Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
attendance by conference
Author Message
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,290
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 245
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #61
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 11:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 11:13 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2020 07:09 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  
(01-06-2020 04:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, it's the most relevant thing. It's a joke to have fully-funded teams playing before nobody, that means the fan base of the school doesn't care so why should anyone else?

If you have no attendance, you are just spending money from somewhere to field an artificial team for who knows why? you might as well just conduct the games on an empty studio lot. Or better yet, to save anyone from getting hurt and on scholarships, just use CGI to simulate a game for XBox or streaming.

I mean, without attendance, what on earth is the point?

There's more than one way to gauge program interest besides the nebulous concept of NCAA-recorded attendance. TV ratings, donations, booster-club memberships. I'm not going to insult you by saying that a school with attendance averages above 100,000 is fundamentally no different than one with averages below 20,000, but that's an effect, not a cause, of a program's strength, and not the primary one.

Ultimately, fans don't win games, they don't boost a school's academic credentials, and their attendance or lack thereof alone won't cause a program to fall below standard. If an FBS program is struggling, it won't *just* be because they don't meet an attendance benchmark. They'll have other issues more pressing, even if it's not as publicly evident.

Attendance is a 'nebulous' concept, but let's face it - to the extent that it is, it is because universities have made it nebulous by coming up with clever ways to cook their books so as to present a better image of the program and to stay technically in compliance with FBS requirements. It doesn't have to be that way, if everyone is honest and third-party auditors tally the numbers.

As for other ways to measure a program, you mentioned TV ratings, donations, and booster members, I seriously doubt that the bottom-level scroungers do well on any of them either, do you? And that's even if we grant their validity.

As for your second statement, true, fans don't win games, but what does winning games matter if it happens before no attendees? What's the point of playing the games? At that point the football team's existence is basically self-referential. Having the team is an end in itself, an absurd situation. Again, might as well play them on an ESPN studio lot with canned applause, or else convert the real football team to an E-team for Playstation 5 or whatever.

What other valid standard for FBS should there be other than real attendance? I just don't see how a program whose attendance overlaps with FCS attendance can claim to be in the same level as ones that average 2x, 3x, 4x the attendance.

Nebulous indeed. How does USF post over 30K in attendance and have less than 3.2M in ticket sales? Our stadium didn't even hold 20K in that year and we had greater ticket revenue and over 3 times the amount of donations as the Bulls. If USF hadn't vaulted into the BE and gotten the TV revenues and later the exit fees they'd be middling to bottom in G5 resources. Your team should be in FCS. The only support evident is coming from TV networks.

You make a good point about ticket sales - you can sell a lot of tickets if you price them very low, effectively subsidizing the sale from other money, that's another way to cook the books.

As for ODU vs USF, are you including sales of all athletic tickets or just football? I'm sure ODU sells a lot more basketball tickets but that's not relevant to a discussion of football program status. If you guys did earn more football ticket revenue than USF, well congratulations.

FWIW, I am not exempting USF from my proposal at all. The 20,000 standard should be the same for everyone and books should be uncooked, audited by third parties. If my Bulls can't meet the standard then yes, we should be dropped down too.

That said, USF plays at a stadium owned by another entity, the Tampa Sports Authority, so IIRC, our "butts in seats" numbers are typically more valid than those of schools that own and thus control their stadiums, because the TSA independently counts attendees at USF games and can report those numbers without USF being able to massage them.

Or, you could have teams that suck year after year get forced down to FCS. I would think that would be more important than demoting teams based on attendance.
01-07-2020 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 9,388
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 637
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #62
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 11:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 11:13 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2020 07:09 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  
(01-06-2020 04:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  To me, it's the most relevant thing. It's a joke to have fully-funded teams playing before nobody, that means the fan base of the school doesn't care so why should anyone else?

If you have no attendance, you are just spending money from somewhere to field an artificial team for who knows why? you might as well just conduct the games on an empty studio lot. Or better yet, to save anyone from getting hurt and on scholarships, just use CGI to simulate a game for XBox or streaming.

I mean, without attendance, what on earth is the point?

There's more than one way to gauge program interest besides the nebulous concept of NCAA-recorded attendance. TV ratings, donations, booster-club memberships. I'm not going to insult you by saying that a school with attendance averages above 100,000 is fundamentally no different than one with averages below 20,000, but that's an effect, not a cause, of a program's strength, and not the primary one.

Ultimately, fans don't win games, they don't boost a school's academic credentials, and their attendance or lack thereof alone won't cause a program to fall below standard. If an FBS program is struggling, it won't *just* be because they don't meet an attendance benchmark. They'll have other issues more pressing, even if it's not as publicly evident.

Attendance is a 'nebulous' concept, but let's face it - to the extent that it is, it is because universities have made it nebulous by coming up with clever ways to cook their books so as to present a better image of the program and to stay technically in compliance with FBS requirements. It doesn't have to be that way, if everyone is honest and third-party auditors tally the numbers.

As for other ways to measure a program, you mentioned TV ratings, donations, and booster members, I seriously doubt that the bottom-level scroungers do well on any of them either, do you? And that's even if we grant their validity.

As for your second statement, true, fans don't win games, but what does winning games matter if it happens before no attendees? What's the point of playing the games? At that point the football team's existence is basically self-referential. Having the team is an end in itself, an absurd situation. Again, might as well play them on an ESPN studio lot with canned applause, or else convert the real football team to an E-team for Playstation 5 or whatever.

What other valid standard for FBS should there be other than real attendance? I just don't see how a program whose attendance overlaps with FCS attendance can claim to be in the same level as ones that average 2x, 3x, 4x the attendance.

Nebulous indeed. How does USF post over 30K in attendance and have less than 3.2M in ticket sales? Our stadium didn't even hold 20K in that year and we had greater ticket revenue and over 3 times the amount of donations as the Bulls. If USF hadn't vaulted into the BE and gotten the TV revenues and later the exit fees they'd be middling to bottom in G5 resources. Your team should be in FCS. The only support evident is coming from TV networks.

You make a good point about ticket sales - you can sell a lot of tickets if you price them very low, effectively subsidizing the sale from other money, that's another way to cook the books.

As for ODU vs USF, are you including sales of all athletic tickets or just football? I'm sure ODU sells a lot more basketball tickets but that's not relevant to a discussion of football program status. If you guys did earn more football ticket revenue than USF, well congratulations.

