(04-15-2019 12:01 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Can't see Dodd's idea happening. The conferences broke from the CFA over this very issue. And as many point out, the SEC and B1G, who are by far the biggest media values, and whose content dwarfs the rest, have zero incentive to join a larger group. Further why would the power schools want to dilute their value with the likes of San Jose State, Hawaii, New Mexico, Fresno State, Nevada, Wyoming, Tulane, Tulsa, Temple, UConn, and East Carolina, let alone a few more of Dodd's "top 100".

Note, Dodd probably just threw out a round number. After you get past BYU and Army plus Air Force getting a coattail ride on the other academies, there is nothing left out there, and you have probably added a dozen free loaders from the AAC and MWC already anyway.

Then there is the question of viewer fatigue. The NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL all stabilized at that 30-32 threshold. This is not a coincidence, it is a market limit for fan attention and content absorption. And these leagues do their level best to spread the content across the entire viewing week to maximize that interest and that attention. College Football, despite often State identity with flagships, cannot be much larger, perhaps 40 schools. The SEC and B1G are at 28 now, just below that 30-32 pro limit already. Content value is diminishes rapidly beyond that. I put it at 40 partly due to the geographic limit of the B1G and SEC, as 35-40% of the US population lies outside their reach, 2/3rds of that in the West (P12 plus part of B12 territory), plus some high value ACC schools.

Dodd also looks at the talent pool today and without a longer view of the shrinking HS participation and demographic shifts. I see a different world with a looming game of musical chairs likely to shrink the majors in Football from 65 to 50ish in the coming decades. A bloated 100 is going the wrong direction for value.

Hawaii does have vaule for the PAC 12.
New Mexico, Wyoming, UNR and UConn./UMass. are flagship state schools just like Buffalo.
Tulane and Rice are AAU schools.
Fresno State, Temple and ECU are stronger image for FBS. Temple's gane against Notre Dame on ABC was a strong ratings for a G5 school.

It would be hard to pick the 100 schools. Then you do get a law suit from the other 30, FCS, D2 and D1 schools who are thinking about adding football for FBS. Can a natural tv contract for the best of the rest of G5, FCS and D2 schools be better? Just drop the rejects, and get the top 100 schools from all 50 states could work.

(04-16-2019 11:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-16-2019 09:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 09:54 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 08:05 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 03:51 PM)miko33 Wrote:  IDK, I think the fans could adapt to seeing their college FB team actually have a losing season if they recognize the paradigm shift. All you have to do is make the stakes "higher" via a full playoff coupled with regular season games that actually mean something. Hell even in today's games half the P5 have zero business being on the same field as the 100 mil plus annual budget schools. If your desire is to see 25% - 50% of your school play against obviously inferior competition in order to get cheap wins - then today's game needs zero changes. It's a **** product, but that's OK...rah rah and all of that bull**** school spirit that most people don't give a **** about anymore anyways. You have people clinging desperately to older, simpler times when the veneer was still in place and the traditions and school pride meant something.

IMHO, rip the bandaid off and come to the realization that CFB at the P5 and G5 level is a pro sport. A pro sport that is grossly tilted in one direction to make it unwatchable (IMHO), but still a pro sport. Honestly, all of the schools running these persistent annual deficits should "Go Galt". It won't happen, so enjoy the ****** product while you can until the declining FB participation rates in the HS and lower levels screw up the product worse than it already is.

IMO, your POV will never be one from which changes happen, because by your own admission, you don't like college football, you think it's a "crap product".

But college football is supported by those who love the sport and can't wait for the next season to roll around. These people are numerous, which is why the TV networks and advertisers shower the sport with money, and why hundreds of thousands of fans fill the stands every Saturday in the Fall.

College football is either the oldest or second-oldest major sport, it has clearly been a major sport longer than any sport other than major league baseball. It has thrived over many decades because huge numbers of people do take pride in their school and support its football team.

Individual schools can put out a very solid product; however, on balance the whole product is ****. You have basically 30 to 40 schools that will dominate year over year based on their ability to spend dollars athletically at much higher rates than the rest of the schools. There is zero remedy for this to make the product better for everyone. The system is designed to reward at most 30 schools. The rest are token game pieces in order "keep it real"...

