(09-21-2022 06:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  2. Football had a serious PR issue a few years ago, and those middle class moms won’t forget. But those little kids won’t forget that a high school junior from Southlake got $1.4m last year to ride the pine at tOSU. I predict that NIL, combined with all of the intense interest surrounding conference realignment, new CFP structure, basically celebrity status for really good hrs players, and new schools climbing into FBS will help to reverse the trend of declining participation and in fact will help to increase participation in and enthusiasm about CFB for the long term.

I'd suggest that football's declining participation rates — whatever the actual numbers may be — are linked as much or more to "changing attitudes of young people" as much as overprotective moms steering their sons to less dangerous activities.

I don't know that a whole lot of young men with the prized combination of size and ability to receive a scholarship at the I-A, I-AA or even DII level are the ones choosing not to play football. I've read or heard nothing that indicates the available talent pool is shrinking even for those college programs closer to the bottom rung than the top.

IMO, where the numbers have been impacted is we tend to see less of those 140-pound offensive lineman or 5-foot-2 wide receivers with little to no chance of playing meaningful snaps but yet wanting to be a part of the team regardless.

I think that's the sort of mindset — and not to argue whether it's right or wrong — increasingly prevalent in young people today.

(09-21-2022 06:57 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I guess the $300 million dollar question is “Would Amazon pay that much for an exclusive, Friday Night time slot with the #4 pick from the Big 10?”

That’s what it would take to finance such an expansion.

Amazon is all about top shelf content. They could spend $300 million and buy all of the Big 12 or PAC 10 rights but that’s not the type of content Amazon seems to want—they want the big brands.

Actually, $300m wouldn't buy either. It probably takes $385m to keep the pac together (11 shares @ $35m each), likely more than that if it's all streaming. To get all of the big 12, since they're not as desperate as the Pac, I'd wager something more like $520m (13 shares @ $40m each) would be required, and possibly more like $585m.

Let's take the question to the next level:
if Amazon gave them roughly 600m (basically double the 300m question) - roughly 60m per school, and told them to develop their fb program to at least near P2 level, and they'll be more money coming, would/could the PAC agree to it?

(09-21-2022 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 05:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 02:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 01:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Specifics are what is worked out when those at the top decide which plan to implement. Tell you what sport, when you are right about what's coming, just once, which you haven't been, I'll listen. Until then Mr. The Rose Bowl is so important and the B1G will not raid the PAC 12, and Texas will never join the SEC, and it's all about the values, I'll just keep on talking about the same things which are now public in remarks made by AD's like Swarbrick, and Commissioners, and pretty much everyone else, except maybe Wilner (who waffles on this). Consolidation is here. We likely are moving to 2 leagues, a transitional conference may occur, and yes, some form of a breakaway is likely. Whether that is just for football, just for revenue sports, or for all of it remains to be seen.

There's a downsizing coming in higher ed. The grouping will be part of it. Athletes will likely be compensated.

Football is to the U.S.A. what the Coliseum was to Rome, and the Olympics were to the U.S.S.R.. It's a cultural icon and an organizing principle for the structure of life in the civilization. It will not be abandoned lightly. As I have said many times, Form follows Function. As a unifying catalyst football needs to reach all regions. It needs to create a pressure valve for social frustration. Organizing a playoff so that it draws in all regions in a hopeful way creates that. It needs to reflect society, so scope is essential. Everything in life is currently in contraction and consolidation. Football will be as well. It needs to affirm values. Teamwork, striving for excellence, sacrifice, and in the future a social lesson on the survival of the productive, will all be part of it. We will need more workers and soldiers and fewer would-be stars. Consolidation and streamlining the economy of effort segways nicely into it.

Already you see kids choosing trades over B.A.'s in non-STEM fields. That's a good thing! We need electricians and plumbers more than sociology majors.

So, there are much greater reasons for the direction of college football than just Amazon's profits or ESPN's quarterly statements, or Oregon's value to the Big 10.

This isn't your 1990-2 or even your 2010-2 realignment. This is a coup d'état of the top programs and consolidation. An argument could be made that 2010-2 was a table setting series of moves. Maybe? Maybe not? USC/UCLA & Texas/Oklahoma were the de-capitating of the PAC 12 and B12. That hasn't really happened before. These are coldblooded bold moves to re-arrange and restructure the game. Money is merely the lure. And to hear you tell it it's still about simply adding value. Well yes, and no, at the same time. Value will always be part of the mechanism. But, there so much more to it than that. There's a concept which is being attained. Wanton destruction of 2 associations of state schools doesn't just happen without a transition plan. There would be way too much liability. Hence a compilation conference is likely.

Once you accept a bigger picture and that it isn't just about conferences, NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, Disney, or Amazon and that they are merely plugging in for profits and are symbionts within a greater movement, and for looming reasons beyond just profit, then I think you will begin to grasp the scope of change.

You have used words like wonk, realignment junkie, and other such veiled ad hominem in dealing with my comments. They only reply to that I have is that I haven't backed down from any of my assertions, have heretofore been unusually accurate, and simply qualify my remarks with systems will work as they do, maybe 2 schools at a time is comfortable for commissioners and academics, but critical mass has been reached, and I do believe the next series of moves will be quicker and likely will involve more than 2 at a time. And we are in a transition to 2 leagues. Does that take 2 years or 14? We'll see. My gut says sooner.

What do you care to predict now Frank the Tank? Right or Wrong I've told you where I stand. You keep coming back with "well you were right" followed by "but you don't understand things like I do", and "this can never happen because". Well thank God I don't. I lived long enough to know rules don't stop consensus, and they don't stop necessity, and they frequently don't stop those with the most money, and government can change them or ignore them. The world is gray. Nothing but death and taxes are gestalt. And in this case a convergence of paradigm shifts is the impetus creating the necessity and my money is on that!

There are definitely some at the top with this vision. But they aren't ESPN execs. Its conference commissioners and ADs.

I also don't share your Deep South Jimmy Carter limitations mentality. I didn't understand Jimmy Carter until I moved to Georgia. Despite being a growing state, there is a lot of "we can't do that" and limitation mentality. In Texas, they believe the sky is the limit. Schools in the south are growing. Schools in the west are growing. Big state flagships in the North are growing. Its the regional publics and private schools in the north and a few privates and rural regional schools in the South and West that are hurting. The whole university system is not crashing down. It is adapting.

