(08-14-2023 12:40 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I think four or five years of former perennial winners beating up on each other and half of them losing half or more of their games in that time period will be enough to trigger a precipitous decline in fan interest in the top level of college football. The ability of the preeminent programs to finish in the top ten year after year will become a thing of the past. A form of parity will eventually emerge -- and ironically, it may be parity that kills the golden goose, by not only dampening the interest of casual sports fans in clashes of titans-no-more, but also by eroding the passionate fan bases that have been the sustaining foundations of the premium brand programs.

This is certainly the cold hard logic of the situation. But there is a wild card that college sports has that no purely pro league has. And that's a steady stream of influenceable young people going onto those titanic campuses every year. It's a powerful, potentially indoctrinating, marketing system that the students themselves are literally paying to take part in. I think this is what the major powers are depending on to counter your otherwise inevitable model and its inevitable outcome.

There are a whole lot of ways that can ofcourse go wrong.

(08-14-2023 12:40 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s not a bubble. The knee-jerk reaction to top properties getting top dollar and calling it a bubble is just plain wrong.

In nearly every single industry and facet of society, the financial rewards are being allocated to the very top echelon. That doesn’t mean that there’s a bubble. Instead, it’s a recognition that superstars are disproportionately valuable and they’re taking a greater share of the rewards accordingly.

College football is no different. The SEC and Big Ten (or if the top teams create a Super League) aren’t in a bubble at all. They’re gaining outsized rewards over others, such as the Pac-12, because that’s totally logical based on their intrinsic value. To that point, a real bubble is where properties that aren’t worth as much (such as the Pac-12) are getting paid like a premium property. A bubble isn’t when things that are intrinsically valuable go up in value, but rather when things that aren’t intrinsically valuable (like the crap real estate in the 2000s housing bubble) are rising in value. That’s actually not happening in college sports (as evidenced by no one overpaying for the Pac-12).

Once again, there was a great point made earlier this week by Stewart Mandel that the people that are valuable for TV purposes are the Giants fans living in the Bronx that don’t normally watch college football but will turn on Michigan-Ohio State for an hour. There a many more millions of those casual sports fans than there are people that care about the Apple Cup or Civil War. I’m not saying that this is a good thing for hardcore college football fans like us, but we’re not the audience that any of these networks are concerned about.

I know people want to hate on what’s going on in realignment and believe that somehow these power players are eventually going to kill the golden goose, but financially, it’s GOING to work for the Big Ten and SEC because it’s ALL about the many millions of casual sports fans that just want the big brand names and never even realized the regional rivalries that we’re eulogizing ever existed. Either adapt or die.

The issue I have with this take is the presumption that the premium brand names will remain premium brand names -- and their matchups will continue to draw national interest from casual sports fans -- when they're all grouped together and playing each other every week and half of them are losing every week.

The blue-bloods of college football attained that status by winning. Leveraging a variety of factors that bestowed competitive advantage in their respective historical conferences, they were able to dominate consistently on the field against their traditional geographically-proximate non-blue-blood rivals, which in turn fueled the growth of their passionate fan bases as well as their national reputations.

In the new world those competitive advantages will evaporate. No more schedules consisting mostly of home games. No more multi-week streaks of coasting to victory against overmatched opponents. Many more long road trips to play distant conference-mates, sometimes all the way across the country. Since when has jet lag been a factor that multiple superstar programs actually had to plan for and attempt to overcome on a regular basis? Never, until now.

I think four or five years of former perennial winners beating up on each other and half of them losing half or more of their games in that time period will be enough to trigger a precipitous decline in fan interest in the top level of college football. The ability of the preeminent programs to finish in the top ten year after year will become a thing of the past. A form of parity will eventually emerge -- and ironically, it may be parity that kills the golden goose, by not only dampening the interest of casual sports fans in clashes of titans-no-more, but also by eroding the passionate fan bases that have been the sustaining foundations of the premium brand programs.

The problem is the schools that have been labeled blue bloods are the ones not winning. I found that UCLA only 1 won football title while California won 5. Wouldn't California be a blue blood and not UCLA? Nebraska is called a blue blood, but they have been losing big time since joining the Big 10. Texas is losing and they are called blue bloods. Miami have slipped lately. I think the label should be taken away from schools who do not meet the standard of a blue blood. The conferences and schools have equalness as a school would rise and fall in winning and losing. That is why I think UCF is in a much better position than Miami is right now.