Even at the high school level, the public schools at least compete on a more level playing field - for the most part at least. A district that is poor can still compete for solid high school coaching talent because football coaching salaries are nowhere close to being out of control like in college football. On average the Catholic schools will dominate for the most part; however, it's not nearly as hopeless for high school programs competing compared to college football.

Regarding all those 100K plus sold out stadiums - again it's only for about 30 to 40 schools. The rest of the schools? Not so much...

Why is college football so popular? Because people tune in to watch - the 30 to 40 schools that can spend. The rest of the schools? Not so much...

See the theme here? It's a disjointed market. As long as the fans of the mid-card journeymen type schools continue to consume the product - nothing changes. If that's what you like - enjoy it. But I see the top level of college football very much like MLB. The team I used to root for - the Pirates - are never going to do **** in the post season because they are a small market team. They just can't compete year over year. I'm not interested in seeing "David vs Goliath" on a regular basis. I don't want to start the season off every year hoping that my team was able to catch lightning in a bottle...

Screw that. Either figure out a way to build real parity into the game or subdivide it further so that likes are with likes. The current system sucks - unless you are content to see big schools beat the snot out of small schools for 25% of the season and then follow that up with the next 25% - 50% of the games against low level conference partners whose primary goal in today's world is to be the meek lamb to be sacrificed on the altar of Big Time College Football. Yep, truly a garbage product.

Truth is, never have schools like my USF or your Memphis, latecomers to the game, have had better opportunities to build their program than now. TODAY is easily the best time ever to be a G5-level football school.

Compared to the pre-BCS era, there is FAR more money, TV coverage, and bowl access for G5 type schools.

And no, it's NOT the fans of USF and Memphis that keep the college football train rolling. We are basically irrelevant to it. It's the fans who tune in to see Ohio State vs Michigan, Alabama vs Auburn. So nothing we do matters. USF and Memphis fans could stop watching en masse and nobody would notice.

Again, you're not going to prevail because you dislike college football. Most people who follow it, like it.

My feeling is the current key to college football are the ones that attract 100K fans on a Saturday---like Texas/Ohio St/Bama/Michigan etc However, these are also the programs that are very close to being capped out. In fact, most P5 programs have had tremendous money and exposure for a very long time. My feeling is that after years of extra TV/BCS/CFP money, high level exposure, and inclusion in the key bowls/playoff system---the vast majority of P5 programs are fairly close to their ceiling. Current attendance numbers seem to generally echo that theory.

Thus, it's my feeling that the G5 is where virtually all the significant potential future growth for college sports exists. Thats where the generally younger, less developed college programs with lots of room to grow are located. Thats yet another reason I doubt the networks would be all that keen on a 32 or 64 team FBS P5 break away. At the very least, the networks would likely want to see most of the bigger budget G5 programs included as those are the schools with the most near term growth potential.

IMO, the main reason why A5 aren't going to break away from the G5, or the top 100 (whoever they are) from the bottom 30 (whoever they are), is because the A5 really do like having the G5 around. They like having them to schedule home games against, winning those games is job security for coaches, ADs, etc. Plus, the G5 serves as an excellent farm system for coaches, and now with the new transfer rules, possibly players.

Really, the G5 are a bargain for the A5. They get 60+ teams to do this and for very little money. Most of the money generated, such as the conference media deals, is not shared with the G5 at all, and of the relatively small money that is, the G5 share of the CFP deal and of bowl games is very small relative to what the A5 get. The main form of sharing is when an A5 pays a G5 a million dollars to visit, but the A5 will make several million from its fans for that game.

And on the expenses side, the G5 schools pay for the privilege of serving as the FBS second team, they eagerly sock their students with high fees and transfer money from the academic 'side' and otherwise incur structural athletic deficits to gamely stay in the ball game.

The only reason the A5 would have for jettisoning the G5 is if there was a control issue, as there seemed to be 6-7 years ago. The A5 could not live with the G5 being able to block A5 ideas in NCAA councils and the like. But, that problem was solved by the "Autonomy" designation.