FWIW, I am not exempting USF from my proposal at all. The 20,000 standard should be the same for everyone and books should be uncooked, audited by third parties. If my Bulls can't meet the standard then yes, we should be dropped down too.

That said, USF plays at a stadium owned by another entity, the TSA, so IIRC, our "butts in seats" numbers are typically more valid than those of schools that own and thus control their stadiums, because the TSA counts attendees at USF games and can report those numbers without USF being able to massage them.

I couldn't find data on USF football ticket revenue so it includes all sports. I know what ODU brings in from basketball though and even if 100% of USF's ticket revenue came from football we're still bringing in more per person. Frankly though, I don't care about USF or how they support their programs or how many people attend their games. That's their problem and maybe the AAC's. Not mine or the NCAA's. This conversation is purely for dick measuring on message boards, IMO. As Cyniclone stated there are other measures of support and by many of those measurements USF is not hitting the mark for their station. Do you support the same for Div I basketball? We could force a lot of programs down to Div II or make another subdivision as we have in FB. It would frankly make more sense than the FB proposal because the argument that the number of Div I basketball teams has become unwieldy is a lot stronger than the same argument for FBS football, which as I stated earlier is the only legitimate reason for the NCAA to step in and put these kind of restrictions on membership. Otherwise it's an issue for the school to tackle and of course message board fodder.
01-07-2020 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,067
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 836
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #63
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 11:54 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 11:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 11:13 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-06-2020 07:09 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  There's more than one way to gauge program interest besides the nebulous concept of NCAA-recorded attendance. TV ratings, donations, booster-club memberships. I'm not going to insult you by saying that a school with attendance averages above 100,000 is fundamentally no different than one with averages below 20,000, but that's an effect, not a cause, of a program's strength, and not the primary one.

Ultimately, fans don't win games, they don't boost a school's academic credentials, and their attendance or lack thereof alone won't cause a program to fall below standard. If an FBS program is struggling, it won't *just* be because they don't meet an attendance benchmark. They'll have other issues more pressing, even if it's not as publicly evident.

Attendance is a 'nebulous' concept, but let's face it - to the extent that it is, it is because universities have made it nebulous by coming up with clever ways to cook their books so as to present a better image of the program and to stay technically in compliance with FBS requirements. It doesn't have to be that way, if everyone is honest and third-party auditors tally the numbers.

As for other ways to measure a program, you mentioned TV ratings, donations, and booster members, I seriously doubt that the bottom-level scroungers do well on any of them either, do you? And that's even if we grant their validity.

As for your second statement, true, fans don't win games, but what does winning games matter if it happens before no attendees? What's the point of playing the games? At that point the football team's existence is basically self-referential. Having the team is an end in itself, an absurd situation. Again, might as well play them on an ESPN studio lot with canned applause, or else convert the real football team to an E-team for Playstation 5 or whatever.

What other valid standard for FBS should there be other than real attendance? I just don't see how a program whose attendance overlaps with FCS attendance can claim to be in the same level as ones that average 2x, 3x, 4x the attendance.

Nebulous indeed. How does USF post over 30K in attendance and have less than 3.2M in ticket sales? Our stadium didn't even hold 20K in that year and we had greater ticket revenue and over 3 times the amount of donations as the Bulls. If USF hadn't vaulted into the BE and gotten the TV revenues and later the exit fees they'd be middling to bottom in G5 resources. Your team should be in FCS. The only support evident is coming from TV networks.

You make a good point about ticket sales - you can sell a lot of tickets if you price them very low, effectively subsidizing the sale from other money, that's another way to cook the books.

As for ODU vs USF, are you including sales of all athletic tickets or just football? I'm sure ODU sells a lot more basketball tickets but that's not relevant to a discussion of football program status. If you guys did earn more football ticket revenue than USF, well congratulations.

FWIW, I am not exempting USF from my proposal at all. The 20,000 standard should be the same for everyone and books should be uncooked, audited by third parties. If my Bulls can't meet the standard then yes, we should be dropped down too.

That said, USF plays at a stadium owned by another entity, the TSA, so IIRC, our "butts in seats" numbers are typically more valid than those of schools that own and thus control their stadiums, because the TSA counts attendees at USF games and can report those numbers without USF being able to massage them.

I couldn't find data on USF football ticket revenue so it includes all sports. I know what ODU brings in from basketball though and even if 100% of USF's ticket revenue came from football we're still bringing in more per person. Frankly though, I don't care about USF or how they support their programs or how many people attend their games. That's their problem and maybe the AAC's. Not mine or the NCAA's. This conversation is purely for dick measuring on message boards, IMO. As Cyniclone stated there are other measures of support and by many of those measurements USF is not hitting the mark for their station. Do you support the same for Div I basketball? We could force a lot of programs down to Div II or make another subdivision as we have in FB. It would frankly make more sense than the FB proposal because the argument that the number of Div I basketball teams has become unwieldy is a lot stronger than the same argument for FBS football, which as I stated earlier is the only legitimate reason for the NCAA to step in and put these kind of restrictions on membership. Otherwise it's an issue for the school to tackle and of course message board fodder.

Well, if there are no standards, then the number of FBS schools would likely become unwieldy, as any school could simply declare itself to be FBS. We could have 300 or 400 FBS schools easily.

So if we are going to have NCAA divisions such as FBS, FCS, D2, etc. then there have to be NCAA standards, and yes, for basketball too, and attendance is one of them. So that's what I proposed.

Really, if the NCAA just enforced the existing two-year rolling 15,000 standard, with independent auditors, that would likely cull the FBS herd by about 30, eliminating bottom scroungers.
01-07-2020 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,290
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 245
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #64
RE: attendance by conference
If attendance matters, then Ohio State, Michigan, etc, should be in a separate division with about 20 other schools.
01-07-2020 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,067
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 836
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #65
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 12:22 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  If attendance matters, then Ohio State, Michigan, etc, should be in a separate division with about 20 other schools.

IMO attendance has to matter, because fans in the stands are ultimately what a football team is supposed to be *for*. The football team is supposed to be the athletic embodiment of the collective will and identity of the university community, and if that community isn't present in large numbers, then divisional status should change.

I think if the NCAA just strictly enforces its existing 15,000 rule, that would eliminate many FBS scroungers. A boost to 20,000 would be even better in that regard.

