bullet
Legend
Posts: 66,301
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
|
RE: Fast forward to 2025...
(07-11-2019 08:23 PM)Wedge Wrote: (07-11-2019 08:01 PM)JRsec Wrote: (07-11-2019 07:53 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: (07-11-2019 06:25 PM)Wedge Wrote: (07-11-2019 07:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: The SEC and Big 10 make so much money that there's very few schools that make sense for them to add in any scenario.
The only Big 12 schools the SEC would take are Texas, Oklahoma, and maybe Kansas.
The only Big 12 schools the Big 10 would take are Texas, Oklahoma, and maybe Kansas.
The only other schools the SEC would take (in order): North Carolina, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Clemson, Virginia, and NC State.
The only other schools the Big 10 would take (in order): North Carolina, Virginia, Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Duke, and NC State.
Unless college basketball drastically increases in TV value relative to college football, it's not going to make economic sense for either the SEC or Big Ten to add programs like Kansas or North Carolina whose value lies in basketball.
And unless the Big Ten's 2012 strategy of just grabbing cable boxes lasts well into the future, neither the Big Ten nor SEC are going to put Virginia or North Carolina schools high on their list. Clemson and Florida State, and even Miami, are more valuable for the viewers they draw to the sport that provides 80% of the TV value for college sports. And, obviously, so is Notre Dame. Clemson, FSU, and ND, along with UT and OU, are also going to be the most valuable commodities outside the Big Ten and SEC for any financial model based on getting fans to buy per-game or per-season subscriptions.
There are other schools with value, but not enough value to justify a full share of SEC or Big Ten conference revenue.
The destination of the Longhorns is very much up in the air. I give a slight betting edge to the B1G. If the move is based solely on football, the SEC is a no-brainer. Academics favor the B1G, and to us football junkies, that cannot outweigh the football argument; right?
Think of the next realignment not as happening in 2024, but as just begining then. The universities go forward from that time into an unseen future. What do we know about the future of football? We know that it is fragile because of exestential threats, primarily due to concussions. Football represents 80% of the athletic budgets and it could go away suddenly, at any time. Without football are sports even that important anymore? Can soccer fill the void? Can basketball become a Fall and Winter sport?
Next, consider a future in which brick and mortar universities go the way of brick and mortar bookstores. Only the most valued institutions in each state will be kept alive. They will be the ones with extensive STEM programs which require labs and other infrastructure for medicine, physics, engineering, and yes, agriculture. Liberal arts, even law can be delivered online to thousands of students at once. The coming G5 mobile technology will accelerate this process. If you don't have a campus, you likely won't have athletics. How far into the future will the decision makers look?
Using these considerations, Oklahoma and Kasnsas to the B1G looks like, "I'll pass." The B1G must get Texas or simply stand pat.
BTW I have thought all along that the cable carriage fee model would have a long tail. G5 could chop that off quickly.
Good post! I would add this question, "How many non revenue sports could basketball possibly support?" I think if non revenues survive it will be via corporate sponsorship and a connection to the AOC. The future of college sports as we know them rests squarely on the shoulders of football regardless of what the hoops purists think or believe. Otherwise why would so many of them have kept football and augmented their conferences with football first schools for the added revenue.
IMO the future of "Olympic" sports is in alumni or other donors financing the specific sports they care about. Football is going to keep devouring more and more money and there won't be enough left over (except maybe in the 20 wealthiest athletic departments) to support 15 or 20 other sports, unless donors step up with money earmarked for a specific sport.
As for football going away: That will be a very slow fade out at the college level (even slower at the NFL level) even though many high schools may be squeezed within the next 10 years.
Definitely agree with your first paragraph. The Olympic sports really don't cost that much, but they have virtually no revenue.
Football isn't going to go away quickly. But it might not fade at all in terms of the major colleges and NFL. But I do think the bama posters point about online classes as well as the concussion issue causing some reduction in participation at the HS level means that there will be a lot of schools dropping football at the college level over the next 20-30 years. I think it happens with the smaller schools, Div II and FCS first.
|
|