Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[Statefan10]

There are 129 FBS football teams. If they go to a model of 20-30 teams, it's going to fail and fail miserably.

 

[CYDJ]

The media equation is not that a super league wouldn't lose some viewers, but that the brand matchups would hold them relatively better than what they are paying for now.

There are maybe a dozen programs that can draw 5M+ weekly viewers because of their BRAND value independent of the matchup. If you are wondering if your team is one of those, it ain't one of those.

All 5+ Million viewers are sticking with the super league becuase the schools are so darn good? I wonder what percentage of those that watch the members of the super league games now, would continue to watch. I added to the Texas and Oklahoma numbers all the time and to Clemson when it appeared we MIGHT have a chance to play them in a bowl. I added to their brand value then. But, I would NEVER watch another one of their games if they did the super league thing. Does the 5+ million still hold true if the average college viewer falls off? Maybe so, I do not know how to do that math, I don't have the facts in front of me.

AND, if we are talking about adding new fans to the fold that don't watch college football now, why do they come and watch? It is not the best football. That is played in the NFL, right? The mystique of the college game is totally gone with the super league and then it pales in comparison to the NFL. And we have proved time and time again that we don't need a prep league for the NFL. Maybe that it is played on Saturday and gives people something to do with their Saturdays that they couldn't do before which is watch 2nd rate football, before Sunday?

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

It's an idea based on the premise 'anything could happen.' So in that sense, they're not wrong. Just like I could bump into Cindy Crawford at an airport and we instantly fall in love with one another and jet off to St. Barts together.

I know that if some concentration of the best programs into one conference were actually to happen that Iowa would be left at the kiddies table, no doubt. I just don't think it's going to happen for many logical reasons, and if I'm wrong, it'll be many years down the road and by that time KF and BF will be gone and I'll be just as happy.

Its actually more based on the fact that the sports media talking heads have been saying we are heading this way for the past 10 years. During that time, we have seen the B12 lose teams, the P12 be destroyed and the only thing keeping the ACC alive is the length of their GOR.

What I find hard to believe is how fans of the lesser schools in the Big easy and SEC somehow think that their conferences are immune to the same thing happening to them? That the Alabama's. Michigan's and LSU's of their conference are somehow immune to the same thing that that effected USC, UT, OU and others. Greed has no boundary's, the money has kept the greed in check from the SEC and Big easy turning on their own so far, but eventually even that will end. Not tomorrow but the clock on the ACC rights is still ticking, once its closers to the end, and the buyout drops, those schools will be looking to jump, and the whole thing will reform into something new.

 

[KnappShack]

If ISU isn't in tier one, I won't watch it. Probably lose some interest in ISU as well. It would be like following UNI. Meh. I would just become a bigger NFL fan.

Already there. Used to be a guy who'd watch ball all Saturday. Didn't matter who was playing.

Already moved to more NFL now.

 

[BigTurk]

They have to try to swing a merger with the Mountain West under the PAC name to try to preserve their playoff spot? That's the only thing I can imagine.

But they can't can they? Isn't the MWC GOR preventing MWC teams from leaving to the PAC, like SDSU was prevented from doing? Don't the PAC teams have to merge with the MWC?

 

[HFCS]

Since I'm guessing that's partly aimed at me, the only reason I've been addressing it as a "super league" is because that's the way it's consistently presented by non-b10 homers.

At some point it’s vocabulary and semantics. Is the SEC already a super league for football when Oklahoma and Texas join the football conference that was easily the best even before?

Is the Big 12 now a super conference in basketball by adding Arizona to the conference that was already #1? If not, surely they would be if the Gonzaga/UConn rumor to 18 happened.

Clearly we’re not that far from the concept in the two major sports whether a few bottom teams hitch a ride or not.

 

[Cyclonepride]

But they can't can they? Isn't the MWC GOR preventing MWC teams from leaving to the PAC, like SDSU was prevented from doing? Don't the PAC teams have to merge with the MWC?

I think the Mountain West teams would have to vote to dissolve, and then get invites to the PAC 12. I'm sure they'd all have to have the invites in hand before they'd do that.

 

[AuH2O]

Technically they are not as the law states games after 6 pm on Friday. Kickoff for the Black Friday game is set for 2 pm and should be done by the 6 pm deadline.

Actually the kick is 3pm eastern, so they are pushing it, and I don't think it's an accident.

It will be interesting to see how this add-on to the antitrust exemption holds up. First, the law is restricted by TV stations that are within a 75 mile radius of a HS or College. Could we see a challenge to that from streaming services? Second, when this law was put in place it was to protect non-profit college football that was a very small media product. I think it would be a legit legal argument that it has long grown out of the non-profit entity that needs to be protected from the NFL.