As for Michigan, etc., they kind of already are in a higher division, the "autonomy" subdivision". So what is really being talked about for the most part is a G5/FCS distinction.
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2020 12:33 PM by quo vadis.)
01-07-2020 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,281
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 97
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #66
RE: attendance by conference
The main reason I want to see a smaller number of FBS schools is for the dream of more quality non-conference matchups. It's silly to see schools like Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and Michigan play two or even THREE payday home games against the likes of New Mexico State, Kent State and FCS Western Carolina.

I'd much rather see Alabama and Ohio State and LSU and Michigan actually, you know, play EACH OTHER in the non-conference schedule...no more padding win-loss records and stats. With the better games and increased competition, you would see more really good teams with 10-2 or 9-3 records...but it wouldn't hurt because all the good teams would play tougher schedules.

And, coupled with a concurrent move to CFP autobids for conference champions, the market would move to more must-see TV quality non-conference matchups.
01-07-2020 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 9,388
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 637
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #67
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 12:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 11:54 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 11:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 11:13 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 10:36 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Attendance is a 'nebulous' concept, but let's face it - to the extent that it is, it is because universities have made it nebulous by coming up with clever ways to cook their books so as to present a better image of the program and to stay technically in compliance with FBS requirements. It doesn't have to be that way, if everyone is honest and third-party auditors tally the numbers.

As for other ways to measure a program, you mentioned TV ratings, donations, and booster members, I seriously doubt that the bottom-level scroungers do well on any of them either, do you? And that's even if we grant their validity.

As for your second statement, true, fans don't win games, but what does winning games matter if it happens before no attendees? What's the point of playing the games? At that point the football team's existence is basically self-referential. Having the team is an end in itself, an absurd situation. Again, might as well play them on an ESPN studio lot with canned applause, or else convert the real football team to an E-team for Playstation 5 or whatever.

What other valid standard for FBS should there be other than real attendance? I just don't see how a program whose attendance overlaps with FCS attendance can claim to be in the same level as ones that average 2x, 3x, 4x the attendance.

Nebulous indeed. How does USF post over 30K in attendance and have less than 3.2M in ticket sales? Our stadium didn't even hold 20K in that year and we had greater ticket revenue and over 3 times the amount of donations as the Bulls. If USF hadn't vaulted into the BE and gotten the TV revenues and later the exit fees they'd be middling to bottom in G5 resources. Your team should be in FCS. The only support evident is coming from TV networks.

You make a good point about ticket sales - you can sell a lot of tickets if you price them very low, effectively subsidizing the sale from other money, that's another way to cook the books.

As for ODU vs USF, are you including sales of all athletic tickets or just football? I'm sure ODU sells a lot more basketball tickets but that's not relevant to a discussion of football program status. If you guys did earn more football ticket revenue than USF, well congratulations.

FWIW, I am not exempting USF from my proposal at all. The 20,000 standard should be the same for everyone and books should be uncooked, audited by third parties. If my Bulls can't meet the standard then yes, we should be dropped down too.

That said, USF plays at a stadium owned by another entity, the TSA, so IIRC, our "butts in seats" numbers are typically more valid than those of schools that own and thus control their stadiums, because the TSA counts attendees at USF games and can report those numbers without USF being able to massage them.

I couldn't find data on USF football ticket revenue so it includes all sports. I know what ODU brings in from basketball though and even if 100% of USF's ticket revenue came from football we're still bringing in more per person. Frankly though, I don't care about USF or how they support their programs or how many people attend their games. That's their problem and maybe the AAC's. Not mine or the NCAA's. This conversation is purely for dick measuring on message boards, IMO. As Cyniclone stated there are other measures of support and by many of those measurements USF is not hitting the mark for their station. Do you support the same for Div I basketball? We could force a lot of programs down to Div II or make another subdivision as we have in FB. It would frankly make more sense than the FB proposal because the argument that the number of Div I basketball teams has become unwieldy is a lot stronger than the same argument for FBS football, which as I stated earlier is the only legitimate reason for the NCAA to step in and put these kind of restrictions on membership. Otherwise it's an issue for the school to tackle and of course message board fodder.

Well, if there are no standards, then the number of FBS schools would likely become unwieldy, as any school could simply declare itself to be FBS. We could have 300 or 400 FBS schools easily.

So if we are going to have NCAA divisions such as FBS, FCS, D2, etc. then there have to be NCAA standards, and yes, for basketball too, and attendance is one of them. So that's what I proposed.

Really, if the NCAA just enforced the existing two-year rolling 15,000 standard, with independent auditors, that would likely cull the FBS herd by about 30, eliminating bottom scroungers.

There are other standards that actually prohibit schools that don't have the necessary resources from joining. If large schools like FIU and Ga St with a massive student body are able to put modest fees on their students to support their FBS football program and meet those requirements then why does it matter if people show up? I'm sure that's their goal but perhaps they have a more if you build it they will come atitude. I know having football at ODU has really transformed our campus culture and environment in positive ways.

But according to your proposal we couldn't play football at the FBS level and have the opportunities to host UVA and VT as we now do. Why? Apparently because we don't have an NFL stadium where we can give away cheap tickets and reach the attendance you require despite clear evidence that our community support far exceeds that of another upstart football program that might have that one resource.

That hardly seems fair to me.

And they do enforce those regulations and require audited reports be submitted (although I think internal auditors are allowed). The issue is that the school can use actual attendance or paid attendance with paid attendance being at least 1/3 of normal prices or used. So they can sell bulk tickets a a third of face value or give away tickets for free that are actually used and those will count. And if you do fail the test I don't think it's an automatic expulsion issue.

But since you're making the argument then I guess the only thing left is for you explain why you think the herd needs to be culled in the first place.
01-07-2020 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 9,388
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 637
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #68
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 12:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  The main reason I want to see a smaller number of FBS schools is for the dream of more quality non-conference matchups. It's silly to see schools like Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and Michigan play two or even THREE payday home games against the likes of New Mexico State, Kent State and FCS Western Carolina.

I'd much rather see Alabama and Ohio State and LSU and Michigan actually, you know, play EACH OTHER in the non-conference schedule...no more padding win-loss records and stats. With the better games and increased competition, you would see more really good teams with 10-2 or 9-3 records...but it wouldn't hurt because all the good teams would play tougher schedules.

And, coupled with a concurrent move to CFP autobids for conference champions, the market would move to more must-see TV quality non-conference matchups.