It's a term used now in expansion as those schools that garner such consistent ratings that they raise the ratings for less popular opponents. OU and even UT will join Bama and UGA as games that will get huge ratings regardless of who they play.

But it's really a historical thing. Cal is a definitely a blue blood. UCLA is like a blue blood-light, their reputation tied much more to hoops.

Nebraska and UT are still blue bloods despite recent performance, just given how many championships they claim, and usually finished near the top of the polls every year for decades.

Miami is not a blue blood. Not sure why UCF is even brought up in a discussion of blue bloods. We'll see how they fare against the new additions.

(08-14-2023 12:40 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s not a bubble. The knee-jerk reaction to top properties getting top dollar and calling it a bubble is just plain wrong.

In nearly every single industry and facet of society, the financial rewards are being allocated to the very top echelon. That doesn’t mean that there’s a bubble. Instead, it’s a recognition that superstars are disproportionately valuable and they’re taking a greater share of the rewards accordingly.

College football is no different. The SEC and Big Ten (or if the top teams create a Super League) aren’t in a bubble at all. They’re gaining outsized rewards over others, such as the Pac-12, because that’s totally logical based on their intrinsic value. To that point, a real bubble is where properties that aren’t worth as much (such as the Pac-12) are getting paid like a premium property. A bubble isn’t when things that are intrinsically valuable go up in value, but rather when things that aren’t intrinsically valuable (like the crap real estate in the 2000s housing bubble) are rising in value. That’s actually not happening in college sports (as evidenced by no one overpaying for the Pac-12).

Once again, there was a great point made earlier this week by Stewart Mandel that the people that are valuable for TV purposes are the Giants fans living in the Bronx that don’t normally watch college football but will turn on Michigan-Ohio State for an hour. There a many more millions of those casual sports fans than there are people that care about the Apple Cup or Civil War. I’m not saying that this is a good thing for hardcore college football fans like us, but we’re not the audience that any of these networks are concerned about.

I know people want to hate on what’s going on in realignment and believe that somehow these power players are eventually going to kill the golden goose, but financially, it’s GOING to work for the Big Ten and SEC because it’s ALL about the many millions of casual sports fans that just want the big brand names and never even realized the regional rivalries that we’re eulogizing ever existed. Either adapt or die.

The issue I have with this take is the presumption that the premium brand names will remain premium brand names -- and their matchups will continue to draw national interest from casual sports fans -- when they're all grouped together and playing each other every week and half of them are losing every week.

The blue-bloods of college football attained that status by winning. Leveraging a variety of factors that bestowed competitive advantage in their respective historical conferences, they were able to dominate consistently on the field against their traditional geographically-proximate non-blue-blood rivals, which in turn fueled the growth of their passionate fan bases as well as their national reputations.

In the new world those competitive advantages will evaporate. No more schedules consisting mostly of home games. No more multi-week streaks of coasting to victory against overmatched opponents. Many more long road trips to play distant conference-mates, sometimes all the way across the country. Since when has jet lag been a factor that multiple superstar programs actually had to plan for and attempt to overcome on a regular basis? Never, until now.

I think four or five years of former perennial winners beating up on each other and half of them losing half or more of their games in that time period will be enough to trigger a precipitous decline in fan interest in the top level of college football. The ability of the preeminent programs to finish in the top ten year after year will become a thing of the past. A form of parity will eventually emerge -- and ironically, it may be parity that kills the golden goose, by not only dampening the interest of casual sports fans in clashes of titans-no-more, but also by eroding the passionate fan bases that have been the sustaining foundations of the premium brand programs.

Teams that usually lose more than they win in the NFL still have millions of fans and NFL viewership thrives. College football has been held back from growth because of the lack of competitive games week to week. While it's certainly true many fans of traditional college powers enjoy winning seasons more years than not such is not good for growing the sport nationwide. College football is primed for massive growth in the next ten years plus.

Unfortunately, I also see a lot of parallels between NASCAR in the 90’s and college football today. The difference - that I hope will see CFB through this - is that NASCAR was chasing a larger TV audience at the expense of their base, while CFB already has that TV audience. So even if attendance drops, as long as the audience tunes in, it will be okay.

(08-14-2023 12:40 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s not a bubble. The knee-jerk reaction to top properties getting top dollar and calling it a bubble is just plain wrong.

