(08-14-2023 09:42 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  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.

At this point, the only schools left behind are Washington St., Oregon St., Stanford and Cal. WSU and OSU have G5 level fan support and budgets. If they had stepped up like Utah and TCU and UCF, they wouldn't be left behind. Stanford and Cal really don't care and their snobbery kept them from getting a Big 12 slot. But both are in the bottom third of the P5. Both have weak fan support.

Houston, BYU and Cincinnati are now back in what is considered the top level.
Rice, SMU, UConn and USF have previously been relegated. The first two got diminished by small fan bases in a pro sports market. The other two were very new at the top level and didn't make the ACC cut.

I sure don't remember all of this end of the world stuff when the SWC dissolved or the Big 12 got raided in 2010 and 2011. Or when the ACC decimated the Big East or the MWC deliberately tried to destroy the WAC.

(08-14-2023 10:15 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(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.

BS. The Murdochs are one of Disney's biggest stockholders.

They work together far more than they compete. Its one of the characteristics of an oligopoly.

(08-14-2023 10:10 AM)Aztecgolfer 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.

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.

College football was not hurt by all the private schools and commuter schools (UTA, Lamar, Long Beach St., Cal St. Fullerton, etc.) dropping football from the 50s to the 80s. There are a lot of schools that should drop football. Schools like San Jose St., UL Monroe and Eastern Michigan should really give a thought to dropping football and focusing resources on other sports. And if you are playing on Tuesday and Wednesday nights a lot before empty stadiums, you need to re-think what is going on. What is your purpose in doing this?

(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 agree completely. I'm more than a casual fan (that is, I know about those regional rivalries). But the only reason I make a point of watching sports is when those big brand names are playing in time slots when I'm awake. I may drop in on the other games by dropping in during timeouts in the big boy games, but if the only games that are airing are the minor leagues I can find other ways to spend my time.

(08-14-2023 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 10:10 AM)Aztecgolfer 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.

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.

College football was not hurt by all the private schools and commuter schools (UTA, Lamar, Long Beach St., Cal St. Fullerton, etc.) dropping football from the 50s to the 80s. There are a lot of schools that should drop football. Schools like San Jose St., UL Monroe and Eastern Michigan should really give a thought to dropping football and focusing resources on other sports. And if you are playing on Tuesday and Wednesday nights a lot before empty stadiums, you need to re-think what is going on. What is your purpose in doing this?

Advertising. Most people fail to recognize how important it is for schools to advertise their school's name on national TV. A football game is a 3.5 hour advertisement for the 2 schools.

(08-14-2023 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 10:10 AM)Aztecgolfer 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.

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.

College football was not hurt by all the private schools and commuter schools (UTA, Lamar, Long Beach St., Cal St. Fullerton, etc.) dropping football from the 50s to the 80s. There are a lot of schools that should drop football. Schools like San Jose St., UL Monroe and Eastern Michigan should really give a thought to dropping football and focusing resources on other sports. And if you are playing on Tuesday and Wednesday nights a lot before empty stadiums, you need to re-think what is going on. What is your purpose in doing this?

The fans are though. Whether you want to believe it or not schools like EMU and ULM still have fans who do care about those programs. Just because you don't care about them doesn't mean there aren't others who do.

We are doomed!!!

(08-14-2023 10:42 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  The fans are though. Whether you want to believe it or not schools like EMU and ULM still have fans who do care about those programs. Just because you don't care about them doesn't mean there aren't others who do.

Yes. I don't know whether the top programs will ever be financially impacted, but college sports as a whole are losing popularity as a result of realignment/consolidation.

(08-14-2023 09:42 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  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.

I'm right there with you. I quit watching College Game Day because they turn every conversation into something about Ohio State, Bama, and Georgia. It's old and tiring.

(08-14-2023 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 10:10 AM)Aztecgolfer 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.

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.

College football was not hurt by all the private schools and commuter schools (UTA, Lamar, Long Beach St., Cal St. Fullerton, etc.) dropping football from the 50s to the 80s. There are a lot of schools that should drop football. Schools like San Jose St., UL Monroe and Eastern Michigan should really give a thought to dropping football and focusing resources on other sports. And if you are playing on Tuesday and Wednesday nights a lot before empty stadiums, you need to re-think what is going on. What is your purpose in doing this?