Dropping the bottom 20-30 schools wouldn't do that. You'd need to cut FBS in half and separate the P5 from the rest (and probably cull some of the P5 as well). As long as Alabama can make more paying $1-2M for a team to play them at home as opposed to playing on the road at Ohio State then that's what they're going to do and they'll find takers.
01-07-2020 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 33,067
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 836
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #69
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 12:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  The main reason I want to see a smaller number of FBS schools is for the dream of more quality non-conference matchups. It's silly to see schools like Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and Michigan play two or even THREE payday home games against the likes of New Mexico State, Kent State and FCS Western Carolina.

I'd much rather see Alabama and Ohio State and LSU and Michigan actually, you know, play EACH OTHER in the non-conference schedule...no more padding win-loss records and stats. With the better games and increased competition, you would see more really good teams with 10-2 or 9-3 records...but it wouldn't hurt because all the good teams would play tougher schedules.

And, coupled with a concurrent move to CFP autobids for conference champions, the market would move to more must-see TV quality non-conference matchups.

Dropping the bottom 20-30 schools wouldn't do that. You'd need to cut FBS in half and separate the P5 from the rest (and probably cull some of the P5 as well). As long as Alabama can make more paying $1-2M for a team to play them at home as opposed to playing on the road at Ohio State then that's what they're going to do and they'll find takers.

Also, while fans at the truly powerful schools complain that they want their team to play LSU, Clemson, and USC each week, the truth is they would rather see their team win a lot, and you can't win a lot of you are playing a murderous schedule. Sure, a USC fan would rather have an OOC schedule of Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma instead of Western Kentucky, FIU, and Eastern Washington - but only if they BEAT those first three schools. Truth is, they'd rather USC go 3-0 vs the latter roster than 1-2 vs the former roster.

So the reality is that the P5 schools do NOT want to get rid of the G5 schools, at least not very many of them. Maybe get rid of 20 or 30 at most? The bottom-feeders that can't even get 15,000 in the stands?

But they will always want a good 40 or so G5-level schools out there to pad the win total versus, and that applies to even the top P5 schools not just the middling and lower ones.
(This post was last modified: 01-07-2020 01:20 PM by quo vadis.)
01-07-2020 01:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cyniclone Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,133
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 361
I Root For: ODU and VCU
Location:
Post: #70
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 12:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  The main reason I want to see a smaller number of FBS schools is for the dream of more quality non-conference matchups. It's silly to see schools like Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and Michigan play two or even THREE payday home games against the likes of New Mexico State, Kent State and FCS Western Carolina.

I'd much rather see Alabama and Ohio State and LSU and Michigan actually, you know, play EACH OTHER in the non-conference schedule...no more padding win-loss records and stats. With the better games and increased competition, you would see more really good teams with 10-2 or 9-3 records...but it wouldn't hurt because all the good teams would play tougher schedules.

And, coupled with a concurrent move to CFP autobids for conference champions, the market would move to more must-see TV quality non-conference matchups.

You'd like to see it, I'd like to see it, Joe Palooka sitting in his La-Z-Boy in front of the TV on a Saturday afternoon would like to see it, but why on Earth would FBS schools want to make OOC scheduling and bowl/playoff qualification harder by removing buy-game opponents, loping off a lucrative home date from the schedule in the process? That's why Super League ideas never pan out; someone has to be 3-9, 2-10, even 0-12, so why would you want to put yourself at risk of being that someone?
01-07-2020 01:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 22,464
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2063
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #71
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  The main reason I want to see a smaller number of FBS schools is for the dream of more quality non-conference matchups. It's silly to see schools like Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and Michigan play two or even THREE payday home games against the likes of New Mexico State, Kent State and FCS Western Carolina.

I'd much rather see Alabama and Ohio State and LSU and Michigan actually, you know, play EACH OTHER in the non-conference schedule...no more padding win-loss records and stats. With the better games and increased competition, you would see more really good teams with 10-2 or 9-3 records...but it wouldn't hurt because all the good teams would play tougher schedules.

And, coupled with a concurrent move to CFP autobids for conference champions, the market would move to more must-see TV quality non-conference matchups.

Dropping the bottom 20-30 schools wouldn't do that. You'd need to cut FBS in half and separate the P5 from the rest (and probably cull some of the P5 as well). As long as Alabama can make more paying $1-2M for a team to play them at home as opposed to playing on the road at Ohio State then that's what they're going to do and they'll find takers.

Also, while fans at the truly powerful schools complain that they want their team to play LSU, Clemson, and USC each week, the truth is they would rather see their team win a lot, and you can't win a lot of you are playing a murderous schedule. Sure, a USC fan would rather have an OOC schedule of Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma instead of Western Kentucky, FIU, and Eastern Washington - but only if they BEAT those first three schools. Truth is, they'd rather USC go 3-0 vs the latter roster than 1-2 vs the former roster.

So the reality is that the P5 schools do NOT want to get rid of the G5 schools, at least not very many of them. Maybe get rid of 20 or 30 at most? The bottom-feeders that can't even get 15,000 in the stands?

But they will always want a good 40 or so G5-level schools out there to pad the win total versus, and that applies to even the top P5 schools not just the middling and lower ones.

And yet L.S.U. and Auburn played tough schedules this year. The truth Quo is that fans wouldn't bellyache so much if everyone played a tough schedule. They would eventually adjust to the fact that 9-3 was a great year.

What gripes people now is that some schools play murder's row to get there and others have a cake walk. So the issue is that presently there really aren't many norms and the selection which claims to take these things into account don't really do so as long as the ending record is glamorous.
01-07-2020 01:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cyniclone Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,133
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 361
I Root For: ODU and VCU
Location:
Post: #72
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  The main reason I want to see a smaller number of FBS schools is for the dream of more quality non-conference matchups. It's silly to see schools like Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and Michigan play two or even THREE payday home games against the likes of New Mexico State, Kent State and FCS Western Carolina.

I'd much rather see Alabama and Ohio State and LSU and Michigan actually, you know, play EACH OTHER in the non-conference schedule...no more padding win-loss records and stats. With the better games and increased competition, you would see more really good teams with 10-2 or 9-3 records...but it wouldn't hurt because all the good teams would play tougher schedules.

And, coupled with a concurrent move to CFP autobids for conference champions, the market would move to more must-see TV quality non-conference matchups.

Dropping the bottom 20-30 schools wouldn't do that. You'd need to cut FBS in half and separate the P5 from the rest (and probably cull some of the P5 as well). As long as Alabama can make more paying $1-2M for a team to play them at home as opposed to playing on the road at Ohio State then that's what they're going to do and they'll find takers.