In nearly every single industry and facet of society, the financial rewards are being allocated to the very top echelon. That doesn’t mean that there’s a bubble. Instead, it’s a recognition that superstars are disproportionately valuable and they’re taking a greater share of the rewards accordingly.

College football is no different. The SEC and Big Ten (or if the top teams create a Super League) aren’t in a bubble at all. They’re gaining outsized rewards over others, such as the Pac-12, because that’s totally logical based on their intrinsic value. To that point, a real bubble is where properties that aren’t worth as much (such as the Pac-12) are getting paid like a premium property. A bubble isn’t when things that are intrinsically valuable go up in value, but rather when things that aren’t intrinsically valuable (like the crap real estate in the 2000s housing bubble) are rising in value. That’s actually not happening in college sports (as evidenced by no one overpaying for the Pac-12).

Once again, there was a great point made earlier this week by Stewart Mandel that the people that are valuable for TV purposes are the Giants fans living in the Bronx that don’t normally watch college football but will turn on Michigan-Ohio State for an hour. There a many more millions of those casual sports fans than there are people that care about the Apple Cup or Civil War. I’m not saying that this is a good thing for hardcore college football fans like us, but we’re not the audience that any of these networks are concerned about.

I know people want to hate on what’s going on in realignment and believe that somehow these power players are eventually going to kill the golden goose, but financially, it’s GOING to work for the Big Ten and SEC because it’s ALL about the many millions of casual sports fans that just want the big brand names and never even realized the regional rivalries that we’re eulogizing ever existed. Either adapt or die.

The issue I have with this take is the presumption that the premium brand names will remain premium brand names -- and their matchups will continue to draw national interest from casual sports fans -- when they're all grouped together and playing each other every week and half of them are losing every week.

The blue-bloods of college football attained that status by winning. Leveraging a variety of factors that bestowed competitive advantage in their respective historical conferences, they were able to dominate consistently on the field against their traditional geographically-proximate non-blue-blood rivals, which in turn fueled the growth of their passionate fan bases as well as their national reputations.

In the new world those competitive advantages will evaporate. No more schedules consisting mostly of home games. No more multi-week streaks of coasting to victory against overmatched opponents. Many more long road trips to play distant conference-mates, sometimes all the way across the country. Since when has jet lag been a factor that multiple superstar programs actually had to plan for and attempt to overcome on a regular basis? Never, until now.

I think four or five years of former perennial winners beating up on each other and half of them losing half or more of their games in that time period will be enough to trigger a precipitous decline in fan interest in the top level of college football. The ability of the preeminent programs to finish in the top ten year after year will become a thing of the past. A form of parity will eventually emerge -- and ironically, it may be parity that kills the golden goose, by not only dampening the interest of casual sports fans in clashes of titans-no-more, but also by eroding the passionate fan bases that have been the sustaining foundations of the premium brand programs.

If we still had the current top 4 or the old BCS system, I’d agree with you.

However, the new 12-team playoff changes that dynamic drastically. A 9-3 season is no longer a “disaster” for a blue blood, but instead will often be a playoff qualifying record in the new playoff format.

And there is NOTHING that drives casual fan interest in the regular season more than a playoff race.

The NFL is *all* about parity: lots of teams and lots of games every week where there are playoff implications late into the season. That is what drives the casual fan to watch a Jaguars vs. Texans game on a Thursday night in greater numbers than all but a handful of programs on all of television during the entire year.

An even more apt comparison is the English Premier League (which I’ve brought up before and Greg Sankey pointed out that he read “The Club” about that league’s formation). Forget about promotion/relegation aspect (as that’s not relevant to the business aspect here): the point is that the EPL is a meat-grinder like the new Big Ten and SEC will be. The top half of the league is beating up on each other and the bottom half still has a lot of talent due to their financial positions. The top clubs in the EPL actually have a much harder road to success than their elite club counterparts in Germany, Spain, Italy and France.

Yet, instead, what has happened even with that much greater competition is that the top EPL clubs have widened their financial gap and grown their fan bases at a much higher clip than the other leagues. It’s simply way more casual fan-friendly. It doesn’t have ALL of the top brands and not every game is a monster, but it does have the *most* top brands and the bottom half is still very competitive, which means if an international sports fan only has time and space to follow one league, it’s often the EPL.

What the casual sports fan gravitates toward is simplicity. Following just the Big Ten and SEC is a whole lot more understandable and accessible than following all 130+ teams in FBS or even the P5. A Super League of the top 20-30 teams would be even easier to follow.