(04-16-2019 12:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-15-2019 12:01 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Can't see Dodd's idea happening. The conferences broke from the CFA over this very issue. And as many point out, the SEC and B1G, who are by far the biggest media values, and whose content dwarfs the rest, have zero incentive to join a larger group. Further why would the power schools want to dilute their value with the likes of San Jose State, Hawaii, New Mexico, Fresno State, Nevada, Wyoming, Tulane, Tulsa, Temple, UConn, and East Carolina, let alone a few more of Dodd's "top 100".

Note, Dodd probably just threw out a round number. After you get past BYU and Army plus Air Force getting a coattail ride on the other academies, there is nothing left out there, and you have probably added a dozen free loaders from the AAC and MWC already anyway.

Then there is the question of viewer fatigue. The NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL all stabilized at that 30-32 threshold. This is not a coincidence, it is a market limit for fan attention and content absorption. And these leagues do their level best to spread the content across the entire viewing week to maximize that interest and that attention. College Football, despite often State identity with flagships, cannot be much larger, perhaps 40 schools. The SEC and B1G are at 28 now, just below that 30-32 pro limit already. Content value is diminishes rapidly beyond that. I put it at 40 partly due to the geographic limit of the B1G and SEC, as 35-40% of the US population lies outside their reach, 2/3rds of that in the West (P12 plus part of B12 territory), plus some high value ACC schools.

Dodd also looks at the talent pool today and without a longer view of the shrinking HS participation and demographic shifts. I see a different world with a looming game of musical chairs likely to shrink the majors in Football from 65 to 50ish in the coming decades. A bloated 100 is going the wrong direction for value.

Hawaii does have vaule for the PAC 12.
New Mexico, Wyoming, UNR and UConn./UMass. are flagship state schools just like Buffalo.
Tulane and Rice are AAU schools.
Fresno State, Temple and ECU are stronger image for FBS. Temple's gane against Notre Dame on ABC was a strong ratings for a G5 school.

It would be hard to pick the 100 schools. Then you do get a law suit from the other 30, FCS, D2 and D1 schools who are thinking about adding football for FBS. Can a natural tv contract for the best of the rest of G5, FCS and D2 schools be better? Just drop the rejects, and get the top 100 schools from all 50 states could work.

That game was crazy

I really think something like this could easily happen in 2025 but not as extreme a break.

Say Texas pulls a ND type deal with the ACC and say OU, KU, OSU, TTU go 2&2 to the BIG10 and SEC.

That leaves the ACC, BIG, and SEC at 16 and the PAC at 12 and the BIG 12 at 5. So 65 teams but we’re missing some G5 teams that provide value.

I really think at that point the Big 12 would try to get to 16 because that would maximize heir TV deal and give off the impression of a power conference more than just getting to 10. It would also completely eliminate any talk of leagues like the AAC/MWC being close to them if they took all of their best teams.

So give them UCF, USF, Cincy, UConn, Temple, Memphis, Houston, BYU, Boise, Navy, Army. In football and/or basketball the majority of people know these brands and none of them wouldn’t be good enough for a broken down B12.

Gets the Big 12 to 16 and does it really leave out any must have G5’s or big markets? I do think there’s a couple schools in the MWC that’d have value but that’d move the # to 76 and would make the G5 pretty much completely irrelevant, especially if by the off chance the PAC somehow went to 16 and we just had 5 conferences of 16.

Not saying this would happen or even the exact teams are correct but I feel as though the G5 gets most of its value from these schools and they’re likely to get plucked immediately if any type of realignment happens.

(04-12-2019 01:16 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 12:32 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  BYU
Army
NMSU
App State
Troy
Southern Miss
Marshall
North Texas
UTEP
Northern Illinois
Probably another MAC member, I'm sure I'm leaving someone out

One of Toledo, Western Michigan, or Buffalo.

Toledo and Western Michigan easily over UTEP and NMSU. Not even a question

Conferences and individual schools already control their own TV rights. There is no need to break away for that reason. The major revenue source controlled by the NCAA is the NCAA Basketball Tournament. Under the various funds paid out of the rights fees for that event, the P5 probably picks up around 40% of the payments. Leaving the NCAA and creating a replacement national championship basketball tournament might allow the P5 to capture a greater percentage of the tournament revenues, but with a risk that the event won't generate as much as the NCAA Tournament does today.

