June Jones once lobbied for the G5 to cultivate a Spring Football viewership. Since he was a coach in the original USFL, he's seen what that would look like.
With all of the recent talk of a P5 breakaway, should the G5 resolve to switch their seasons to the Spring if that ever came to be?
Personally, I believe there would be a bigger audience in the Spring for a G5 season than there would be in the Fall (if they were shut out of the CFP narrative). It would also highlight the G5 programs - by playing their own season - in a way that wouldn't look so second-rate.
College basketball would likely shift the non-P5's into the NIT field, which could give the NIT the luster it used to have Pre-70s. Between the NBE, AAC, A10, MWC, WCC, etc, that would be a decent product and MSG would be filled.
That said, football would likely need seasonal separation just to give the G5 a stage that isn't so overshadowed. It would also allow some of the better bowl games to be involved with G5 matchups. Maybe not the Rose Bowl, but I'm sure some of the good bowls with a G5 team nearby (like the Sun Bowl, the Holiday Bowl, the Liberty Bowl, etc) would participate.
If the P5 jumped of a cliff would you do that too?
No. I’d prefer FCS model tournament if they take their ball and go home. We’ll continue to play football in the fall, have our homecoming game in the fall, and tailgate in the fall as God intended.
(05-14-2022 04:44 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote: [ -> ]Again, I'd only entertain Spring football if the CFP became segregated.
That said, this kind of Fall-Spring all-year-round college football setup might give the G5 programs a lot more money from the networks.
We’re not selling. P5 should totally do a spring season though. Semi-pro spring ball could take off with those already established brands.
We'll see. The networks are going to have their say too.
These governance and NIL issues that are being debated today are driving the need for possible workarounds to what could be a much more uneven playing field.
This idea has been discussed many times since June suggested it and I don't see it going anywhere. Aside from the obvious problem of eliminating any opportunity for G5 conference members to participate in an expanded CFP, a spring football season would conflict directly with college-sponsored pro day events, the NFL scouting combine and the NFL draft, creating yet another obstacle to recruiting upper-tier talent. G5 programs are already fighting so many headwinds I doubt they would have any interest in fighting another.
(05-14-2022 04:30 PM)TroyTBoy Wrote: [ -> ]June Jones once lobbied for the G5 to cultivate a Spring Football viewership. Since he was a coach in the original USFL, he's seen what that would look like.
With all of the recent talk of a P5 breakaway, should the G5 resolve to switch their seasons to the Spring if that ever came to be?
Personally, I believe there would be a bigger audience in the Spring for a G5 season than there would be in the Fall (if they were shut out of the CFP narrative). It would also highlight the G5 programs - by playing their own season - in a way that wouldn't look so second-rate.
College basketball would likely shift the non-P5's into the NIT field, which could give the NIT the luster it used to have Pre-70s. Between the NBE, AAC, A10, MWC, WCC, etc, that would be a decent product and MSG would be filled.
That said, football would likely need seasonal separation just to give the G5 a stage that isn't so overshadowed. It would also allow some of the better bowl games to be involved with G5 matchups. Maybe not the Rose Bowl, but I'm sure some of the good bowls with a G5 team nearby (like the Sun Bowl, the Holiday Bowl, the Liberty Bowl, etc) would participate.
(05-10-2022 11:16 AM)nodak651 Wrote: [ -> ]Is there a point where leagues like CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC, or potentially even CAA/MVFC/BigSky start to finally get some decent money or air time, simply due to budgeting reasons? Asking because the payouts some of the p5 conferences are getting just seem unsustainable. Is there any point where networks decide to cut costs a little bit? For instance, bottom rung p5 games don't really mean anything, and a sold out Washington Grizzly Stadium in Montana vs a rival in a meaningful game could probably be more exciting and visually appealing to a casual fan. FCS games can occasionally get ok tv ratings, but look at the amount of advertising other games get in comparison as well (none). With a bit of advertising, I could see something like a weekly FCS game of the week do ok, especially if sandwiched between a couple bigger games, and the networks could get the rights for essentially free, which would help with bottom line. Just as an example. I'm not saying this is something that should be done or that it would be worthwhile currently, but with the rising rights costs, you would think that non P5 programs would start to benefit more than they currently are, no?
Unfortunately for the G5, FCS and non-name brand schools, I believe that it's the opposite.
Unfortunately, non-brand name football (which is essentially the G5 and FCS) likely falls into that middle category. While the rights fees might be low, they also still have fixed level production costs and don't draw in large ratings compared to, say, a network-owned reality show that could also conceivably be shown multiple times and/or sent to a streaming service (optimally also owned by that same network).
Now, you could have some exceptions, particularly if there's a 12-team playoff and there ends up being value for, say, a G5 game that has a material impact on the playoff race. We've seen that to some extent in the CFP and BCS era with some AAC and Boise State games. However, the Big 12 backfilling really put a dent into the volume of non-P5 games that will likely have national interest based on brand names themselves.
