(02-03-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now as to demographics and the popularity of football as a whole, it is changing. We may be at peak, or just past it. When Boomers and X'ers are gone football may not enjoy the top spot in status of sports. All of our schools need a 20 year plan in place to transition for that.

This is the uncharted frontier.


I can only hope that NFL already has studied the issue and has plans in place to ensure the continued participation of football in youth athletics. You've got to convince mothers that putting Johnny in shoulder pads and a helmet is better than putting soccer cleats on him (or some other sport).

(02-03-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now as to demographics and the popularity of football as a whole, it is changing. We may be at peak, or just past it. When Boomers and X'ers are gone football may not enjoy the top spot in status of sports. All of our schools need a 20 year plan in place to transition for that.

This is the uncharted frontier.


I can only hope that NFL already has studied the issue and has plans in place to ensure the continued participation of football in youth athletics. You've got to convince mothers that putting Johnny in shoulder pads and a helmet is better than putting soccer cleats on him (or some other sport).

Oddly, if the expense of equipment can be overcome, the safest sport we play on a professional, collegiate, and high school level is baseball. Can it return one day as the nation's pass time? It has to overcome the time issue, but maybe.

(02-03-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now as to demographics and the popularity of football as a whole, it is changing. We may be at peak, or just past it. When Boomers and X'ers are gone football may not enjoy the top spot in status of sports. All of our schools need a 20 year plan in place to transition for that.

This is the uncharted frontier.


I can only hope that NFL already has studied the issue and has plans in place to ensure the continued participation of football in youth athletics. You've got to convince mothers that putting Johnny in shoulder pads and a helmet is better than putting soccer cleats on him (or some other sport).

Ironically, while soccer avoids many of the injury risks of American football, it presents a fairly significant concussion risk. This has been the injury raising the greatest concern in football because of its long term implications.

(02-03-2017 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:32 AM)bluesox Wrote:  It is a nice bubble.

Whether it is a boulder or a bubble at least the SEC guaranteed its rate with the SECN until 2034. And, at least we are first up on renegotiation with a network, CBS within two years. So we get to head to the trough next, and stay there the longest. Right now that's not a bad position to be in. The ACC I believe is positioned well also. You get a network in a couple of years and your deal extends to 2031 or thereabouts.

What I wouldn't want to be experiencing right now is a major overhaul in 6 years, or the expiration of an overvalued contract in 5 years. The Big 10's last FOX contract was a gamble that could pay off well, or not. The Big 12 is up against the wall.

And depending on how the courts play out the NLRB ruling, and the NCAA plays out stipends or pay for play, the stratification of the sport could yet be more extreme in its definition.

SEC gets most of its revenue for SECN from its 50% share of the profits. It can go up and down. There is only a small guarantee.

(02-03-2017 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:32 AM)bluesox Wrote:  It is a nice bubble.

Whether it is a boulder or a bubble at least the SEC guaranteed its rate with the SECN until 2034. And, at least we are first up on renegotiation with a network, CBS within two years. So we get to head to the trough next, and stay there the longest. Right now that's not a bad position to be in. The ACC I believe is positioned well also. You get a network in a couple of years and your deal extends to 2031 or thereabouts.

What I wouldn't want to be experiencing right now is a major overhaul in 6 years, or the expiration of an overvalued contract in 5 years. The Big 10's last FOX contract was a gamble that could pay off well, or not. The Big 12 is up against the wall.

And depending on how the courts play out the NLRB ruling, and the NCAA plays out stipends or pay for play, the stratification of the sport could yet be more extreme in its definition.

SEC gets most of its revenue for SECN from its 50% share of the profits. It can go up and down. There is only a small guarantee.

Bullet, you know that Billy Bob & Bubba are going to subscribe if they have to mortgage the house and put the kids to work. I'd say the SECN is pretty safe. We have the highest saturation numbers of any P conference and by a pretty decent margin. Actually the Big 12 is a little closer to us than the Big 10.

Every cable network in a Big Ten state has BTN on the same channel bundle as ESPN. So not sure what you mean by "saturation".