The point is that team that ends up 8-4 is often still in the playoff race in November. We all have to internalize that what we thought of as a “good record” in the past is going to drastically change going forward and that gives a lot more leeway for the top Big Ten and SEC to beat up each other more without as much negative playoff repercussions.

(08-13-2023 11:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s not a bubble. The knee-jerk reaction to top properties getting top dollar and calling it a bubble is just plain wrong.

In nearly every single industry and facet of society, the financial rewards are being allocated to the very top echelon. That doesn’t mean that there’s a bubble. Instead, it’s a recognition that superstars are disproportionately valuable and they’re taking a greater share of the rewards accordingly.

College football is no different. The SEC and Big Ten (or if the top teams create a Super League) aren’t in a bubble at all. They’re gaining outsized rewards over others, such as the Pac-12, because that’s totally logical based on their intrinsic value. To that point, a real bubble is where properties that aren’t worth as much (such as the Pac-12) are getting paid like a premium property. A bubble isn’t when things that are intrinsically valuable go up in value, but rather when things that aren’t intrinsically valuable (like the crap real estate in the 2000s housing bubble) are rising in value. That’s actually not happening in college sports (as evidenced by no one overpaying for the Pac-12).

Once again, there was a great point made earlier this week by Stewart Mandel that the people that are valuable for TV purposes are the Giants fans living in the Bronx that don’t normally watch college football but will turn on Michigan-Ohio State for an hour. There a many more millions of those casual sports fans than there are people that care about the Apple Cup or Civil War. I’m not saying that this is a good thing for hardcore college football fans like us, but we’re not the audience that any of these networks are concerned about.

I know people want to hate on what’s going on in realignment and believe that somehow these power players are eventually going to kill the golden goose, but financially, it’s GOING to work for the Big Ten and SEC because it’s ALL about the many millions of casual sports fans that just want the big brand names and never even realized the regional rivalries that we’re eulogizing ever existed. Either adapt or die.

I can't wait to read your take when Illinois is left out of the "Premier League of American Football" that is inevitable based on this logic.

(08-14-2023 08:38 AM)b2b Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s not a bubble. The knee-jerk reaction to top properties getting top dollar and calling it a bubble is just plain wrong.

In nearly every single industry and facet of society, the financial rewards are being allocated to the very top echelon. That doesn’t mean that there’s a bubble. Instead, it’s a recognition that superstars are disproportionately valuable and they’re taking a greater share of the rewards accordingly.

College football is no different. The SEC and Big Ten (or if the top teams create a Super League) aren’t in a bubble at all. They’re gaining outsized rewards over others, such as the Pac-12, because that’s totally logical based on their intrinsic value. To that point, a real bubble is where properties that aren’t worth as much (such as the Pac-12) are getting paid like a premium property. A bubble isn’t when things that are intrinsically valuable go up in value, but rather when things that aren’t intrinsically valuable (like the crap real estate in the 2000s housing bubble) are rising in value. That’s actually not happening in college sports (as evidenced by no one overpaying for the Pac-12).

Once again, there was a great point made earlier this week by Stewart Mandel that the people that are valuable for TV purposes are the Giants fans living in the Bronx that don’t normally watch college football but will turn on Michigan-Ohio State for an hour. There a many more millions of those casual sports fans than there are people that care about the Apple Cup or Civil War. I’m not saying that this is a good thing for hardcore college football fans like us, but we’re not the audience that any of these networks are concerned about.

I know people want to hate on what’s going on in realignment and believe that somehow these power players are eventually going to kill the golden goose, but financially, it’s GOING to work for the Big Ten and SEC because it’s ALL about the many millions of casual sports fans that just want the big brand names and never even realized the regional rivalries that we’re eulogizing ever existed. Either adapt or die.

I can't wait to read your take when Illinois is left out of the "Premier League of American Football" that is inevitable based on this logic.

Illinois would almost certainly be left out of a Super League if that ever happens. That wouldn’t change my economic analysis. If Stanford and Cal could get left behind, then no one is really safe outside of the top 15 or so brands. Regardless of what people might otherwise think, I don’t analyze conference realignment through the prism of being an Illinois fan or my personal fandom. The Illini would likely be screwed in a Super League scenario, but I’m not going to sit here and deny that there are forces out there that could eventually create that Super League. I’m not naive on that front.