Also, while fans at the truly powerful schools complain that they want their team to play LSU, Clemson, and USC each week, the truth is they would rather see their team win a lot, and you can't win a lot of you are playing a murderous schedule. Sure, a USC fan would rather have an OOC schedule of Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma instead of Western Kentucky, FIU, and Eastern Washington - but only if they BEAT those first three schools. Truth is, they'd rather USC go 3-0 vs the latter roster than 1-2 vs the former roster.

So the reality is that the P5 schools do NOT want to get rid of the G5 schools, at least not very many of them. Maybe get rid of 20 or 30 at most? The bottom-feeders that can't even get 15,000 in the stands?

But they will always want a good 40 or so G5-level schools out there to pad the win total versus, and that applies to even the top P5 schools not just the middling and lower ones.

And yet L.S.U. and Auburn played tough schedules this year. The truth Quo is that fans wouldn't bellyache so much if everyone played a tough schedule. They would eventually adjust to the fact that 9-3 was a great year.

What gripes people now is that some schools play murder's row to get there and others have a cake walk. So the issue is that presently there really aren't many norms and the selection which claims to take these things into account don't really do so as long as the ending record is glamorous.

But unless you have the NCAA handle everyone's scheduling from the central office like the NFL, which will never happen, there's still going to be a lot of variance in schedule quality. If anything, it'll further consolidate power and revenue with a small cadre of top-level programs, because they'll be the ones who can buy the smaller supply of tomato cans, and they'll be the ones most likely to maintain seven home dates a season. Lower P5s will be thrust into accepting buys a lot more often than they do now, and possibly run the risk of five-game home schedules.

That might be an acceptable evolution of the business to some schools, but my guess is that it'd be a bridge too far for enough, and they'd vote it down. Fans might consider some of the CUSA/Belt/MAC schools unworthy of their status, but they serve a role in the FBS ecosystem — even if as feeder fish.
01-07-2020 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 22,464
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2063
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #73
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 01:30 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  The main reason I want to see a smaller number of FBS schools is for the dream of more quality non-conference matchups. It's silly to see schools like Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and Michigan play two or even THREE payday home games against the likes of New Mexico State, Kent State and FCS Western Carolina.

I'd much rather see Alabama and Ohio State and LSU and Michigan actually, you know, play EACH OTHER in the non-conference schedule...no more padding win-loss records and stats. With the better games and increased competition, you would see more really good teams with 10-2 or 9-3 records...but it wouldn't hurt because all the good teams would play tougher schedules.

And, coupled with a concurrent move to CFP autobids for conference champions, the market would move to more must-see TV quality non-conference matchups.

Dropping the bottom 20-30 schools wouldn't do that. You'd need to cut FBS in half and separate the P5 from the rest (and probably cull some of the P5 as well). As long as Alabama can make more paying $1-2M for a team to play them at home as opposed to playing on the road at Ohio State then that's what they're going to do and they'll find takers.

Also, while fans at the truly powerful schools complain that they want their team to play LSU, Clemson, and USC each week, the truth is they would rather see their team win a lot, and you can't win a lot of you are playing a murderous schedule. Sure, a USC fan would rather have an OOC schedule of Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma instead of Western Kentucky, FIU, and Eastern Washington - but only if they BEAT those first three schools. Truth is, they'd rather USC go 3-0 vs the latter roster than 1-2 vs the former roster.

So the reality is that the P5 schools do NOT want to get rid of the G5 schools, at least not very many of them. Maybe get rid of 20 or 30 at most? The bottom-feeders that can't even get 15,000 in the stands?

But they will always want a good 40 or so G5-level schools out there to pad the win total versus, and that applies to even the top P5 schools not just the middling and lower ones.

And yet L.S.U. and Auburn played tough schedules this year. The truth Quo is that fans wouldn't bellyache so much if everyone played a tough schedule. They would eventually adjust to the fact that 9-3 was a great year.

What gripes people now is that some schools play murder's row to get there and others have a cake walk. So the issue is that presently there really aren't many norms and the selection which claims to take these things into account don't really do so as long as the ending record is glamorous.

But unless you have the NCAA handle everyone's scheduling from the central office like the NFL, which will never happen, there's still going to be a lot of variance in schedule quality. If anything, it'll further consolidate power and revenue with a small cadre of top-level programs, because they'll be the ones who can buy the smaller supply of tomato cans, and they'll be the ones most likely to maintain seven home dates a season. Lower P5s will be thrust into accepting buys a lot more often than they do now, and possibly run the risk of five-game home schedules.

That might be an acceptable evolution of the business to some schools, but my guess is that it'd be a bridge too far for enough, and they'd vote it down. Fans might consider some of the CUSA/Belt/MAC schools unworthy of their status, but they serve a role in the FBS ecosystem — even if as feeder fish.

It won't be imposed by the NCAA or any such agency. It is being imposed by the networks 1 contract at the time. And the pay gap is going to widen even more so that what you call the cadre of top schools comply, but do so because the amount of money they are getting is greater than what they could make off of a buy game (3 to 5 million for concessions and merchandise) plus the tickets sales of that home game.

The SEC and Big 10 will get there first and then the other top brands will follow.

Like it or not we are moving steadily toward 12 P games per school and likely 4 P conferences. As long as scheduling is mostly balanced within a conference and the structure yields the playoff contenders that's all that is required.

The information on the SEC's new deal with ABC/ESPN has slowly been unfolding with one key CEO stating yesterday that the SEC will be making ~40 million more from the new contract (a figure double of that first leaked two weeks ago). While it may be 3 years before we know all the details suffice it to say it's a whopper of a contract. You better believe that when the per school payouts get that large (think 83 million) concessions have been made. I expect no less for the Big 10 when their contracts are renewed.

Money is the best motivator ever invented to bring about change.
01-07-2020 01:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,290
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 245
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #74
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 12:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  The main reason I want to see a smaller number of FBS schools is for the dream of more quality non-conference matchups. It's silly to see schools like Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and Michigan play two or even THREE payday home games against the likes of New Mexico State, Kent State and FCS Western Carolina.

I'd much rather see Alabama and Ohio State and LSU and Michigan actually, you know, play EACH OTHER in the non-conference schedule...no more padding win-loss records and stats. With the better games and increased competition, you would see more really good teams with 10-2 or 9-3 records...but it wouldn't hurt because all the good teams would play tougher schedules.

And, coupled with a concurrent move to CFP autobids for conference champions, the market would move to more must-see TV quality non-conference matchups.