College football will continue to be popular for a long time. Much of what happened to boxing, baseball and NASCAR was self-inflicted. NASCAR abandoned its roots. Baseball's greed by all resulted in strikes. Boxing's greed resulted in an alphabet of titles. Basketball and football have profited from baseball's mistakes. So has soccer. For anyone who thinks baseball is too slow and boring---soccer anyone???? MMA has profited from boxing's mistakes.

1. I didn't list ESPN/Disney execs as visionaries, and I damn sure didn't list AD's and commissioners. They are reactive, as are execs, to those higher up the ladder in business and government who follow cultural trends and lend advice down the chain of command.

2. You don't share my Deep South Jimmy Carter limitation's view? Where did you get that crap? Where did I ever say we couldn't do something. Frank is the one always saying what we can't do. I said exactly the opposite. I said consensus isn't stopped by rules, and that necessity ignores them. You need to read my final paragraph again! I've been practicing the "Art of the Deal" for well over half my life. Can't is the one we fire! Adapt, Innovate, and Overcome! It works well for Marines and it works well in business! Texans didn't corner the market on can do!

3. "College football will be popular for a long time." Your analysis misses the reality. The problem is the declining number of participants in football. Cost to parents for equipment, especially poor parents, at the peewee, Jr. High, and High School level hurts (where it isn't just provided), injuries discourage middle class mom support, and the computer game culture has cut into it quite a bit.

If you are talking just the SW and SE we do have solid participation at those levels and local culture embraces and encourages play. That's true in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and parts of Southern California. It's clearly dying everywhere else and Millennials and those following don't play, don't watch, and don't care. This is why 2036 is so key. In 2036 the oldest Boomers are 90, those from '56 will be 80 and the youngest Boomers ('62) will be 74. X'ers don't have the income or numbers to keep viewership up and scholarships funded as well as Boomers and when they pass Bullet, football will be recognized for what it is already, a regional sport. That's why 22 of the last 25 champions are from the Deep South or Southwest. It's not an accident.

And strikes didn't kill baseball and boxing. Lack of participation did! Kids still play Little League, much fewer of them play in their teens and much of that is niche travel ball. Expense killed it as well. Bats, balls, gloves, and mitts, and catching equipment is costly. I know because I once donated a lot of it locally. Football for kids ain't cheap and mom's no longer support it. That means a short shelf life.

Strikes did cripple pro baseball. Football and basketball learned the lesson.
Boxing was all the stupid split titles. You didn't know the stars anymore as there were 4 or 5 champs in every division. Made money for the promoters who didn't have the single champ, but hurt the sport. MMA is proof boxing could still be popular. Its not like there are peewee MMA leagues.

My grandfather flew to the fights. Nothing has changed Bullet. It's poor kids with few options getting their brains beat out hoping it will be their chance out of a bad life. It works out for half a dozen or so a decade. Gambling and dives were part of it. I'd tout Olympic Boxing, but the outcomes were rigged. People got turned off, but you know what, they should have been sickened years before. I will say it was the closest thing in my lifetime to real gladiators killing for the amusement of the mob. I feel the same way about MMA. I'm all about teaching the troops hand to hand, but if you have to use it, it had better be for keeps. Pummeling somebody for entertainment is perverse, IMO.

I like boxing. My Father was a golden gloves boxer. But I don't like MMA. Its like street fighting with no moral code. When I was a kid and kids fought, there was a code. You didn't kick, elbow, knee. You didn't strangle the other guy. You didn't continue to pummel them once they were down. You fought fairly.

(09-21-2022 07:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 05:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 02:34 PM)bullet Wrote:  There are definitely some at the top with this vision. But they aren't ESPN execs. Its conference commissioners and ADs.

I also don't share your Deep South Jimmy Carter limitations mentality. I didn't understand Jimmy Carter until I moved to Georgia. Despite being a growing state, there is a lot of "we can't do that" and limitation mentality. In Texas, they believe the sky is the limit. Schools in the south are growing. Schools in the west are growing. Big state flagships in the North are growing. Its the regional publics and private schools in the north and a few privates and rural regional schools in the South and West that are hurting. The whole university system is not crashing down. It is adapting.

College football will continue to be popular for a long time. Much of what happened to boxing, baseball and NASCAR was self-inflicted. NASCAR abandoned its roots. Baseball's greed by all resulted in strikes. Boxing's greed resulted in an alphabet of titles. Basketball and football have profited from baseball's mistakes. So has soccer. For anyone who thinks baseball is too slow and boring---soccer anyone???? MMA has profited from boxing's mistakes.

1. I didn't list ESPN/Disney execs as visionaries, and I damn sure didn't list AD's and commissioners. They are reactive, as are execs, to those higher up the ladder in business and government who follow cultural trends and lend advice down the chain of command.

2. You don't share my Deep South Jimmy Carter limitation's view? Where did you get that crap? Where did I ever say we couldn't do something. Frank is the one always saying what we can't do. I said exactly the opposite. I said consensus isn't stopped by rules, and that necessity ignores them. You need to read my final paragraph again! I've been practicing the "Art of the Deal" for well over half my life. Can't is the one we fire! Adapt, Innovate, and Overcome! It works well for Marines and it works well in business! Texans didn't corner the market on can do!

3. "College football will be popular for a long time." Your analysis misses the reality. The problem is the declining number of participants in football. Cost to parents for equipment, especially poor parents, at the peewee, Jr. High, and High School level hurts (where it isn't just provided), injuries discourage middle class mom support, and the computer game culture has cut into it quite a bit.

If you are talking just the SW and SE we do have solid participation at those levels and local culture embraces and encourages play. That's true in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and parts of Southern California. It's clearly dying everywhere else and Millennials and those following don't play, don't watch, and don't care. This is why 2036 is so key. In 2036 the oldest Boomers are 90, those from '56 will be 80 and the youngest Boomers ('62) will be 74. X'ers don't have the income or numbers to keep viewership up and scholarships funded as well as Boomers and when they pass Bullet, football will be recognized for what it is already, a regional sport. That's why 22 of the last 25 champions are from the Deep South or Southwest. It's not an accident.

And strikes didn't kill baseball and boxing. Lack of participation did! Kids still play Little League, much fewer of them play in their teens and much of that is niche travel ball. Expense killed it as well. Bats, balls, gloves, and mitts, and catching equipment is costly. I know because I once donated a lot of it locally. Football for kids ain't cheap and mom's no longer support it. That means a short shelf life.