(02-03-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now as to demographics and the popularity of football as a whole, it is changing. We may be at peak, or just past it. When Boomers and X'ers are gone football may not enjoy the top spot in status of sports. All of our schools need a 20 year plan in place to transition for that.

This is the uncharted frontier.


I can only hope that NFL already has studied the issue and has plans in place to ensure the continued participation of football in youth athletics. You've got to convince mothers that putting Johnny in shoulder pads and a helmet is better than putting soccer cleats on him (or some other sport).

Ironically, football is slowly (extremely slowly) growing in places like Japan, Europe, and India. More and more UK colleges are picking up the sport. Perhaps within the next 25 years, we'll start seeing players drafted from the international front. I'd say the UK Premier College league is currently a step below D3 football; some of those teams have gotten transfers from schools like Tulane. IFAF and the NFL has done a solid job of growing the game overseas.

With that said, I doubt that the viewership of the NFL will go down, despite the chance of level of play dropping. I just find it hard to believe Pittsburgh Steelers fans or Dallas Cowboys fans will just stop watching.

I'd also find it hard to believe that traditional powers that have 100K+ stadiums would see fans just stop coming either.

But for argument's sake, say football dies out. I'd say the only sport to really take it's place would be soccer. And the reason for this is because it's an outdoor sport. Not to mention, it's relatively cheap to play. I'm starting to see youth leagues pop up in the poorer area's of urban centers. It's also really the only sport that can really justify having stadiums that fits 60-70-80k fans. I don't see seating for basketball being expanded, and the same for a sport like baseball.

(02-03-2017 07:00 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now as to demographics and the popularity of football as a whole, it is changing. We may be at peak, or just past it. When Boomers and X'ers are gone football may not enjoy the top spot in status of sports. All of our schools need a 20 year plan in place to transition for that.

This is the uncharted frontier.


I can only hope that NFL already has studied the issue and has plans in place to ensure the continued participation of football in youth athletics. You've got to convince mothers that putting Johnny in shoulder pads and a helmet is better than putting soccer cleats on him (or some other sport).

Ironically, football is slowly (extremely slowly) growing in places like Japan, Europe, and India. More and more UK colleges are picking up the sport. Perhaps within the next 25 years, we'll start seeing players drafted from the international front. I'd say the UK Premier College league is currently a step below D3 football; some of those teams have gotten transfers from schools like Tulane. IFAF and the NFL has done a solid job of growing the game overseas.

With that said, I doubt that the viewership of the NFL will go down, despite the chance of level of play dropping. I just find it hard to believe Pittsburgh Steelers fans or Dallas Cowboys fans will just stop watching.

I'd also find it hard to believe that traditional powers that have 100K+ stadiums would see fans just stop coming either.

But for argument's sake, say football dies out. I'd say the only sport to really take it's place would be soccer. And the reason for this is because it's an outdoor sport. Not to mention, it's relatively cheap to play. I'm starting to see youth leagues pop up in the poorer area's of urban centers. It's also really the only sport that can really justify having stadiums that fits 60-70-80k fans. I don't see seating for basketball being expanded, and the same for a sport like baseball.

They'll stop watching when they die CP. The problem is that's 20 to 25 years for most Boomers, plus 10 for X'ers. Subsequent generations view far less NFL, or CFB. There's the rub.

(02-03-2017 06:49 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Every cable network in a Big Ten state has BTN on the same channel bundle as ESPN. So not sure what you mean by "saturation".

Saturation is the % of households in a given area that are actually watching the games. Birmingham has the highest saturation for college football of any place in the country. The SEC territory as a whole has a very high saturation % on a Saturday.

Football won't die, but this is the apex of its relative power.

(02-03-2017 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 07:00 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now as to demographics and the popularity of football as a whole, it is changing. We may be at peak, or just past it. When Boomers and X'ers are gone football may not enjoy the top spot in status of sports. All of our schools need a 20 year plan in place to transition for that.

This is the uncharted frontier.