From an entertainment company perspective, the highest and best use of non-P5 football games would be to fill out streaming services like ESPN+. These are serving niche (as opposed to mass market) audiences that make a lot more sense as streaming properties.
When we say "sports rights fees" are rising, what we really mean is that "sports rights fees for marquee properties" are rising, which would definitely include the P5. It doesn't mean that ALL sports rights fees are going up.
Well, Fox did just invest in owning the USLF to create more inventory. Are USFL teams less non-name brands than G5? $150-$250 million over three years for just 8 teams, plus getting additional investors. It would be more cost effective with less downside risk to lure the top of the G5 away and get them to play in the spring. Although FCS's one time spring was hit or miss with a lot of miss, for a first year the numbers even for that level were on par with second week of USFL and playoff hockey, better than sunday night baseball and much more cost effective than NBA playoff games.
We're in a time of disruption, with live sports being the last stand. In times of disruption it is a frequent mistake to carry forward previous world view constraints. I suspect the thirst for live sports will result in it being closing time at a bar.
IMO, no top G5 will play in the spring-horrible for attendance. Now I can see a conference like Conference USA going for it or even possibly FCS going for it again(attendance is low anyway; nothing to lose).
There is plenty to lose playing spring college football.
Who is going to want to play instead of working on the draft?
You want to start the season in January in Montana?
(05-10-2022 12:25 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately for the G5, FCS and non-name brand schools, I believe that it's the opposite.
Unfortunately, non-brand name football (which is essentially the G5 and FCS) likely falls into that middle category. While the rights fees might be low, they also still have fixed level production costs and don't draw in large ratings compared to, say, a network-owned reality show that could also conceivably be shown multiple times and/or sent to a streaming service (optimally also owned by that same network).
Now, you could have some exceptions, particularly if there's a 12-team playoff and there ends up being value for, say, a G5 game that has a material impact on the playoff race. We've seen that to some extent in the CFP and BCS era with some AAC and Boise State games. However, the Big 12 backfilling really put a dent into the volume of non-P5 games that will likely have national interest based on brand names themselves.
From an entertainment company perspective, the highest and best use of non-P5 football games would be to fill out streaming services like ESPN+. These are serving niche (as opposed to mass market) audiences that make a lot more sense as streaming properties.
When we say "sports rights fees" are rising, what we really mean is that "sports rights fees for marquee properties" are rising, which would definitely include the P5. It doesn't mean that ALL sports rights fees are going up.
Well, Fox did just invest in owning the USLF to create more inventory. Are USFL teams less non-name brands than G5? $150-$250 million over three years for just 8 teams, plus getting additional investors. It would be more cost effective with less downside risk to lure the top of the G5 away and get them to play in the spring. Although FCS's one time spring was hit or miss with a lot of miss, for a first year the numbers even for that level were on par with second week of USFL and playoff hockey, better than sunday night baseball and much more cost effective than NBA playoff games.
We're in a time of disruption, with live sports being the last stand. In times of disruption it is a frequent mistake to carry forward previous world view constraints. I suspect the thirst for live sports will result in it being closing time at a bar.
IMO, no top G5 will play in the spring-horrible for attendance. Now I can see a conference like Conference USA going for it or even possibly FCS going for it again(attendance is low anyway; nothing to lose).
There is plenty to lose playing spring college football.
Who is going to want to play instead of working on the draft?
You want to start the season in January in Montana?
Nuts
Q Who is going to want to play instead of working on the draft?
A Players that end up in the G5
Q You want to start the season in January in Montana?
A For more revenue that allows the AD to survive, yes. Have you been to the north in late November?
(05-14-2022 04:40 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote: [ -> ]Short answer: No
Long answer: Nope
Nailed it!
Occam's Razor still has two to three pro leagues thinking they can survive in the Spring (USFL XFL and even MLFB).
FOX has more cash than the G5 or FCS leagues and XFL has private funds with Redbird Capital, so they seem to so have funds. MLFB...not so much, but they're trying to play this summer in Little Rock, somewhere in Virginia, and possibly Canton, OH.
P5 will never break away. It could cause a lot of lawsuits from none P5 schools and the rest of D1 and NCAA schools. P5 can't afford to break away because it could hurt their other sports like Archery where P5 schools are in a conference with other west coast schools from all 3 levels of NCAA, some NAIA schools and a Santa Rosa College out of California which is a lone JC in the mixed. It is like skiing and rodeo as well along with hoceky will hurt them.
While I’d find it very enjoyable to watch college football in the spring, I’m doubtful they’d ever make that move. The universities are too risk adverse to make that jump which means they’ll remain the the shadows of the giant programs.
![[Image: 00003504716993.jpg]](https://pamplinmedia.com/images/artimg/00003504716993.jpg)