Strikes did cripple pro baseball. Football and basketball learned the lesson.
Boxing was all the stupid split titles. You didn't know the stars anymore as there were 4 or 5 champs in every division. Made money for the promoters who didn't have the single champ, but hurt the sport. MMA is proof boxing could still be popular. Its not like there are peewee MMA leagues.

My grandfather flew to the fights. Nothing has changed Bullet. It's poor kids with few options getting their brains beat out hoping it will be their chance out of a bad life. It works out for half a dozen or so a decade. Gambling and dives were part of it. I'd tout Olympic Boxing, but the outcomes were rigged. People got turned off, but you know what, they should have been sickened years before. I will say it was the closest thing in my lifetime to real gladiators killing for the amusement of the mob. I feel the same way about MMA. I'm all about teaching the troops hand to hand, but if you have to use it, it had better be for keeps. Pummeling somebody for entertainment is perverse, IMO.

I like boxing. My Father was a golden gloves boxer. But I don't like MMA. Its like street fighting with no moral code. When I was a kid and kids fought, there was a code. You didn't kick, elbow, knee. You didn't strangle the other guy. You didn't continue to pummel them once they were down. You fought fairly.

I had boxing lessons as a kid. If handled by rules it was okay. Street fighting never had rules, except one. You had better win. And the corollary, little kids have weapons.

(09-21-2022 07:07 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:57 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I guess the $300 million dollar question is “Would Amazon pay that much for an exclusive, Friday Night time slot with the #4 pick from the Big 10?”

That’s what it would take to finance such an expansion.

Amazon is all about top shelf content. They could spend $300 million and buy all of the Big 12 or PAC 10 rights but that’s not the type of content Amazon seems to want—they want the big brands.

Actually, $300m wouldn't buy either. It probably takes $385m to keep the pac together (11 shares @ $35m each), likely more than that if it's all streaming. To get all of the big 12, since they're not as desperate as the Pac, I'd wager something more like $520m (13 shares @ $40m each) would be required, and possibly more like $585m.

Let's take the question to the next level:
if Amazon gave them roughly 600m (basically double the 300m question) - roughly 60m per school, and told them to develop their fb program to at least near P2 level, and they'll be more money coming, would/could the PAC agree to it?

They can’t pull a huge fan base out of thin air, so I’d say no.

(09-21-2022 02:40 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 02:30 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 12:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  EVerything got a LOT more complicated with Big Ten expansion once preliminary deals were signed. Before deals were sketched out, it would have been relatively simple to deal Amazon in on Friday nights, rotating the #1-4 picks between Fox, NBC, CBS and Amazon. ...

It would have made the OTA deal more complicated than they were to have Amazon part of the negotiations.

If your priority is expansion and getting in bed with Amazon, the fact that doing the OTA deal first and then having Amazon in a position of having to get the OTA partners to agree to an "adjustment" of their contracted pick order would lead you to deal Amazon in from the beginning.

If your priority is getting the OTA deal, then the fact that adding Amazon to the original negotiations would complicate those negotiations would lead you to leave Amazon on the sideline at the start, and then let them see if something can be worked out once the ink is dry on the OTA deal.

So does the way that they did things contradict a claim that they were interested in an Amazon deal as their first priority? Sure, you can reasonably say that it does.

Does the way they did things contradict a claim that they are willing to entertain an offer from Amazon if Amazon is able to clear a path with their OTA partners? No, it doesn't.

OK. But that reduces the chances of a Big Ten - Amazon deal happening, together with an expansion contingent on that deal.

Yes, that's how priorities work. Putting your first priority first is almost always at the expense of your lower priorities.

Quote: I think that if 20 teams and 4 major network / streaming partners were feasible, they'd have made it happen before the contracts were signed.

Which is going around in circles: this conclusion seems to assume that expanding to 20 teams was a first priority goal in its own right, so that if they didn't announce it, it tells us they tried for it and failed.

If the NFL-lite OTA package was the first priority, not bringing Amazon in at the outset is exactly what they would do, and "not having 20 teams and 4 major network / streaming partners" at the outset simply reflects their priorities.

It seems awfully likely they promised USC/UCLA that they'd take a serious look at whether more West Coast Schools made sense, and from leaks from media consultants a few weeks ago, we know that process has started.

People who are like, "but it's been WEEKS!!!" just have sync'd with the clock that is ticking here. Right now the Big Ten and any potential PAC-10 adds who might be announced this school are on a clock that ticks once every end of June, so there is zero reason to rush into it. So they have plenty of time for Amazon to see if it can make something work. And since Paramount is a Prime Video channel, we can be sure that at least one of the three partners will take their calls.

Quote: They didn't, so that signals to me that it's not likely to happen this cycle.

What I am saying is you are building your signals to give a false dichotomy, "Yes" or "No", when in reality, it's quite possible that it's at "We'll See" and will stay there until near the end of football season.

(09-21-2022 07:07 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:57 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I guess the $300 million dollar question is “Would Amazon pay that much for an exclusive, Friday Night time slot with the #4 pick from the Big 10?”

That’s what it would take to finance such an expansion.

Amazon is all about top shelf content. They could spend $300 million and buy all of the Big 12 or PAC 10 rights but that’s not the type of content Amazon seems to want—they want the big brands.

Actually, $300m wouldn't buy either. It probably takes $385m to keep the pac together (11 shares @ $35m each), likely more than that if it's all streaming. To get all of the big 12, since they're not as desperate as the Pac, I'd wager something more like $520m (13 shares @ $40m each) would be required, and possibly more like $585m.

Let's take the question to the next level:
if Amazon gave them roughly 600m (basically double the 300m question) - roughly 60m per school, and told them to develop their fb program to at least near P2 level, and they'll be more money coming, would/could the PAC agree to it?

Nobody is going exclusively with Amazon, too much risk for conferences & too pricey for Amazon to get them to take the risk. They would more than likely partner with ESPN to fill ESPN very limited open windows.

So to me the question is would Amazon rather pay $300M for 1 B1G game on a Fri night that would be at best the 4th pick of B1G games or pay the same $ for all but 2 of the PAC games. IF B1G deal is dependent on 4 more PAC teams moving & the B1G game always including one of the former PAC teams, then they are likely getting the same matchups for a quarter or more of their games just under the B1G banner instead of PAC.