I can only hope that NFL already has studied the issue and has plans in place to ensure the continued participation of football in youth athletics. You've got to convince mothers that putting Johnny in shoulder pads and a helmet is better than putting soccer cleats on him (or some other sport).

Ironically, football is slowly (extremely slowly) growing in places like Japan, Europe, and India. More and more UK colleges are picking up the sport. Perhaps within the next 25 years, we'll start seeing players drafted from the international front. I'd say the UK Premier College league is currently a step below D3 football; some of those teams have gotten transfers from schools like Tulane. IFAF and the NFL has done a solid job of growing the game overseas.

With that said, I doubt that the viewership of the NFL will go down, despite the chance of level of play dropping. I just find it hard to believe Pittsburgh Steelers fans or Dallas Cowboys fans will just stop watching.

I'd also find it hard to believe that traditional powers that have 100K+ stadiums would see fans just stop coming either.

But for argument's sake, say football dies out. I'd say the only sport to really take it's place would be soccer. And the reason for this is because it's an outdoor sport. Not to mention, it's relatively cheap to play. I'm starting to see youth leagues pop up in the poorer area's of urban centers. It's also really the only sport that can really justify having stadiums that fits 60-70-80k fans. I don't see seating for basketball being expanded, and the same for a sport like baseball.

They'll stop watching when they die CP. The problem is that's 20 to 25 years for most Boomers, plus 10 for X'ers. Subsequent generations view far less NFL, or CFB. There's the rub.

Steelers are king here. The younger generation still enthusiastically watches the Steelers. High School ball still draws extremely well. The only negative is that less kids are playing high school football.

(02-03-2017 07:00 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  With that said, I doubt that the viewership of the NFL will go down, despite the chance of level of play dropping. I just find it hard to believe Pittsburgh Steelers fans or Dallas Cowboys fans will just stop watching.

I'd also find it hard to believe that traditional powers that have 100K+ stadiums would see fans just stop coming either.

But for argument's sake, say football dies out. I'd say the only sport to really take it's place would be soccer. And the reason for this is because it's an outdoor sport. Not to mention, it's relatively cheap to play. I'm starting to see youth leagues pop up in the poorer area's of urban centers. It's also really the only sport that can really justify having stadiums that fits 60-70-80k fans. I don't see seating for basketball being expanded, and the same for a sport like baseball.

Football viewership won't die out all at once. If it dwindles, its popularity will decrease steadily but never die out completely, like baseball. Or maybe it will be a sport far more popular in one region of the USA than in others, like ice hockey.

Pro soccer leagues in the USA won't play in large American football stadiums, with very few exceptions. MLS' approach of building stadiums of 20-30 thousand seats is working very well and will continue. Keep seating capacity at or slightly below demand.

Soccer and basketball may have an edge with younger people because the games are shorter. If you watch enough of those sports, you start to lose patience with the length of football and baseball games. NFL and MLB leaders really ought to be working harder to get their game times under 3 hours. And even if they manage to get game times down to 3 hours, they'd still be testing the patience of the younger generations they want to retain.

(02-03-2017 09:45 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 07:00 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now as to demographics and the popularity of football as a whole, it is changing. We may be at peak, or just past it. When Boomers and X'ers are gone football may not enjoy the top spot in status of sports. All of our schools need a 20 year plan in place to transition for that.

This is the uncharted frontier.


I can only hope that NFL already has studied the issue and has plans in place to ensure the continued participation of football in youth athletics. You've got to convince mothers that putting Johnny in shoulder pads and a helmet is better than putting soccer cleats on him (or some other sport).

Ironically, football is slowly (extremely slowly) growing in places like Japan, Europe, and India. More and more UK colleges are picking up the sport. Perhaps within the next 25 years, we'll start seeing players drafted from the international front. I'd say the UK Premier College league is currently a step below D3 football; some of those teams have gotten transfers from schools like Tulane. IFAF and the NFL has done a solid job of growing the game overseas.