We are talking about an oligopoly. How do we know FOX and ESPN aren't manipulating the ceiling?

(08-14-2023 09:05 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  We are talking about an oligopoly. How do we know FOX and ESPN aren't manipulating the ceiling?

They for sure are manipulating. For them it’s about eyes on the TV, has nothing to do with on field performance. Texas hasn’t even won the Big XII in like 15 years, yet they are still going to get paid, and included, because they are Texas. But Baylor and TCU are left out because their fan base is much smaller. The OAC got left out because they you seldom see over 50k at their games and people out west don’t sit on the couch for 14 hours on Saturday’s in the fall.

If there's a bubble burst it's not in terms of media rights, but more on ticket sales. A lot of younger demographics are less willing (and able) to make trips and pay $60 a piece for nose-bleed tickets. As a result, maximizing revenue has to be more focused on media rights than regionalization.

Another factor, in the past the difference in athletic revenues of $90 million and $100 million might not be all that meaningful (what are you going to do, put an aquarium in the practice facility?) but with the uncertainty of whether courts or congress opening the flood gates for paying players you want to squeeze every dollar you can out of revenue sports.

As long as there are at least two media entities vying for the rights, the values will be high. Now, they may not be high for all schools/conferences, but there will be schools that get a lot of money for their media rights for a long time.

You're channel surfing.

You can watch the Jax Jags or the Hamilton TigerCats.
Both are "pro football".

You'll watch Jax just like you'll watch Ohio State or 'bama over BGSU or Troy.

It's the reality.
It's the fiscal reality.

At this point I don't care what happens at the top anymore. I'll watch my school on ESPN+ or wherever we are and when possible I'll have my butt in a seat. There will be a split in FBS and it'll be the B1G and SEC. The Big XII will probably make it unless the prior 2 decide to truly build a 2 conference super league of regional divisions and raid it too. At this point the greed of the larger universities has killed a sport that many love. The only people excited about all this are the ones lining their pockets with cash or fans of schools who are and will always be safe.

(08-13-2023 10:28 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 10:16 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Hear me out. The broadcasters are now controlling who is in what conferences, and they are dumping the teams with low financial return. They are also consolidating, which makes it financially cheaper. ESPN/Disney are hemorrhaging money and are looking for a partner in ESPN. ESPN is the reason that conferences and schools now make $50mil each for broadcast rights. Now that they are seemingly falling apart, how long can or will they keep up with that spending. Once FOX or CBS realize they no longer have to compete with the mouse for content, prices will fall, just look at what happened to the PAC. They couldn’t get a media deal and the were picked apart for their money making schools.

Everything that made college football so great, the regional rivalries, are being thrown away for the all mighty dollar. But as they chase it, they are destroying their product, which will result in falling ratings and support. Once the money dries up, all these ridiculous cross country conferences will fall apart and new regional conferences will once again replace the landscape.

This is a model that you can see from all other sports leagues that peaked and fell. NASCAR is the best example. This will not last forever, and I believe the end is closer then we all believe.

No. ESPN is not hermoraging money. It makes billions of dollars in profit every year, just less billions than it used to make. The problem is that ESPN must keep Disney afloat because of the terrible writing in their movies and streaming shows are killing their products.

The plan btw is to increase the value of college football immensely through consolidation in order to obtain more quality games every weekend and because of the increased interest the expanded playoff will bring. The plan is to make college football more valuable than the NBA, second to only the NFL, and 2nd place will probably happen within the next 5 years, imo.

Sears. GM. If you are not keeping your eye on the trends you are being stupid. ESPN has lost over 26% of its cable subscribers since 2011 and forecasts are more than 40% come the end of the decade. If you are making less, you have to spend less. ESPN is hurting bad right now, they are shedding jobs and other costs. FS1 now has more cable subscribers than ESPN. Apple will own ESPN before the end of the decade.

(08-13-2023 11:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s not a bubble. The knee-jerk reaction to top properties getting top dollar and calling it a bubble is just plain wrong.

In nearly every single industry and facet of society, the financial rewards are being allocated to the very top echelon. That doesn’t mean that there’s a bubble. Instead, it’s a recognition that superstars are disproportionately valuable and they’re taking a greater share of the rewards accordingly.