Will be interesting to see what Amazon does, I don’t see how 1 middle of the pack B1G game on a Friday night moves the needle on Amazon subscriptions but at least the B1G is now seen as having a national reach, where a PAC deal is limited to West coast appeal.

(09-21-2022 06:59 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  2. Football had a serious PR issue a few years ago, and those middle class moms won’t forget. But those little kids won’t forget that a high school junior from Southlake got $1.4m last year to ride the pine at tOSU. I predict that NIL, combined with all of the intense interest surrounding conference realignment, new CFP structure, basically celebrity status for really good hrs players, and new schools climbing into FBS will help to reverse the trend of declining participation and in fact will help to increase participation in and enthusiasm about CFB for the long term.

I'd suggest that football's declining participation rates — whatever the actual numbers may be — are linked as much or more to "changing attitudes of young people" as much as overprotective moms steering their sons to less dangerous activities.

I don't know that a whole lot of young men with the prized combination of size and ability to receive a scholarship at the I-A, I-AA or even DII level are the ones choosing not to play football. I've read or heard nothing that indicates the available talent pool is shrinking even for those college programs closer to the bottom rung than the top.

IMO, where the numbers have been impacted is we tend to see less of those 140-pound offensive lineman or 5-foot-2 wide receivers with little to no chance of playing meaningful snaps but yet wanting to be a part of the team regardless.

I think that's the sort of mindset — and not to argue whether it's right or wrong — increasingly prevalent in young people today.

I believe it’s a cultural phenomenon. Football isn’t as important in the rust belt or on the coasts as it is in the south. For this reason alone I would expect this contract to be the last one The Big Ten sees an increase. Culturally The SEC may have one more cycle, perhaps two, but make no mistake we are living in what will soon be called the good old days of college football.

(09-22-2022 06:36 AM)hk25 Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:07 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:57 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I guess the $300 million dollar question is “Would Amazon pay that much for an exclusive, Friday Night time slot with the #4 pick from the Big 10?”

That’s what it would take to finance such an expansion.

Amazon is all about top shelf content. They could spend $300 million and buy all of the Big 12 or PAC 10 rights but that’s not the type of content Amazon seems to want—they want the big brands.

Actually, $300m wouldn't buy either. It probably takes $385m to keep the pac together (11 shares @ $35m each), likely more than that if it's all streaming. To get all of the big 12, since they're not as desperate as the Pac, I'd wager something more like $520m (13 shares @ $40m each) would be required, and possibly more like $585m.

Let's take the question to the next level:
if Amazon gave them roughly 600m (basically double the 300m question) - roughly 60m per school, and told them to develop their fb program to at least near P2 level, and they'll be more money coming, would/could the PAC agree to it?

Nobody is going exclusively with Amazon, too much risk for conferences & too pricey for Amazon to get them to take the risk. They would more than likely partner with ESPN to fill ESPN very limited open windows.

So to me the question is would Amazon rather pay $300M for 1 B1G game on a Fri night that would be at best the 4th pick of B1G games or pay the same $ for all but 2 of the PAC games.

I think they'd go with the #4 Big Ten game. I think Amazon's sportss strategy is to use high-audience sports to drive Amazon Prime subscribers who don't use Prime Video to start using it. So games like Ohio State- Toledo that score 2M diehard Buckeye fan viewers might do that. (Of course that's what NBC thought with Notre Dame-Toledo on Peacock a few years ago).

NO, now that I've said that "out loud" I don't think so. Amazon isn't going for die-hard loyalist content, they're going for huge audiences--NFL, Yankees in NYC, Champions League in Germany.

But I don't think Oregon-Utah is the sort of must-watch mega-audiencee programming that drives people to figure out how to get Amazon Video to work on the big living room TV.

So I'm sticking with "Amazon keeps their money in their pockets." Go ask Apple.

Quote:Will be interesting to see what Amazon does, I don’t see how 1 middle of the pack B1G game on a Friday night moves the needle on Amazon subscriptions but at least the B1G is now seen as having a national reach, where a PAC deal is limited to West coast appeal.

(09-21-2022 06:59 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  2. Football had a serious PR issue a few years ago, and those middle class moms won’t forget. But those little kids won’t forget that a high school junior from Southlake got $1.4m last year to ride the pine at tOSU. I predict that NIL, combined with all of the intense interest surrounding conference realignment, new CFP structure, basically celebrity status for really good hrs players, and new schools climbing into FBS will help to reverse the trend of declining participation and in fact will help to increase participation in and enthusiasm about CFB for the long term.

I'd suggest that football's declining participation rates — whatever the actual numbers may be — are linked as much or more to "changing attitudes of young people" as much as overprotective moms steering their sons to less dangerous activities.

I don't know that a whole lot of young men with the prized combination of size and ability to receive a scholarship at the I-A, I-AA or even DII level are the ones choosing not to play football. I've read or heard nothing that indicates the available talent pool is shrinking even for those college programs closer to the bottom rung than the top.

IMO, where the numbers have been impacted is we tend to see less of those 140-pound offensive lineman or 5-foot-2 wide receivers with little to no chance of playing meaningful snaps but yet wanting to be a part of the team regardless.

I think that's the sort of mindset — and not to argue whether it's right or wrong — increasingly prevalent in young people today.

This is a very good point.

Overall participation rates for football, baseball and many other sports might be down.

However, that's not changing the number of elite-level athletes in those sports because there's *waaaaaay* more specialization in youth athletics now. In fact, the competition at the elite level in virtually every sport is fiercer than ever. If someone is playing a sport in high school, particularly in the large metro areas with larger schools, that person has a commitment level to that sport at a much higher level than prior generations. A D-I prospect athlete that would be captain of ALL of the football, basketball and baseball teams at a high school is increasingly being pushed to pick to focus on just one of them.

I personally don't love the trend, but it's conflicting as a parent because it's an arms race in a lot of ways. I see it with my own kids. My daughter has been very good at pretty much every sport that she's tried and is particularly talented in swimming (top 20 in the State of Illinois for her age in multiple events). She's good enough where thinking about being a D-I swimmer is a legit possibility (although I emphasize that it's not a goal because so many factors go into that happening). However, if she really wants to go for that, it will almost certainly mean dropping basketball, volleyball and track as her other sports in order to have time for actual school and any semblance of a social life. Heck, being able to do anything other activity (whether athletic or non-athletic) while being in a high level swimming club is tough.