With that said, I doubt that the viewership of the NFL will go down, despite the chance of level of play dropping. I just find it hard to believe Pittsburgh Steelers fans or Dallas Cowboys fans will just stop watching.

I'd also find it hard to believe that traditional powers that have 100K+ stadiums would see fans just stop coming either.

But for argument's sake, say football dies out. I'd say the only sport to really take it's place would be soccer. And the reason for this is because it's an outdoor sport. Not to mention, it's relatively cheap to play. I'm starting to see youth leagues pop up in the poorer area's of urban centers. It's also really the only sport that can really justify having stadiums that fits 60-70-80k fans. I don't see seating for basketball being expanded, and the same for a sport like baseball.

They'll stop watching when they die CP. The problem is that's 20 to 25 years for most Boomers, plus 10 for X'ers. Subsequent generations view far less NFL, or CFB. There's the rub.

Steelers are king here. The younger generation still enthusiastically watches the Steelers. High School ball still draws extremely well. The only negative is that less kids are playing high school football.

There are pockets of football lovers in the Northeast and Northern Midwest, but they are just pockets. I'm sure folks in Pittsburgh love the Steelers. However, in the largest population centers on the West Coast and along the Eastern Seaboard it has already dwindled. TV will keep it alive for awhile. But the demographics all point toward its decline.

I would agree with a decline ... but not a decline to zero.

(02-03-2017 05:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:32 AM)bluesox Wrote:  It is a nice bubble.

Whether it is a boulder or a bubble at least the SEC guaranteed its rate with the SECN until 2034. And, at least we are first up on renegotiation with a network, CBS within two years. So we get to head to the trough next, and stay there the longest. Right now that's not a bad position to be in. The ACC I believe is positioned well also. You get a network in a couple of years and your deal extends to 2031 or thereabouts.

What I wouldn't want to be experiencing right now is a major overhaul in 6 years, or the expiration of an overvalued contract in 5 years. The Big 10's last FOX contract was a gamble that could pay off well, or not. The Big 12 is up against the wall.

And depending on how the courts play out the NLRB ruling, and the NCAA plays out stipends or pay for play, the stratification of the sport could yet be more extreme in its definition.

SEC gets most of its revenue for SECN from its 50% share of the profits. It can go up and down. There is only a small guarantee.

Bullet, you know that Billy Bob & Bubba are going to subscribe if they have to mortgage the house and put the kids to work. I'd say the SECN is pretty safe. We have the highest saturation numbers of any P conference and by a pretty decent margin. Actually the Big 12 is a little closer to us than the Big 10.

Relative to the others, yes. But as people cut the cable, its going to hurt all conference networks. That will happen. The only question is how long it takes. Its the % of population that is not watching now that won't be paying that will hurt cable networks.

(02-03-2017 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 07:00 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  With that said, I doubt that the viewership of the NFL will go down, despite the chance of level of play dropping. I just find it hard to believe Pittsburgh Steelers fans or Dallas Cowboys fans will just stop watching.

I'd also find it hard to believe that traditional powers that have 100K+ stadiums would see fans just stop coming either.

But for argument's sake, say football dies out. I'd say the only sport to really take it's place would be soccer. And the reason for this is because it's an outdoor sport. Not to mention, it's relatively cheap to play. I'm starting to see youth leagues pop up in the poorer area's of urban centers. It's also really the only sport that can really justify having stadiums that fits 60-70-80k fans. I don't see seating for basketball being expanded, and the same for a sport like baseball.

Football viewership won't die out all at once. If it dwindles, its popularity will decrease steadily but never die out completely, like baseball. Or maybe it will be a sport far more popular in one region of the USA than in others, like ice hockey.

Pro soccer leagues in the USA won't play in large American football stadiums, with very few exceptions. MLS' approach of building stadiums of 20-30 thousand seats is working very well and will continue. Keep seating capacity at or slightly below demand.

Soccer and basketball may have an edge with younger people because the games are shorter. If you watch enough of those sports, you start to lose patience with the length of football and baseball games. NFL and MLB leaders really ought to be working harder to get their game times under 3 hours. And even if they manage to get game times down to 3 hours, they'd still be testing the patience of the younger generations they want to retain.

