators (UNL, A&M) who saw leaving as a way to get a one up on their rival or restore some past greatness.
The changes to the championship to make it more of a true champion are fan driven and not detrimental to the sport. Even if the fans wanted a 32 team league (which they don't), they couldn't make it happen on their own.
CW posted because a. He is a realignment junkie, and b. The article gives some insight into what may happen in the future.
You can certainly ignore it...I found little in the article that stirred me other than the writer's realization that only 1 team from the PAC 12 would make the top 32.
I'm apparently not addicted to realignment talk since I only made it through about ten sentences and closed the window.
I disagreed because the 2nd tier teams would be looked at like the FCS is now. And quite frankly there is no appeal in that for me.
Agree. I think poaching and major realignment is done. Next big step is the P5 pulling away from the NCAA for football - cut out the middleman.
Then you might have some "realignment" into 6 or 8 "conferences" which could be more holistically/geographically/logically sorted out. Add wildcards to get to an 8 team playoff.
Won't argue that. That was only part of the irony for me. My main point is that good or bad, from a research and academia standpoint it has NOTHING to do with conference realignment. 50 years ago yes, today, no.
I would classify it as something that can certainly hurt you but cannot help you much.
Nebraska was lucky they were dropped from the AAU only after they joined the Big Ten. There are plenty of schools with relatively successful athletics departments, like Boise State or BYU, that are screwed by the snobbery of Pac-12 schools, however.
You do not have to be good academically, but you cannot be laughable.
I could see that. However, many people would probably pick a team to follow in both leagues as well, like most people have a favorite NFL team and NCAA team. Would you completely stop watching Iowa State games?
The only interesting part of that article is mentally masturbating to who would make the “Top 32” league. If its based on tv markets, current top tier programs, “buying” your way in.
I imagine Iowa and Nebraska are at the bottom end of that list. Both would become bottom feeders in the new format. There’s no draft or salary cap to even things out like the NFL. The richest programs will buy the best players still and they’ll get the best of the rest.
I imagine Iowa and Nebraska are at the bottom end of that list. Both would become bottom feeders in the new format. There’s no draft or salary cap to even things out like the NFL. The richest programs will buy the best players still and they’ll get the best of the rest.
I'd follow but I don't think I'd be as rabid (such as not going to games and not donating).
That's right, and what I think the risk long-term is if they aren't smart about how the payment for likeness is implemented.
If there is an upper tier of only 25-30 teams everybody else is going to be absolutely an afterthought in terms of media. Not like a second tier team of an upper conference (who gets their moments in the sun vs. the big dogs), but eventually it will be the top CFB league, which in the eyes of the media becomes "College Football" and everybody else may as well be FCS and DII.
Anybody pushing for that scenario is banking that a good number of fans of the "have-not" schools will eventually become fans and viewers of the 25-30 team power league of CFB. That's a terrible bet in my opinion. Most will just become NFL fans, support their college team (albeit support will shrink) to some extent and largely ignore that league.
That’s not a good comparison. There is product differentiation there. And people outside college football areas, “pro cities”, generally don’t care much about college football imo.
I don’t think a quick change to a 32 team college league would work well like the NFL. First, a large chunk of CFB fans would be starting over as fans. Second, the bottom half of that 32 would go from being accustomed to winning, to being losing programs. That’s not sustainable.
I'd predict the next round of realignment will be a whole lot of nothing.
I think there's conferences that feel like they are too big but it's almost impossible to kick teams out. I would guess there would be some universities and ADs that would like to work together to organize the top 64 teams into eight 8-team or four 16-team conferences that make geographical sense. I think that makes sense from a TV and fan prospective, 7 conference/division games you get every year to build rivalries but lots of flexibility with the other 5. I don't think a top 32 type of league will happen anytime as it'd be tough to pull off and doesn't necessarily benefit the very top given their current competitive advantages. But I've been wrong before.
It always comes down to egos and money. It all depends on if teams across conferences would ever work together or it's all a competition between conferences for teams and TV contracts.
I think there's conferences that feel like they are too big but it's almost impossible to kick teams out. I would guess there would be some universities and ADs that would like to work together to organize the top 64 teams into eight 8-team or four 16-team conferences that make geographical sense. I think that makes sense from a TV and fan prospective, 7 conference/division games you get every year to build rivalries but lots of flexibility with the other 5. I don't think a top 32 type of league will happen anytime as it'd be tough to pull off and doesn't necessarily benefit the very top given their current competitive advantages. But I've been wrong before.
It always comes down to egos and money. It all depends on if teams across conferences would ever work together or it's all a competition between conferences for teams and TV contracts.
That would never happen, that would force the SEC to actually play a team with a pulse for their mid season bye.
Scott's vision of the Pac-12 has, to say the least, been disappointing to the presidents in the Pac-12. So, what could anything he say be worth listening to? Would 'we' really buckle down and watch another school as avidly as we'd watch our own? No. The only things which really made sense were 'reach' and 'packaging'. And another point which defies logic is the 'cost' of 'entertainment'. Movies now cost in the mega millions. With today's technology, here we have an entertainment platform which, for the most part, are funded by the Universities. The costs of production are 'significantly' lower than other forms of entertainment reaching the same number of viewers. With digital rights, there are plenty of people clamoring to make money off of this type of model. Top 30-35 will NOT gain the viewership necessary to make this model work. Simple demographic modeling will prove that out. Sometimes I wonder about the people who spew these ridiculous theories. I suppose the same people running our country (both sides folks).
I think that last thing is underrated.
Imagine how antsy a historically middling program would be if they went from that to a perpetual loser. It would be even worst for a historically good program to all the sudden find themselves struggling to go 6-6 every season against the upper-tier.
There is a natural order to the college football world, and as much as it sometimes evolves or has breakthroughs (see the entire career of Bill Snyder), it changes only slowly if at all. Seeing that radically change would upset quite a lot of egos and fan bases.
A lot of the power schools like their fiefdoms and not having them challenged.
Imagine when a new NFL team is created and the AFC East decided to poach the Arizona Cardinals because they thought that was a cool location. It's pretty asinine isn't it? That's exactly what happens in college football. They're absolutely needs to be in over arching hierarchy that tells schools what conference is to be in based on at athletic parity and geography.