Similarly, my son's middle school (not high school) basketball team is entirely made up of players that have been playing on travel club basketball teams for their entire childhoods and this is the norm for our area. That's middle school! My training to be a middle school and high school basketball player was a lot of pickup games on the playground - I wasn't on any actual organized team until I *got* to middle school (and I didn't grow up in some small town with no hoops talent - we produced a lot of NBA and college basketball players in South Suburban Chicago, including Dwyane Wade). It will definitely be a requirement to have been on a travel baseball team for many years in order to make the high school baseball team (and that's being in Illinois where you can't play outside for half of the year - I can't imagine what it's like in the South, Texas or California where it's a year-round sport with even more players).

The point is that even when overall participation rates in a lot of sports might be superficially down, that's not accounting for the fact that the ones that *do* participate are generally much more committed. There aren't a lot of "halfway in" athletes anymore because, in a lot of cases, it's impossible to be "halfway in" to make the team in the first place. That hypothetical 5' 2" wide receiver is going up against starting cornerbacks, safeties and linebackers that are way more trained than prior generations, so that small wide receiver is increasingly not subjecting himself to that situation.

That's honestly discouraging to me in a lot of ways. There are a lot of benefits to playing sports at just a recreational level for kids and having a wider participation pool. Once again, it's tough as a parent - it's easy to get caught up in the arms race element in a lot of this (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone).

(09-22-2022 08:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:59 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  2. Football had a serious PR issue a few years ago, and those middle class moms won’t forget. But those little kids won’t forget that a high school junior from Southlake got $1.4m last year to ride the pine at tOSU. I predict that NIL, combined with all of the intense interest surrounding conference realignment, new CFP structure, basically celebrity status for really good hrs players, and new schools climbing into FBS will help to reverse the trend of declining participation and in fact will help to increase participation in and enthusiasm about CFB for the long term.

I'd suggest that football's declining participation rates — whatever the actual numbers may be — are linked as much or more to "changing attitudes of young people" as much as overprotective moms steering their sons to less dangerous activities.

I don't know that a whole lot of young men with the prized combination of size and ability to receive a scholarship at the I-A, I-AA or even DII level are the ones choosing not to play football. I've read or heard nothing that indicates the available talent pool is shrinking even for those college programs closer to the bottom rung than the top.

IMO, where the numbers have been impacted is we tend to see less of those 140-pound offensive lineman or 5-foot-2 wide receivers with little to no chance of playing meaningful snaps but yet wanting to be a part of the team regardless.

I think that's the sort of mindset — and not to argue whether it's right or wrong — increasingly prevalent in young people today.

This is a very good point.

Overall participation rates for football, baseball and many other sports might be down.

However, that's not changing the number of elite-level athletes in those sports because there's *waaaaaay* more specialization in youth athletics now. In fact, the competition at the elite level in virtually every sport is fiercer than ever. If someone is playing a sport in high school, particularly in the large metro areas with larger schools, that person has a commitment level to that sport at a much higher level than prior generations. A D-I prospect athlete that would be captain of ALL of the football, basketball and baseball teams at a high school is increasingly being pushed to pick to focus on just one of them.

I personally don't love it the trend, but it's conflicting as a parent because it's an arms race in a lot of ways. I see it with my own kids. My daughter has been very good at pretty much every sport that she's tried and is particularly talented in swimming (top 20 in the State of Illinois for her age in multiple events). She's good enough where thinking about being a D-I swimmer is a legit possibility (although I emphasize that it's not a goal because so many factors go into that happening). However, if she really wants to go for that, it will almost certainly mean dropping basketball, volleyball and track as her other sports in order to have time for actual school and any semblance of a social life. Heck, being able to do anything other activity (whether athletic or non-athletic) while being in a high level swimming club is tough.

Similarly, my son's middle school (not high school) basketball team is entirely made up of players that have been playing on travel club basketball teams for their entire childhoods and this is the norm for our area. That's middle school! My training to be a middle school and high school basketball player was a lot of pickup games on the playground - I wasn't on any actual organized team until I *got* to middle school. It will definitely be a requirement to have been on a travel baseball team for many years in order to make the high school baseball team (and that's being in Illinois where you can't play outside for half of the year - I can't imagine what it's like in the South, Texas or California where it's a year-round sport with even more players).

The point is that even when overall participation rates in a lot of sports might be superficially down, that's not accounting for the fact that the ones that *do* participate are generally much more committed. There aren't a lot of "halfway in" athletes anymore because, in a lot of cases, it's impossible to be "halfway in" to make the team in the first place. That hypothetical 5' 2" wide receiver is going up against starting cornerbacks, safeties and linebackers that are way more trained than prior generations, so that small wide receiver is increasingly not subjecting himself to that situation.

That's honestly discouraging to me in a lot of ways. There are a lot of benefits to playing sports at just a recreational level for kids and having a wider participation pool. Once again, it's tough as a parent - it's easy to get caught up in the arms race element in a lot of this (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone).

Hmm.

I’d think that getting involved in several sports would be playing the odds more than just getting involved in one sport. If you get involved in several sports, it would increase the odds that a college would consider you to be good enough in one of the sports to give you a scholarship.

(09-22-2022 08:20 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 08:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:59 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  2. Football had a serious PR issue a few years ago, and those middle class moms won’t forget. But those little kids won’t forget that a high school junior from Southlake got $1.4m last year to ride the pine at tOSU. I predict that NIL, combined with all of the intense interest surrounding conference realignment, new CFP structure, basically celebrity status for really good hrs players, and new schools climbing into FBS will help to reverse the trend of declining participation and in fact will help to increase participation in and enthusiasm about CFB for the long term.

I'd suggest that football's declining participation rates — whatever the actual numbers may be — are linked as much or more to "changing attitudes of young people" as much as overprotective moms steering their sons to less dangerous activities.

I don't know that a whole lot of young men with the prized combination of size and ability to receive a scholarship at the I-A, I-AA or even DII level are the ones choosing not to play football. I've read or heard nothing that indicates the available talent pool is shrinking even for those college programs closer to the bottom rung than the top.

IMO, where the numbers have been impacted is we tend to see less of those 140-pound offensive lineman or 5-foot-2 wide receivers with little to no chance of playing meaningful snaps but yet wanting to be a part of the team regardless.