Dropping the bottom 20-30 schools wouldn't do that. You'd need to cut FBS in half and separate the P5 from the rest (and probably cull some of the P5 as well). As long as Alabama can make more paying $1-2M for a team to play them at home as opposed to playing on the road at Ohio State then that's what they're going to do and they'll find takers.

There's nothing stopping Alabama from playing Michigan in the OOC season NOW. They could also play an actual road game every decade or so.
01-07-2020 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NIU007 Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,290
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 245
I Root For: NIU, MAC
Location: Naperville, IL
Post: #75
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 01:30 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  The main reason I want to see a smaller number of FBS schools is for the dream of more quality non-conference matchups. It's silly to see schools like Alabama, Ohio State, LSU and Michigan play two or even THREE payday home games against the likes of New Mexico State, Kent State and FCS Western Carolina.

I'd much rather see Alabama and Ohio State and LSU and Michigan actually, you know, play EACH OTHER in the non-conference schedule...no more padding win-loss records and stats. With the better games and increased competition, you would see more really good teams with 10-2 or 9-3 records...but it wouldn't hurt because all the good teams would play tougher schedules.

And, coupled with a concurrent move to CFP autobids for conference champions, the market would move to more must-see TV quality non-conference matchups.

Dropping the bottom 20-30 schools wouldn't do that. You'd need to cut FBS in half and separate the P5 from the rest (and probably cull some of the P5 as well). As long as Alabama can make more paying $1-2M for a team to play them at home as opposed to playing on the road at Ohio State then that's what they're going to do and they'll find takers.

Also, while fans at the truly powerful schools complain that they want their team to play LSU, Clemson, and USC each week, the truth is they would rather see their team win a lot, and you can't win a lot of you are playing a murderous schedule. Sure, a USC fan would rather have an OOC schedule of Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma instead of Western Kentucky, FIU, and Eastern Washington - but only if they BEAT those first three schools. Truth is, they'd rather USC go 3-0 vs the latter roster than 1-2 vs the former roster.

So the reality is that the P5 schools do NOT want to get rid of the G5 schools, at least not very many of them. Maybe get rid of 20 or 30 at most? The bottom-feeders that can't even get 15,000 in the stands?

But they will always want a good 40 or so G5-level schools out there to pad the win total versus, and that applies to even the top P5 schools not just the middling and lower ones.

And yet L.S.U. and Auburn played tough schedules this year. The truth Quo is that fans wouldn't bellyache so much if everyone played a tough schedule. They would eventually adjust to the fact that 9-3 was a great year.

What gripes people now is that some schools play murder's row to get there and others have a cake walk. So the issue is that presently there really aren't many norms and the selection which claims to take these things into account don't really do so as long as the ending record is glamorous.

But unless you have the NCAA handle everyone's scheduling from the central office like the NFL, which will never happen, there's still going to be a lot of variance in schedule quality. If anything, it'll further consolidate power and revenue with a small cadre of top-level programs, because they'll be the ones who can buy the smaller supply of tomato cans, and they'll be the ones most likely to maintain seven home dates a season. Lower P5s will be thrust into accepting buys a lot more often than they do now, and possibly run the risk of five-game home schedules.

That might be an acceptable evolution of the business to some schools, but my guess is that it'd be a bridge too far for enough, and they'd vote it down. Fans might consider some of the CUSA/Belt/MAC schools unworthy of their status, but they serve a role in the FBS ecosystem — even if as feeder fish.

Most of the teams in their own conferences are not much more than feeder fish. Clemson vs. the rest of the ACC, Ohio State vs. the rest of the Big 14, Oklahoma vs. the rest of the Big 12, etc.
01-07-2020 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 22,464
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2063
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #76
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 01:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:30 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 12:58 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Dropping the bottom 20-30 schools wouldn't do that. You'd need to cut FBS in half and separate the P5 from the rest (and probably cull some of the P5 as well). As long as Alabama can make more paying $1-2M for a team to play them at home as opposed to playing on the road at Ohio State then that's what they're going to do and they'll find takers.

Also, while fans at the truly powerful schools complain that they want their team to play LSU, Clemson, and USC each week, the truth is they would rather see their team win a lot, and you can't win a lot of you are playing a murderous schedule. Sure, a USC fan would rather have an OOC schedule of Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma instead of Western Kentucky, FIU, and Eastern Washington - but only if they BEAT those first three schools. Truth is, they'd rather USC go 3-0 vs the latter roster than 1-2 vs the former roster.

So the reality is that the P5 schools do NOT want to get rid of the G5 schools, at least not very many of them. Maybe get rid of 20 or 30 at most? The bottom-feeders that can't even get 15,000 in the stands?

But they will always want a good 40 or so G5-level schools out there to pad the win total versus, and that applies to even the top P5 schools not just the middling and lower ones.

And yet L.S.U. and Auburn played tough schedules this year. The truth Quo is that fans wouldn't bellyache so much if everyone played a tough schedule. They would eventually adjust to the fact that 9-3 was a great year.

What gripes people now is that some schools play murder's row to get there and others have a cake walk. So the issue is that presently there really aren't many norms and the selection which claims to take these things into account don't really do so as long as the ending record is glamorous.

But unless you have the NCAA handle everyone's scheduling from the central office like the NFL, which will never happen, there's still going to be a lot of variance in schedule quality. If anything, it'll further consolidate power and revenue with a small cadre of top-level programs, because they'll be the ones who can buy the smaller supply of tomato cans, and they'll be the ones most likely to maintain seven home dates a season. Lower P5s will be thrust into accepting buys a lot more often than they do now, and possibly run the risk of five-game home schedules.

That might be an acceptable evolution of the business to some schools, but my guess is that it'd be a bridge too far for enough, and they'd vote it down. Fans might consider some of the CUSA/Belt/MAC schools unworthy of their status, but they serve a role in the FBS ecosystem — even if as feeder fish.

Most of the teams in their own conferences are not much more than feeder fish. Clemson vs. the rest of the ACC, Ohio State vs. the rest of the Big 14, Oklahoma vs. the rest of the Big 12, etc.

And that's what the created revenue gap will be there to do. Lure those big fish into larger ponds where the networks can earn more from their brand and content value.
01-07-2020 02:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 9,388
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 637
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #77
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:30 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Also, while fans at the truly powerful schools complain that they want their team to play LSU, Clemson, and USC each week, the truth is they would rather see their team win a lot, and you can't win a lot of you are playing a murderous schedule. Sure, a USC fan would rather have an OOC schedule of Clemson, Ohio State, and Oklahoma instead of Western Kentucky, FIU, and Eastern Washington - but only if they BEAT those first three schools. Truth is, they'd rather USC go 3-0 vs the latter roster than 1-2 vs the former roster.