They are going the other way. SEC CBS games are really hard to watch in the stadium because of the extended TV timeouts.

(02-04-2017 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  Relative to the others, yes. But as people cut the cable, its going to hurt all conference networks. That will happen. The only question is how long it takes. Its the % of population that is not watching now that won't be paying that will hurt cable networks.

It would only hurt the networks if they don't change their model from a per subscriber basis to something else.

But of course they will. Just remains to be seen what the new model is, and how effective it works.

(02-04-2017 10:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 05:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 05:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

Whether it is a boulder or a bubble at least the SEC guaranteed its rate with the SECN until 2034. And, at least we are first up on renegotiation with a network, CBS within two years. So we get to head to the trough next, and stay there the longest. Right now that's not a bad position to be in. The ACC I believe is positioned well also. You get a network in a couple of years and your deal extends to 2031 or thereabouts.

What I wouldn't want to be experiencing right now is a major overhaul in 6 years, or the expiration of an overvalued contract in 5 years. The Big 10's last FOX contract was a gamble that could pay off well, or not. The Big 12 is up against the wall.

And depending on how the courts play out the NLRB ruling, and the NCAA plays out stipends or pay for play, the stratification of the sport could yet be more extreme in its definition.

SEC gets most of its revenue for SECN from its 50% share of the profits. It can go up and down. There is only a small guarantee.

Bullet, you know that Billy Bob & Bubba are going to subscribe if they have to mortgage the house and put the kids to work. I'd say the SECN is pretty safe. We have the highest saturation numbers of any P conference and by a pretty decent margin. Actually the Big 12 is a little closer to us than the Big 10.

Relative to the others, yes. But as people cut the cable, its going to hurt all conference networks. That will happen. The only question is how long it takes. Its the % of population that is not watching now that won't be paying that will hurt cable networks.

Those who watch will simply pay more. So it's not going to be that dramatic of a change either way. We've probably peaked on revenue from television, but if there is a decline it will be much more gradual than many around here think.

And keep in mind: even if revenue all around declines, it's not about total profit it's still about total profit relative to your competition.

LHN is a good example of this. UT could probably make more total profit as part of a B12 network but it would be making equal profit relative to competitors like Texas Tech. With LHN they take a little less total possible profit but gain a huge advantage in profit relative to Tech.

(02-03-2017 09:53 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 07:00 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  With that said, I doubt that the viewership of the NFL will go down, despite the chance of level of play dropping. I just find it hard to believe Pittsburgh Steelers fans or Dallas Cowboys fans will just stop watching.

I'd also find it hard to believe that traditional powers that have 100K+ stadiums would see fans just stop coming either.

But for argument's sake, say football dies out. I'd say the only sport to really take it's place would be soccer. And the reason for this is because it's an outdoor sport. Not to mention, it's relatively cheap to play. I'm starting to see youth leagues pop up in the poorer area's of urban centers. It's also really the only sport that can really justify having stadiums that fits 60-70-80k fans. I don't see seating for basketball being expanded, and the same for a sport like baseball.

Football viewership won't die out all at once. If it dwindles, its popularity will decrease steadily but never die out completely, like baseball. Or maybe it will be a sport far more popular in one region of the USA than in others, like ice hockey.

Pro soccer leagues in the USA won't play in large American football stadiums, with very few exceptions. MLS' approach of building stadiums of 20-30 thousand seats is working very well and will continue. Keep seating capacity at or slightly below demand.

Soccer and basketball may have an edge with younger people because the games are shorter. If you watch enough of those sports, you start to lose patience with the length of football and baseball games. NFL and MLB leaders really ought to be working harder to get their game times under 3 hours. And even if they manage to get game times down to 3 hours, they'd still be testing the patience of the younger generations they want to retain.

Football dying out won't be an overnight endeavor, it'll be a 20-30 year process. In that time span, I could easily see soccer as the sport to overtake it (even in a city like Pittsburgh).