I think that's the sort of mindset — and not to argue whether it's right or wrong — increasingly prevalent in young people today.

This is a very good point.

Overall participation rates for football, baseball and many other sports might be down.

However, that's not changing the number of elite-level athletes in those sports because there's *waaaaaay* more specialization in youth athletics now. In fact, the competition at the elite level in virtually every sport is fiercer than ever. If someone is playing a sport in high school, particularly in the large metro areas with larger schools, that person has a commitment level to that sport at a much higher level than prior generations. A D-I prospect athlete that would be captain of ALL of the football, basketball and baseball teams at a high school is increasingly being pushed to pick to focus on just one of them.

I personally don't love it the trend, but it's conflicting as a parent because it's an arms race in a lot of ways. I see it with my own kids. My daughter has been very good at pretty much every sport that she's tried and is particularly talented in swimming (top 20 in the State of Illinois for her age in multiple events). She's good enough where thinking about being a D-I swimmer is a legit possibility (although I emphasize that it's not a goal because so many factors go into that happening). However, if she really wants to go for that, it will almost certainly mean dropping basketball, volleyball and track as her other sports in order to have time for actual school and any semblance of a social life. Heck, being able to do anything other activity (whether athletic or non-athletic) while being in a high level swimming club is tough.

Similarly, my son's middle school (not high school) basketball team is entirely made up of players that have been playing on travel club basketball teams for their entire childhoods and this is the norm for our area. That's middle school! My training to be a middle school and high school basketball player was a lot of pickup games on the playground - I wasn't on any actual organized team until I *got* to middle school. It will definitely be a requirement to have been on a travel baseball team for many years in order to make the high school baseball team (and that's being in Illinois where you can't play outside for half of the year - I can't imagine what it's like in the South, Texas or California where it's a year-round sport with even more players).

The point is that even when overall participation rates in a lot of sports might be superficially down, that's not accounting for the fact that the ones that *do* participate are generally much more committed. There aren't a lot of "halfway in" athletes anymore because, in a lot of cases, it's impossible to be "halfway in" to make the team in the first place. That hypothetical 5' 2" wide receiver is going up against starting cornerbacks, safeties and linebackers that are way more trained than prior generations, so that small wide receiver is increasingly not subjecting himself to that situation.

That's honestly discouraging to me in a lot of ways. There are a lot of benefits to playing sports at just a recreational level for kids and having a wider participation pool. Once again, it's tough as a parent - it's easy to get caught up in the arms race element in a lot of this (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone).

Hmm.

I’d think that getting involved in several sports would be playing the odds more than just getting involved in one sport. If you get involved in several sports, it would increase the odds that a college would consider you to be good enough in one of the sports to give you a scholarship.

The thing is that at least at the D-I scholarship level, being "good" isn't good enough. It's not about being a well-rounded athlete that can play multiple sports, but whether you are truly *elite* in one specific sport to get a scholarship. There are some that are such other-worldly athletes that they can actually can be truly elite in multiple sports in today's age, such as Kyler Murray with football and baseball. Most aren't like that, though. Anyone that has D-I athlete talent is likely going to be "very good" at multiple sports, but the only thing that matters for scholarship purposes is if an athlete is *elite* in one single sport.

Hence, when it becomes clear that a top-level athlete is an "excellent high school-level varsity captain all-region player" in Sport A but "super elite nationally-ranked D-I scholarship-level athlete" in Sport B, they're going to put all of their time and energy in Sport B today and that increasingly requires dropping Sport A.

Just think about it in roster terms: it's a zero-sum game. When there are only 5 scholarships provided per year by a school for a team, what matters for that scholarship is being top 5 for that single sport as opposed to being top 6 in three different sports. I'm not saying that's healthy or the right thing, but that's how it works.

This goes a long way toward explaining why the Big Ten Presidents want to have Stanford and Cal. They already have Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois.

Only Harvard, MIT and SEC bound Texas (whom they tried to get back in 2011) would be outside the Big Ten.

(09-22-2022 03:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

This goes a long way toward explaining why the Big Ten Presidents want to have Stanford and Cal. They already have Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois.

Only Harvard, MIT and SEC bound Texas (whom they tried to get back in 2011) would be outside the Big Ten.

Maybe so, but I'm thinking that Cal (or at least their regents, etc) wouldn't be so up in arms, if they thought an invite was forthcoming...

(09-22-2022 03:06 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

This goes a long way toward explaining why the Big Ten Presidents want to have Stanford and Cal. They already have Michigan, Wisconsin and Illinois.

Only Harvard, MIT and SEC bound Texas (whom they tried to get back in 2011) would be outside the Big Ten.

interesting if the B1G takes Cal and Stanford but not Oregon and Washington

(09-21-2022 08:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 07:54 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 05:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 05:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 03:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  1. I didn't list ESPN/Disney execs as visionaries, and I damn sure didn't list AD's and commissioners. They are reactive, as are execs, to those higher up the ladder in business and government who follow cultural trends and lend advice down the chain of command.

2. You don't share my Deep South Jimmy Carter limitation's view? Where did you get that crap? Where did I ever say we couldn't do something. Frank is the one always saying what we can't do. I said exactly the opposite. I said consensus isn't stopped by rules, and that necessity ignores them. You need to read my final paragraph again! I've been practicing the "Art of the Deal" for well over half my life. Can't is the one we fire! Adapt, Innovate, and Overcome! It works well for Marines and it works well in business! Texans didn't corner the market on can do!

3. "College football will be popular for a long time." Your analysis misses the reality. The problem is the declining number of participants in football. Cost to parents for equipment, especially poor parents, at the peewee, Jr. High, and High School level hurts (where it isn't just provided), injuries discourage middle class mom support, and the computer game culture has cut into it quite a bit.

If you are talking just the SW and SE we do have solid participation at those levels and local culture embraces and encourages play. That's true in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and parts of Southern California. It's clearly dying everywhere else and Millennials and those following don't play, don't watch, and don't care. This is why 2036 is so key. In 2036 the oldest Boomers are 90, those from '56 will be 80 and the youngest Boomers ('62) will be 74. X'ers don't have the income or numbers to keep viewership up and scholarships funded as well as Boomers and when they pass Bullet, football will be recognized for what it is already, a regional sport. That's why 22 of the last 25 champions are from the Deep South or Southwest. It's not an accident.