So the reality is that the P5 schools do NOT want to get rid of the G5 schools, at least not very many of them. Maybe get rid of 20 or 30 at most? The bottom-feeders that can't even get 15,000 in the stands?

But they will always want a good 40 or so G5-level schools out there to pad the win total versus, and that applies to even the top P5 schools not just the middling and lower ones.

And yet L.S.U. and Auburn played tough schedules this year. The truth Quo is that fans wouldn't bellyache so much if everyone played a tough schedule. They would eventually adjust to the fact that 9-3 was a great year.

What gripes people now is that some schools play murder's row to get there and others have a cake walk. So the issue is that presently there really aren't many norms and the selection which claims to take these things into account don't really do so as long as the ending record is glamorous.

But unless you have the NCAA handle everyone's scheduling from the central office like the NFL, which will never happen, there's still going to be a lot of variance in schedule quality. If anything, it'll further consolidate power and revenue with a small cadre of top-level programs, because they'll be the ones who can buy the smaller supply of tomato cans, and they'll be the ones most likely to maintain seven home dates a season. Lower P5s will be thrust into accepting buys a lot more often than they do now, and possibly run the risk of five-game home schedules.

That might be an acceptable evolution of the business to some schools, but my guess is that it'd be a bridge too far for enough, and they'd vote it down. Fans might consider some of the CUSA/Belt/MAC schools unworthy of their status, but they serve a role in the FBS ecosystem — even if as feeder fish.

Most of the teams in their own conferences are not much more than feeder fish. Clemson vs. the rest of the ACC, Ohio State vs. the rest of the Big 14, Oklahoma vs. the rest of the Big 12, etc.

And that's what the created revenue gap will be there to do. Lure those big fish into larger ponds where the networks can earn more from their brand and content value.

The problem I see with this proposal would be geographic. If you were to take the "big fish" of college football you'd have a lot of the SEC, 5 or so from the Big 10, a couple from the ACC, PAC12 and Big 12 and Notre Dame. That'd leave a lot of the country's viewership disenfranchised from the highest level of college football. There's a reason the Big10 took Rutgers and it wasn't their football power status. There'd be a lot of great match ups that would excite football fans from those parts of the country but would it last if they didn't feel involved? Is that a risk ESPN would take? And if you didn't cut some of the lower existing power conference teams would the money share be worth it to the big players?
01-07-2020 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 22,464
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2063
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #78
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 03:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:30 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And yet L.S.U. and Auburn played tough schedules this year. The truth Quo is that fans wouldn't bellyache so much if everyone played a tough schedule. They would eventually adjust to the fact that 9-3 was a great year.

What gripes people now is that some schools play murder's row to get there and others have a cake walk. So the issue is that presently there really aren't many norms and the selection which claims to take these things into account don't really do so as long as the ending record is glamorous.

But unless you have the NCAA handle everyone's scheduling from the central office like the NFL, which will never happen, there's still going to be a lot of variance in schedule quality. If anything, it'll further consolidate power and revenue with a small cadre of top-level programs, because they'll be the ones who can buy the smaller supply of tomato cans, and they'll be the ones most likely to maintain seven home dates a season. Lower P5s will be thrust into accepting buys a lot more often than they do now, and possibly run the risk of five-game home schedules.

That might be an acceptable evolution of the business to some schools, but my guess is that it'd be a bridge too far for enough, and they'd vote it down. Fans might consider some of the CUSA/Belt/MAC schools unworthy of their status, but they serve a role in the FBS ecosystem — even if as feeder fish.

Most of the teams in their own conferences are not much more than feeder fish. Clemson vs. the rest of the ACC, Ohio State vs. the rest of the Big 14, Oklahoma vs. the rest of the Big 12, etc.

And that's what the created revenue gap will be there to do. Lure those big fish into larger ponds where the networks can earn more from their brand and content value.

The problem I see with this proposal would be geographic. If you were to take the "big fish" of college football you'd have a lot of the SEC, 5 or so from the Big 10, a couple from the ACC, PAC12 and Big 12 and Notre Dame. That'd leave a lot of the country's viewership disenfranchised from the highest level of college football. There's a reason the Big10 took Rutgers and it wasn't their football power status. There'd be a lot of great match ups that would excite football fans from those parts of the country but would it last if they didn't feel involved? Is that a risk ESPN would take? And if you didn't cut some of the lower existing power conference teams would the money share be worth it to the big players?

ESPN exclusively owns the Southeast now. Between the AAC, ACC, and SEC whose rights they hold they only lack sewing up a few Big 12 powers to control the only part of the nation which is not dominated by the NFL and where college sports is more of a religion. That it happens to coincide with two of the three growth areas in the nation is no accident.

ESPN is looking for a cheaper but highly profitable alternative to the NFL and they have it in the Southeast/Southwest region of the nation.

The PAC isn't doing it for any network or they would be there. Six brands in the Big 10 control the Northern Midwest.

They have what they want. Now consolidation of those plus a few brands from the West coast gives them all they could want. They aren't trying to hold the interest of the entire nation. They are trying to create interest for the entire nation in what happens in the Southeast and Southwest by tying the better programs from around the nation into that.

The top 6 programs in the Big 10 have many many recruits from the Southeast and Southwest. It is where high school football is still played in the greatest numbers. Analysts and network executives know that college football is by and large regional already. If they have nothing but the Southeast and Southwest it will still be very profitable for them. If they can tie in the top brands from everywhere else and make that top club exclusive they know that they can keep enough top recruits farmed out around the nation to keep some historic programs viable.

And the same thing is coming in college basketball, except the regions that are still viable extend more into the Northeast and Midwest.

So the emphasis is not to reach every nook and hamlet but rather the hotbeds for the sport. The NFL can reach the rest, but remember this the vast majority of draftees into the NFL come from the SEC / ACC / and Big 12. So other than being hired guns for major cities it is still a regional sport because of the Southeast and Southwest.
01-07-2020 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 9,388
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 637
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #79
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 03:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 03:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:30 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  But unless you have the NCAA handle everyone's scheduling from the central office like the NFL, which will never happen, there's still going to be a lot of variance in schedule quality. If anything, it'll further consolidate power and revenue with a small cadre of top-level programs, because they'll be the ones who can buy the smaller supply of tomato cans, and they'll be the ones most likely to maintain seven home dates a season. Lower P5s will be thrust into accepting buys a lot more often than they do now, and possibly run the risk of five-game home schedules.