College football is no different. The SEC and Big Ten (or if the top teams create a Super League) aren’t in a bubble at all. They’re gaining outsized rewards over others, such as the Pac-12, because that’s totally logical based on their intrinsic value. To that point, a real bubble is where properties that aren’t worth as much (such as the Pac-12) are getting paid like a premium property. A bubble isn’t when things that are intrinsically valuable go up in value, but rather when things that aren’t intrinsically valuable (like the crap real estate in the 2000s housing bubble) are rising in value. That’s actually not happening in college sports (as evidenced by no one overpaying for the Pac-12).

Once again, there was a great point made earlier this week by Stewart Mandel that the people that are valuable for TV purposes are the Giants fans living in the Bronx that don’t normally watch college football but will turn on Michigan-Ohio State for an hour. There a many more millions of those casual sports fans than there are people that care about the Apple Cup or Civil War. I’m not saying that this is a good thing for hardcore college football fans like us, but we’re not the audience that any of these networks are concerned about.

I know people want to hate on what’s going on in realignment and believe that somehow these power players are eventually going to kill the golden goose, but financially, it’s GOING to work for the Big Ten and SEC because it’s ALL about the many millions of casual sports fans that just want the big brand names and never even realized the regional rivalries that we’re eulogizing ever existed. Either adapt or die.

Inclined to agree with Frank, especially about the macroeconomic trends. In every industry, the big are getting bigger and the middle are getting squashed.

And while the Pac is struggling to get a deal, they did have an opportunity to get a $24-25 million deal with ESPN that they turned down. Noone disputes they got that offer. And we still have 65 schools getting P5 money just as we did 2 years ago. Its just that Houston, Cincinnati, BYU and Central Florida are in and Stanford, Cal, Washington St. and Oregon St. are out. The Big 10 and SEC are getting a lot more money than they were and the Big 12, despite losing UT and OU, is getting a little more.

(08-14-2023 09:28 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  If there's a bubble burst it's not in terms of media rights, but more on ticket sales. A lot of younger demographics are less willing (and able) to make trips and pay $60 a piece for nose-bleed tickets. As a result, maximizing revenue has to be more focused on media rights than regionalization.

Another factor, in the past the difference in athletic revenues of $90 million and $100 million might not be all that meaningful (what are you going to do, put an aquarium in the practice facility?) but with the uncertainty of whether courts or congress opening the flood gates for paying players you want to squeeze every dollar you can out of revenue sports.

Well colleges are raising prices and required donations dramatically. In the mid 90s you could get season tickets at Texas in a 75,000 seat stadium for $17 a seat with the right to buy Oklahoma tickets. No donation required. Now there is a 100,000 seat stadium, a big donation is required to get any tickets and a bigger one to get OU options while the ticket price varies, but is in the vicinity of $90 a seat.

(08-13-2023 11:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s not a bubble. The knee-jerk reaction to top properties getting top dollar and calling it a bubble is just plain wrong.

In nearly every single industry and facet of society, the financial rewards are being allocated to the very top echelon. That doesn’t mean that there’s a bubble. Instead, it’s a recognition that superstars are disproportionately valuable and they’re taking a greater share of the rewards accordingly.

College football is no different. The SEC and Big Ten (or if the top teams create a Super League) aren’t in a bubble at all. They’re gaining outsized rewards over others, such as the Pac-12, because that’s totally logical based on their intrinsic value. To that point, a real bubble is where properties that aren’t worth as much (such as the Pac-12) are getting paid like a premium property. A bubble isn’t when things that are intrinsically valuable go up in value, but rather when things that aren’t intrinsically valuable (like the crap real estate in the 2000s housing bubble) are rising in value. That’s actually not happening in college sports (as evidenced by no one overpaying for the Pac-12).

Once again, there was a great point made earlier this week by Stewart Mandel that the people that are valuable for TV purposes are the Giants fans living in the Bronx that don’t normally watch college football but will turn on Michigan-Ohio State for an hour. There a many more millions of those casual sports fans than there are people that care about the Apple Cup or Civil War. I’m not saying that this is a good thing for hardcore college football fans like us, but we’re not the audience that any of these networks are concerned about.

I know people want to hate on what’s going on in realignment and believe that somehow these power players are eventually going to kill the golden goose, but financially, it’s GOING to work for the Big Ten and SEC because it’s ALL about the many millions of casual sports fans that just want the big brand names and never even realized the regional rivalries that we’re eulogizing ever existed. Either adapt or die.