The problem is that the NCAA could boot the schools out of the org. Then, all of the other sports could be in trouble. You could see schools like Alaska twins, the hockey schools, Colorado College, Dallas Baptist, the top FCS schools, Bellarmine, Johns Hopkins, Big East, Gonzaga, and some others. Then we could see D2 schools with football as part of the football angle for control of the P5. Mankato State and Minn.-Duluth could do spring ball with Minnesota.

I could see schools like Eastern and Central Washington help out as well. As it is, the P5 schools are tied to FCS, G5, D2 and D3 that play other sports.

(04-17-2019 10:19 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 01:16 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 12:32 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  BYU
Army
NMSU
App State
Troy
Southern Miss
Marshall
North Texas
UTEP
Northern Illinois
Probably another MAC member, I'm sure I'm leaving someone out

One of Toledo, Western Michigan, or Buffalo.

Toledo and Western Michigan easily over UTEP and NMSU. Not even a question

Impressive that you've managed a negative rep without being banned.

Why would the B1G and SEC surrender their financial advantage to elevate others?

(04-17-2019 05:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Why would the B1G and SEC surrender their financial advantage to elevate others?

Well, adding teams by getting them up there could help the ratings. G5 winning schools get better ratings than a loser program. Miami Florida was one of the lower ratings under 500K viewership at times. North Dakota State and UTSA got better ratings when they played P5 schools.

(04-17-2019 06:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Why would the B1G and SEC surrender their financial advantage to elevate others?

Well, adding teams by getting them up there could help the ratings. G5 winning schools get better ratings than a loser program. Miami Florida was one of the lower ratings under 500K viewership at times. North Dakota State and UTSA got better ratings when they played P5 schools.

Cmon man. We've talked about this before......

Which P5s did UTSA and NDSU play in the games you're referring to? Cuz its safe to say their fans watching outnumbered UTSAs and NDSUs by a healthy margin and we all know Miami doesn't have that many fans and you probably cherry picked their FCS game at that and at some point in the future will probably throw out that "random FCS team" got almost 500k viewers playing against the U and should move to FBS and take some Sun Belt teams spot.

(04-17-2019 04:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 10:19 AM)Fthechips Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 01:16 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(04-12-2019 12:32 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  BYU
Army
NMSU
App State
Troy
Southern Miss
Marshall
North Texas
UTEP
Northern Illinois
Probably another MAC member, I'm sure I'm leaving someone out

One of Toledo, Western Michigan, or Buffalo.

Toledo and Western Michigan easily over UTEP and NMSU. Not even a question

Impressive that you've managed a negative rep without being banned.

Lmao. show me some love

(04-17-2019 08:40 PM)Bobcat2013 Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 06:14 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 05:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Why would the B1G and SEC surrender their financial advantage to elevate others?

Well, adding teams by getting them up there could help the ratings. G5 winning schools get better ratings than a loser program. Miami Florida was one of the lower ratings under 500K viewership at times. North Dakota State and UTSA got better ratings when they played P5 schools.

Cmon man. We've talked about this before......

Which P5s did UTSA and NDSU play in the games you're referring to? Cuz its safe to say their fans watching outnumbered UTSAs and NDSUs by a healthy margin and we all know Miami doesn't have that many fans and you probably cherry picked their FCS game at that and at some point in the future will probably throw out that "random FCS team" got almost 500k viewers playing against the U and should move to FBS and take some Sun Belt teams spot.

UTSA hosted Oklahoma State was their largest close to 1 million.
North Dakota State beaten Kansas State and Iowa were a little over 1 million.

(04-17-2019 05:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Why would the B1G and SEC surrender their financial advantage to elevate others?

Indeed...

Best thing that could ever happen to CFB is for the NFL - or some other powerful group - develop a legitimate D League professional organization where those kids who are highly talented and who don't give a **** about a college education can ply their craft and 1) get paid for it and 2) not have to deal with academics.