That might be an acceptable evolution of the business to some schools, but my guess is that it'd be a bridge too far for enough, and they'd vote it down. Fans might consider some of the CUSA/Belt/MAC schools unworthy of their status, but they serve a role in the FBS ecosystem — even if as feeder fish.

Most of the teams in their own conferences are not much more than feeder fish. Clemson vs. the rest of the ACC, Ohio State vs. the rest of the Big 14, Oklahoma vs. the rest of the Big 12, etc.

And that's what the created revenue gap will be there to do. Lure those big fish into larger ponds where the networks can earn more from their brand and content value.

The problem I see with this proposal would be geographic. If you were to take the "big fish" of college football you'd have a lot of the SEC, 5 or so from the Big 10, a couple from the ACC, PAC12 and Big 12 and Notre Dame. That'd leave a lot of the country's viewership disenfranchised from the highest level of college football. There's a reason the Big10 took Rutgers and it wasn't their football power status. There'd be a lot of great match ups that would excite football fans from those parts of the country but would it last if they didn't feel involved? Is that a risk ESPN would take? And if you didn't cut some of the lower existing power conference teams would the money share be worth it to the big players?

ESPN exclusively owns the Southeast now. Between the AAC, ACC, and SEC whose rights they hold they only lack sewing up a few Big 12 powers to control the only part of the nation which is not dominated by the NFL and where college sports is more of a religion. That it happens to coincide with two of the three growth areas in the nation is no accident.

ESPN is looking for a cheaper but highly profitable alternative to the NFL and they have it in the Southeast/Southwest region of the nation.

The PAC isn't doing it for any network or they would be there. Six brands in the Big 10 control the Northern Midwest.

They have what they want. Now consolidation of those plus a few brands from the West coast gives them all they could want. They aren't trying to hold the interest of the entire nation. They are trying to create interest for the entire nation in what happens in the Southeast and Southwest by tying the better programs from around the nation into that.

The top 6 programs in the Big 10 have many many recruits from the Southeast and Southwest. It is where high school football is still played in the greatest numbers. Analysts and network executives know that college football is by and large regional already. If they have nothing but the Southeast and Southwest it will still be very profitable for them. If they can tie in the top brands from everywhere else and make that top club exclusive they know that they can keep enough top recruits farmed out around the nation to keep some historic programs viable.

And the same thing is coming in college basketball, except the regions that are still viable extend more into the Northeast and Midwest.

So the emphasis is not to reach every nook and hamlet but rather the hotbeds for the sport. The NFL can reach the rest, but remember this the vast majority of draftees into the NFL come from the SEC / ACC / and Big 12. So other than being hired guns for major cities it is still a regional sport because of the Southeast and Southwest.

How many viewers are going to be watching the national championship game this year? Obviously more than Clemson and LSU fans. College football fans across the nation will be. Now say you live in Iowa and are a Hawkeyes fan. Your team is likely never going to be in the national title game but you play teams every year that have that chance. All of a sudden you're team is in the "B League". Are you going to watch the same two teams in the national title game? What about people in Washington? Arizona? The entire NE? The people in the SE and Texas will be watching regardless but ESPN (who would have to mastermind this deal) would be risking losing a lot of viewers. I have watched significantly less FCS football since ODU doesn't lay in that division anymore and I watch more UNT and La Tech games that don't involve my team than I ever thought I would because there's a connection. You sever that connection people lose interest very easily.
01-07-2020 03:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 358
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #80
RE: attendance by conference
(01-07-2020 03:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 02:25 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:51 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:30 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  
(01-07-2020 01:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And yet L.S.U. and Auburn played tough schedules this year. The truth Quo is that fans wouldn't bellyache so much if everyone played a tough schedule. They would eventually adjust to the fact that 9-3 was a great year.

What gripes people now is that some schools play murder's row to get there and others have a cake walk. So the issue is that presently there really aren't many norms and the selection which claims to take these things into account don't really do so as long as the ending record is glamorous.

But unless you have the NCAA handle everyone's scheduling from the central office like the NFL, which will never happen, there's still going to be a lot of variance in schedule quality. If anything, it'll further consolidate power and revenue with a small cadre of top-level programs, because they'll be the ones who can buy the smaller supply of tomato cans, and they'll be the ones most likely to maintain seven home dates a season. Lower P5s will be thrust into accepting buys a lot more often than they do now, and possibly run the risk of five-game home schedules.

That might be an acceptable evolution of the business to some schools, but my guess is that it'd be a bridge too far for enough, and they'd vote it down. Fans might consider some of the CUSA/Belt/MAC schools unworthy of their status, but they serve a role in the FBS ecosystem — even if as feeder fish.

Most of the teams in their own conferences are not much more than feeder fish. Clemson vs. the rest of the ACC, Ohio State vs. the rest of the Big 14, Oklahoma vs. the rest of the Big 12, etc.

And that's what the created revenue gap will be there to do. Lure those big fish into larger ponds where the networks can earn more from their brand and content value.

The problem I see with this proposal would be geographic. If you were to take the "big fish" of college football you'd have a lot of the SEC, 5 or so from the Big 10, a couple from the ACC, PAC12 and Big 12 and Notre Dame. That'd leave a lot of the country's viewership disenfranchised from the highest level of college football. There's a reason the Big10 took Rutgers and it wasn't their football power status. There'd be a lot of great match ups that would excite football fans from those parts of the country but would it last if they didn't feel involved? Is that a risk ESPN would take? And if you didn't cut some of the lower existing power conference teams would the money share be worth it to the big players?

They've already done that to an extent.

There used to be 3 conferences of power teams North of the Mason-Dixon line: the Big 10, the Big 8, and the Eastern Independents (who weren't a formal conference, but played each other every year).

The Big 10 "acquired" the top Big 8 program and the top Eastern indy. The rest of the Northern teams outside the Big 10 split up.

Most of them have faded to irrelevancy as they lost most of their local rivals. Colorado, Nebraska, Pitt, Boston College, and Syracuse have all fallen completely off the map. Even Penn State's "success" in the Big 10 is a big step down from their 11 top-5 finishes in the 25 years before joining the Big 10. The only school outside the original Big 10 that is doing better after the Big 10's acquisitions is Missouri (and even that's debatable).
01-07-2020 03:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.