And strikes didn't kill baseball and boxing. Lack of participation did! Kids still play Little League, much fewer of them play in their teens and much of that is niche travel ball. Expense killed it as well. Bats, balls, gloves, and mitts, and catching equipment is costly. I know because I once donated a lot of it locally. Football for kids ain't cheap and mom's no longer support it. That means a short shelf life.

Strikes did cripple pro baseball. Football and basketball learned the lesson.
Boxing was all the stupid split titles. You didn't know the stars anymore as there were 4 or 5 champs in every division. Made money for the promoters who didn't have the single champ, but hurt the sport. MMA is proof boxing could still be popular. Its not like there are peewee MMA leagues.

My grandfather flew to the fights. Nothing has changed Bullet. It's poor kids with few options getting their brains beat out hoping it will be their chance out of a bad life. It works out for half a dozen or so a decade. Gambling and dives were part of it. I'd tout Olympic Boxing, but the outcomes were rigged. People got turned off, but you know what, they should have been sickened years before. I will say it was the closest thing in my lifetime to real gladiators killing for the amusement of the mob. I feel the same way about MMA. I'm all about teaching the troops hand to hand, but if you have to use it, it had better be for keeps. Pummeling somebody for entertainment is perverse, IMO.

I like boxing. My Father was a golden gloves boxer. But I don't like MMA. Its like street fighting with no moral code. When I was a kid and kids fought, there was a code. You didn't kick, elbow, knee. You didn't strangle the other guy. You didn't continue to pummel them once they were down. You fought fairly.

I had boxing lessons as a kid. If handled by rules it was okay. Street fighting never had rules, except one. You had better win. And the corollary, little kids have weapons.

When I was in school in the 60s and 70s, the kids would not use a weapon and wouldn't gang up on someone else. And one of my JHSs was rated in the 10 most dangerous schools in the country (I always felt we were overrated).

(09-22-2022 08:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:59 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  2. Football had a serious PR issue a few years ago, and those middle class moms won’t forget. But those little kids won’t forget that a high school junior from Southlake got $1.4m last year to ride the pine at tOSU. I predict that NIL, combined with all of the intense interest surrounding conference realignment, new CFP structure, basically celebrity status for really good hrs players, and new schools climbing into FBS will help to reverse the trend of declining participation and in fact will help to increase participation in and enthusiasm about CFB for the long term.

I'd suggest that football's declining participation rates — whatever the actual numbers may be — are linked as much or more to "changing attitudes of young people" as much as overprotective moms steering their sons to less dangerous activities.

I don't know that a whole lot of young men with the prized combination of size and ability to receive a scholarship at the I-A, I-AA or even DII level are the ones choosing not to play football. I've read or heard nothing that indicates the available talent pool is shrinking even for those college programs closer to the bottom rung than the top.

IMO, where the numbers have been impacted is we tend to see less of those 140-pound offensive lineman or 5-foot-2 wide receivers with little to no chance of playing meaningful snaps but yet wanting to be a part of the team regardless.

I think that's the sort of mindset — and not to argue whether it's right or wrong — increasingly prevalent in young people today.

This is a very good point.

Overall participation rates for football, baseball and many other sports might be down.

However, that's not changing the number of elite-level athletes in those sports because there's *waaaaaay* more specialization in youth athletics now. In fact, the competition at the elite level in virtually every sport is fiercer than ever. If someone is playing a sport in high school, particularly in the large metro areas with larger schools, that person has a commitment level to that sport at a much higher level than prior generations. A D-I prospect athlete that would be captain of ALL of the football, basketball and baseball teams at a high school is increasingly being pushed to pick to focus on just one of them.

I personally don't love the trend, but it's conflicting as a parent because it's an arms race in a lot of ways. I see it with my own kids. My daughter has been very good at pretty much every sport that she's tried and is particularly talented in swimming (top 20 in the State of Illinois for her age in multiple events). She's good enough where thinking about being a D-I swimmer is a legit possibility (although I emphasize that it's not a goal because so many factors go into that happening). However, if she really wants to go for that, it will almost certainly mean dropping basketball, volleyball and track as her other sports in order to have time for actual school and any semblance of a social life. Heck, being able to do anything other activity (whether athletic or non-athletic) while being in a high level swimming club is tough.

Similarly, my son's middle school (not high school) basketball team is entirely made up of players that have been playing on travel club basketball teams for their entire childhoods and this is the norm for our area. That's middle school! My training to be a middle school and high school basketball player was a lot of pickup games on the playground - I wasn't on any actual organized team until I *got* to middle school (and I didn't grow up in some small town with no hoops talent - we produced a lot of NBA and college basketball players in South Suburban Chicago, including Dwyane Wade). It will definitely be a requirement to have been on a travel baseball team for many years in order to make the high school baseball team (and that's being in Illinois where you can't play outside for half of the year - I can't imagine what it's like in the South, Texas or California where it's a year-round sport with even more players).

The point is that even when overall participation rates in a lot of sports might be superficially down, that's not accounting for the fact that the ones that *do* participate are generally much more committed. There aren't a lot of "halfway in" athletes anymore because, in a lot of cases, it's impossible to be "halfway in" to make the team in the first place. That hypothetical 5' 2" wide receiver is going up against starting cornerbacks, safeties and linebackers that are way more trained than prior generations, so that small wide receiver is increasingly not subjecting himself to that situation.

That's honestly discouraging to me in a lot of ways. There are a lot of benefits to playing sports at just a recreational level for kids and having a wider participation pool. Once again, it's tough as a parent - it's easy to get caught up in the arms race element in a lot of this (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone).

Definitely true. What you described are two reasons participation rates are down. First, kids tend to play only one sport except for the truly elite who may play two. And then the "entry" level is so high. You can't just walk in with recreational experience and expect to make the team.

Soccer, volleyball, baseball and basketball all have the travel leagues. Swimming has year-round training. Tennis has circuits. And kids start early. Football has things, but not quite as much as those other sports.

(09-22-2022 05:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-22-2022 08:10 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:59 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  2. Football had a serious PR issue a few years ago, and those middle class moms won’t forget. But those little kids won’t forget that a high school junior from Southlake got $1.4m last year to ride the pine at tOSU. I predict that NIL, combined with all of the intense interest surrounding conference realignment, new CFP structure, basically celebrity status for really good hrs players, and new schools climbing into FBS will help to reverse the trend of declining participation and in fact will help to increase participation in and enthusiasm about CFB for the long term.