There's also enough hatred for the Thursday game by coaches and players that I could see the union trying to push the league to challenge the Saturday limitation and kill TNF. Whether trying to use streaming as the loophole for the radius, or attack the intent of protecting non-profit CFB, there is certainly motivation, and probably now a basis for the NFL to push this restriction.

 

[CYDJ]

That sums up well how I feel about it, and probably how 80% of CFB fans feel about it. But TPTB in the media probably don't understand the fan interest very well.

What they DO understand is bigger brand teams bring higher viewer numbers, and matchups between those teams bring even higher viewer numbers. And higher numbers increase marketing/advertising value exponentially. So if you can get a league with ONLY those brands, then every game will be a huge revenue bonanza - just like the NFL. Plus you have to pay less overall for content, since less teams to feed.

The risk is that they only see dollar signs and the numbers, and fail to understand your point about the viewership. Then they throw money at a superleague, and all the big brands go for it because of fear of being left behind - they almost can't risk not going for it. And it fizzles for the reasons you explain in your post.

If we are lucky, very very lucky... then maybe NIL and paying player type issues that are now unregulated and uncontrolled, will force some kind of universal governance on CFB, which would keep the playing field more level and prevent this kind of thing. Congress is working on something apparently, though I've not a ton of faith that TPTB won't game the system in that process.

Stay tuned!

Hey, I'm not saying that something completely stupid and counterproductive won't happen. The United States of America is proof it likely will. However, I am also suggesting that the lesser leagues might still be valuable and maybe even better off with out the stupid "Super League" players. If 80% of the following sticks with the lower tiers, then eventually, the lower tiers make enough to survive and play a form of football that appeals to those that care about it.

I believe in the power of greed to drive people blindly off a cliff. I will stay tuned.

 

[AuH2O]

I think this whole thing of "shedding teams", is being way over hyped.

What's the point? There are only a few blue bloods left to poach now. Who do you replace Northwestern or Vandy with? Their actual value to the TV deal is minimal. The heavies in each conference drive all of the TV contracts value.

And, you need inventory and reliably winnable games for the heavies in each conference to maximize exposure and playoff bids.

I agree - I just don't see the benefit from the networks or even the bluebloods. I think we see more continued push for ways to better compensate the more valuable brands, but keep a big tent with the lower teams being included at a discount.

 

[HFCS]

I think the Mountain West teams would have to vote to dissolve, and then get invites to the PAC 12. I'm sure they'd all have to have the invites in hand before they'd do that.

I think this is why Stanford and Cal won’t get much more than an “alliance” with ACC. Even if the can admit them without breaking GOR, the big brands in acc are trying to get votes to dissolve, not add new votes that needed an acc lifeboat.

 

[houjix]

Actually the kick is 3pm eastern, so they are pushing it, and I don't think it's an accident.

It will be interesting to see how this add-on to the antitrust exemption holds up. First, the law is restricted by TV stations that are within a 75 mile radius of a HS or College. Could we see a challenge to that from streaming services? Second, when this law was put in place it was to protect non-profit college football that was a very small media product. I think it would be a legit legal argument that it has long grown out of the non-profit entity that needs to be protected from the NFL.

There's also enough hatred for the Thursday game by coaches and players that I could see the union trying to push the league to challenge the Saturday limitation and kill TNF. Whether trying to use streaming as the loophole for the radius, or attack the intent of protecting non-profit CFB, there is certainly motivation, and probably now a basis for the NFL to push this restriction.

The Friday game is on Prime Video, so this is already setting up to be a test case for streaming getting around that broadcast rule. Although, the teams playing in the game still get it broadcast in their home markets. Not going to bother checking if there are any HS games within 75 miles of either of those teams.

 

[GoldCy]

Another Crow article

Arizona State got it right with the Big 12, but Michael Crow did not inspire confidence

Arizona State tried to weather the storm. For those familiar with Crow, this should not have come as a surprise.

theathletic.com

 

[HFCS]

The Friday game is on Prime Video, so this is already setting up to be a test case for streaming getting around that broadcast rule. Although, the teams playing in the game still get it broadcast in their home markets. Not going to bother checking if there are any HS games within 75 miles of either of those teams.

I think sports on Amazon prime is the closest thing to the old network tv going forward in future decades, a lot of people just have it. When nfl games started on it I was stuck in line somewhere and was able to watch Brock Purdy on a phone with an app I didn’t even pay for to get tv/movies. It was just there and ready much like turning a tv on to the old free over the air networks back in the day.