When it comes down to it, 30-32 programs (calling them schools anymore is laughable) will be set apart, get the big TV money and play for the national championship. The rest will either go back to regional conferences including FB or do something similar with separate second and perhaps third FB divisions. Some may drop football altogether. Overall money will drop but not for the "super conference" but I do think, long term, it will hurt CFB. I mean, they would be just the NFL's version of AAA by then.

(08-14-2023 09:05 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  We are talking about an oligopoly. How do we know FOX and ESPN aren't manipulating the ceiling?

FOX's goal is to put ESPN out of business.

(08-13-2023 11:47 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:33 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  It’s not a bubble. The knee-jerk reaction to top properties getting top dollar and calling it a bubble is just plain wrong.

In nearly every single industry and facet of society, the financial rewards are being allocated to the very top echelon.

College football is no different. The SEC and Big Ten (or if the top teams create a Super League) aren’t in a bubble at all. They’re gaining outsized rewards at the expense of others, such as the Pac-12. To that point, a real bubble is where properties that aren’t worth as much (such as the Pac-12) are getting paid like a premium property. That’s not happening.

Once again, there was a great point made earlier this week by Stewart Mandel that the people that are valuable for TV purposes are the Giants fans living in the Bronx that don’t normally watch college football but will turn on Michigan-Ohio State for an hour. There a many more millions of those casual sports fans than there are people that care about the Apple Cup or Civil War. I’m not saying that this is a good thing for hardcore college football fans like us, but we’re not the audience that any of these networks are concerned about.

I know people want to hate on what’s going on in realignment and believe that somehow these power players are eventually going to kill the golden goose, but financially, it’s GOING to work for the Big Ten and SEC because it’s ALL about the many millions of casual sports fans that just want the big brand names and never even realized the regional rivalries that we’re eulogizing ever existed. Either adapt or die.

Frank, apply science. Bubbles extend at the top before they pop. Consolidation is the inflation at the top of the product, the bubble if you will. The lower end of the bubble is flattening out. What you don't recognize by focusing on what is happening at the top is the erosion of strength at the base. You have a natural bias toward what is successful and normally that would be fine. But you have to take the whole product into account to understand the dynamic. The eroding base will eventually affect the value at the top. Right now, the top is consolidating, and revenue is going up to entice it to do so. The wiser heads at the networks are prolonging the life of their cash cow by doing this.

It makes up for the shrinking talent pool by funneling what is available to the better paid top. So, resources are available to keep the top alive while the bottom is starved. They've already admitted their target audience is the fan base of the NFL where they hope as feeder programs to the NFL to pick up interest there. In no way does it bode well for the product long term. When your base erodes you become niche. When you become niche, you lose profitability unless all you want to reach is the high-end consumer. That's not your college football fan.

It will last longer in the South due to culture and high school participation rates, but the trend with the young is set in.

JR, demographic changes is certainly a challenge, but one that will be overcome.

Despite concerns about brain injuries and some parents not letting their kids play we have more talented high school players than ever before. Way more. Not even close.

Despite kids gluing their noses to their iPhone and playing soccer when their not, and despite old farts who watched football all their lives continuing to die off, football viewership viewership remains strong.

No one really thinks the NFL will not remain the premier sport for decades, unless they ruin it because of some sort of self-inflicted wound that alienates it fanbase. College football will become the second largest sport in America within 5 years, imo.

I hope you are right, but I haven't seen it that way in some time now. I think the kids are bigger and perhaps stronger than in the 70's, but their understanding of the game and how to think through plays and their fundamental skill sets coming out of high school are not close to those of the players in the 70's. The sophistication of plays and play calling are not at the same level either. Even at the collegiate level the abundance of talent in the coaching circles is greatly diminished. We have average talent becoming millionaires as head coaches now and the schools put up with it out of fear that we could get worse if we replaced them, like Auburn painfully discovered with Harsin.

We will just have to disagree here. There are more high schools with more football resources than ever before. Larger stadiums. Better equipment. Off season training camps and private coaching are increasingly drastically across most of the country. There is just more big, strong and fast football players than ever before.

I think the coaching talent is dramatically improved. Its just that salaries have gone up faster than the talent!

And the offenses and defenses are far more sophisticated than they used to be. That's not even a question. And that may be part of the problem. Players think about what they are supposed to do instead of instinctively doing it. And the athletic skills are so good and the players so big and strong, I think you definitely have players relying on natural talent instead of fundamentals, like how to tackle.