I'd suggest that football's declining participation rates — whatever the actual numbers may be — are linked as much or more to "changing attitudes of young people" as much as overprotective moms steering their sons to less dangerous activities.

I don't know that a whole lot of young men with the prized combination of size and ability to receive a scholarship at the I-A, I-AA or even DII level are the ones choosing not to play football. I've read or heard nothing that indicates the available talent pool is shrinking even for those college programs closer to the bottom rung than the top.

IMO, where the numbers have been impacted is we tend to see less of those 140-pound offensive lineman or 5-foot-2 wide receivers with little to no chance of playing meaningful snaps but yet wanting to be a part of the team regardless.

I think that's the sort of mindset — and not to argue whether it's right or wrong — increasingly prevalent in young people today.

This is a very good point.

Overall participation rates for football, baseball and many other sports might be down.

However, that's not changing the number of elite-level athletes in those sports because there's *waaaaaay* more specialization in youth athletics now. In fact, the competition at the elite level in virtually every sport is fiercer than ever. If someone is playing a sport in high school, particularly in the large metro areas with larger schools, that person has a commitment level to that sport at a much higher level than prior generations. A D-I prospect athlete that would be captain of ALL of the football, basketball and baseball teams at a high school is increasingly being pushed to pick to focus on just one of them.

I personally don't love the trend, but it's conflicting as a parent because it's an arms race in a lot of ways. I see it with my own kids. My daughter has been very good at pretty much every sport that she's tried and is particularly talented in swimming (top 20 in the State of Illinois for her age in multiple events). She's good enough where thinking about being a D-I swimmer is a legit possibility (although I emphasize that it's not a goal because so many factors go into that happening). However, if she really wants to go for that, it will almost certainly mean dropping basketball, volleyball and track as her other sports in order to have time for actual school and any semblance of a social life. Heck, being able to do anything other activity (whether athletic or non-athletic) while being in a high level swimming club is tough.

Similarly, my son's middle school (not high school) basketball team is entirely made up of players that have been playing on travel club basketball teams for their entire childhoods and this is the norm for our area. That's middle school! My training to be a middle school and high school basketball player was a lot of pickup games on the playground - I wasn't on any actual organized team until I *got* to middle school (and I didn't grow up in some small town with no hoops talent - we produced a lot of NBA and college basketball players in South Suburban Chicago, including Dwyane Wade). It will definitely be a requirement to have been on a travel baseball team for many years in order to make the high school baseball team (and that's being in Illinois where you can't play outside for half of the year - I can't imagine what it's like in the South, Texas or California where it's a year-round sport with even more players).

The point is that even when overall participation rates in a lot of sports might be superficially down, that's not accounting for the fact that the ones that *do* participate are generally much more committed. There aren't a lot of "halfway in" athletes anymore because, in a lot of cases, it's impossible to be "halfway in" to make the team in the first place. That hypothetical 5' 2" wide receiver is going up against starting cornerbacks, safeties and linebackers that are way more trained than prior generations, so that small wide receiver is increasingly not subjecting himself to that situation.

That's honestly discouraging to me in a lot of ways. There are a lot of benefits to playing sports at just a recreational level for kids and having a wider participation pool. Once again, it's tough as a parent - it's easy to get caught up in the arms race element in a lot of this (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone).

Definitely true. What you described are two reasons participation rates are down. First, kids tend to play only one sport except for the truly elite who may play two. And then the "entry" level is so high. You can't just walk in with recreational experience and expect to make the team.

Soccer, volleyball, baseball and basketball all have the travel leagues. Swimming has year-round training. Tennis has circuits. And kids start early. Football has things, but not quite as much as those other sports.

Football has pee wee leagues. And I'm pretty sure back in Texas those pee wee leagues have travel teams.

More and more areas of life are moving from a flat distribution (majority of kids or at least boys play some youth sports semi-casually) to a pareto distribution (some kids devote most of their leisure time and a good chunk of their parents' time to a single sport with fanatical dedication, while most kids hang around on the couch getting pudgy)

(09-21-2022 06:59 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(09-21-2022 06:38 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  2. Football had a serious PR issue a few years ago, and those middle class moms won’t forget. But those little kids won’t forget that a high school junior from Southlake got $1.4m last year to ride the pine at tOSU. I predict that NIL, combined with all of the intense interest surrounding conference realignment, new CFP structure, basically celebrity status for really good hrs players, and new schools climbing into FBS will help to reverse the trend of declining participation and in fact will help to increase participation in and enthusiasm about CFB for the long term.

I'd suggest that football's declining participation rates — whatever the actual numbers may be — are linked as much or more to "changing attitudes of young people" as much as overprotective moms steering their sons to less dangerous activities.

I don't know that a whole lot of young men with the prized combination of size and ability to receive a scholarship at the I-A, I-AA or even DII level are the ones choosing not to play football. I've read or heard nothing that indicates the available talent pool is shrinking even for those college programs closer to the bottom rung than the top.

IMO, where the numbers have been impacted is we tend to see less of those 140-pound offensive lineman or 5-foot-2 wide receivers with little to no chance of playing meaningful snaps but yet wanting to be a part of the team regardless.

I think that's the sort of mindset — and not to argue whether it's right or wrong — increasingly prevalent in young people today.

Can you really say the moms are "overprotective"?

If your son wanted to risk lifelong brain injury for a less than 1% chance he'd even get a scholarship to a Division II school, would you be happy?

Yeah, football is fun to watch- as long as it's complete strangers who are playing the game rather than your son.

I still think it's Amazon, a Seattle based company, looking at a Friday Night exclusive prime time game, which would pay for Oregon and a school that just happens to be in Seattle called the University of Washington, which would be paid for by such a $200M package. If $250M that would pay for Stanford too. Two schools would add 12 games to the B1G inventory, three schools (plus Stanford) would add 18 games including one every other year against Notre Dame. Every with just two schools the Friday Night games in November can mostly be confined to the West Coast, reducing the weather impact.

But no, I mostly see Oregon and Washington as the targets, with Stanford on the bench until Notre Dame comes around. Gavin Newsom made dealing with a public school in California rather difficult, so I think Cal is not going to be looked at until at least 2027 when Newsom is definitely no longer governor.