Amazon prime is more like a low cost utility than the other streaming which is more like a family’s old blockbuster video spending.

 

[CYDJ]

We are the hard core. We understand the implications of conference realignment and the economics of the sport better than an average person.

Throw an Alabama vs Texas game on ABC in prime time and it'll get eyes. Be it casual fans, degenerate gamblers, football fans, or folks at the bar.

Football is obviously king and college has enough brand power to pull viewers (unlike the XFL). The Hall of Fame game drew better numbers than the NBA playoffs.

So super league teams play as usual and maximize revenue for them. The rest can all go D-III as far as they would be concerned.

I hope I'm ******* wrong.

I see your point. I would like to see the research that shows:
1) What percentage of the viewers of a marquee matchup are interested becuase of the teams themselves.
2) What percentage of the viewers of a marquee matchup are interested becuase of the team's affiliations (rival (us and Iowa for instance), conference, regional affiliation, potential opponent, potential conference member opponent, etc.)
3) What percentage of the NFL viewers that don't watch college football now would switch over to these marquee games because, "finally there is a second league with slightly less good players, but better players than what was there before that plays on Saturday for me to follow"
4) What percentage of people who don't really watch football that finally give in and start watching these marquee matchups becuase they just can't help themselves.

Without these numbers, I don't know how we can assume these people are going to be there. I don't believe it will happen becuase of my lived experience. Others believe it will be huge becuase of their lived experience. I would like to see the data. Is it available anywhere?

 

[dafarmer]

I don’t believe there is anything in that law that exempts holiday. It’s written based on the timeframe between the second Friday of Sept through the second Saturday of December. Also, I don’t think Black Friday is an official holiday (I still have to work )

Laws can be changed. Add an amendment or challenge this in the courts.

 

[CYDJ]

Already there. Used to be a guy who'd watch ball all Saturday. Didn't matter who was playing.

Already moved to more NFL now.

Cool, here is one persona we are looking for. IF we finally get the super league we are all craving (according to the numbnuts in the media) would you then:
1) come back to watch the super league alone
2) add the super league to your weekend ritual
3) still not watch the super league becuase all of college football is messed up

What do you say Knapp?

 

[HFCS]

I see your point. I would like to see the research that shows:
1) What percentage of the viewers of a marquee matchup are interested becuase of the teams themselves.
2) What percentage of the viewers of a marquee matchup are interested becuase of the team's affiliations (rival (us and Iowa for instance), conference, regional affiliation, potential opponent, potential conference member opponent, etc.)
3) What percentage of the NFL viewers that don't watch college football now would switch over to these marquee games because, "finally there is a second league with slightly less good players, but better players than what was there before that plays on Saturday for me to follow"
4) What percentage of people who don't really watch football that finally give in and start watching these marquee matchups becuase they just can't help themselves.

Without these numbers, I don't know how we can assume these people are going to be there. I don't believe it will happen becuase of my lived experience. Others believe it will be huge becuase of their lived experience. I would like to see the data. Is it available anywhere?

For me personally this is the change.

Last year I was still kind of drawn to say the Michigan v Ohio State game because of the playoff implication and such a highly ranked matchup.

Going forward I’ll probably only watch Big 12 teams. When Big 12 teams have a chance to beat SEC or Big 12 I’ll be even more interested…when it’s a big matchup within Big Ten or SEC or between them I’ll be far more likely to tune out than previous years.

I can already tell if an ACC team is actually a Big 12 team or an SEC/Big Ten team. Go Pitt! Go Hokies!

My fandom/passion is about ISU, not minor league pro football outside the region I grew up in. In basketball this is even more true because I’ve always been a huge nba fan.

 

[GoldCy]

I will probably watch Texas when they are losing.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

It doesn’t have to be “super league” the way the b10 homers are thinking.

Let’s say one of the two conferences starts trending toward an extra 10-15 million a team over the other. Step one is a group moves to that conference for the cash like Texas always does, that step leaves behind some small brand legacy “takers” in a conference with less marquee brands that now likely has payouts no different than big 12. Then at some point in the highest payout league you start paying NW or Vandy like the Washington Generals that they are to take a loss.

It could be that easy to effectively relegate a third of the SEC and Big Ten.

The only question is we don’t know who will emerge between big ten and SEC. They won’t always get identical deals and it’ll drive some programs nuts if they don’t get the most.

So the big ten is already making millions more per team then the SEC so by your logic bama and Georgia should have left for the big ten already right? Two best teams in the sport, why are they content to make millions less than northwestern? That’s why this super league logic falls apart, we’re already in a place where one P2 conference is making millions more than the other. So why don’t they leave, well it has to do with diminishing returns and tradition.