I think trying to become like the NFL will diminish the allure of CFB. Even with a 30 team league there will be only 10 that will win championships for the most part. Also, take California for example. It appears the networks are willing to write off 2/3 of California.

When the Rams left for St. Louis the NFL wasn't in a big hurry to replace them because TV ratings actually went up as the region got the best games each week. However, over time interest dropped and so did ratings.

(08-14-2023 08:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

Fair point. Of course the counterpoint is that we already have an NFL. And that means fully replicating the NFL’s (or EPL’s) core dynamic of “parity in pursuit of the playoffs” runs the risk of turning college football into minor league pro football.

Moreover this risk is amplified by the combined impact of the liberalized transfer portal, unfettered use of NIL compensation as a recruiting inducement, and litigation that may result in the conversion of student-athletes into unionized employees.

IMHO college football’s distinctiveness from NFL football has been one of the key drivers in growing and maintaining its popularity. Having a large number of consistently elite teams piling up wins on their way to conference championships that deeply matter to fans, and then coming together at the end of the season in a clash of the titans — traditionally in major bowl games and more recently in the CFP as well — has been a formula for massive success. But now that we’re on the cusp of finally, fully capitalizing on the distinctiveness of the sport with an expanded CFP that puts the ultimate prize within reach of a larger and more inclusive collection of titans, we’re rushing instead to convert it to NFL-lite.

I certainly could be wrong about this. But I suspect the consolidation and possible breakaway of the blue-blood programs — separating them from the lesser peers who historically have enabled them to sustain their winning traditions and premium brands and big fan bases, in favor of throwing them together in a brand-leveling meat-grinder — will eventually transform the top level of college football into a minor league pro sport with a minor league fan following.

(08-13-2023 11:16 PM)LatahCounty 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.

Kinda. Except they're also turning pockets of hardcore college football fans all over the country into casual fans, or turning them off altogether. I can pretty much promise the west coast is going to be less interested in college sports than it was.

Yeah that's a big risk to the world where only the SEC and Big 10 are relevant. College football fans are interested in their team first and foremost and then that interest sparks interest in waht is going on in the rest of the country. If there is not much interest in the local and regional teams, you get situation like the NE where there is much less interest in college football. The indifference to college football that you see in the NE could spread to other regions if local and regional teams aren't participating at the highest level.

(08-14-2023 12:02 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:16 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Kinda. Except they're also turning pockets of hardcore college football fans all over the country into casual fans, or turning them off altogether. I can pretty much promise the west coast is going to be less interested in college sports than it was.

Yeah that's a big risk to the world where only the SEC and Big 10 are relevant. College football fans are interested in their team first and foremost and then that interest sparks interest in waht is going on in the rest of the country. If there is not much interest in the local and regional teams, you get situation like the NE where there is much less interest in college football. The indifference to college football that you see in the NE could spread to other regions if local and regional teams aren't participating at the highest level.

Yep. I'll use Washington as an example. In a USCLA-less PAC 10, UDub would be competing with Oregon and Utah for a playoff spot every year and Wazzu would still be playing all its rivalry games. College sports fandom would be alive and well in that state.

Now? UDub will be competing with Wisconsin for 8th place in an 18-team midwest league and Wazzu fans will just be deflated. A whole lot of people are just gonna watch the Seahawks.

(08-14-2023 11:57 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 08:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

Fair point. Of course the counterpoint is that we already have an NFL. And that means fully replicating the NFL’s (or EPL’s) core dynamic of “parity in pursuit of the playoffs” runs the risk of turning college football into minor league pro football.

Moreover this risk is amplified by the combined impact of the liberalized transfer portal, unfettered use of NIL compensation as a recruiting inducement, and litigation that may result in the conversion of student-athletes into unionized employees.

IMHO college football’s distinctiveness from NFL football has been one of the key drivers in growing and maintaining its popularity. Having a large number of consistently elite teams piling up wins on their way to conference championships that deeply matter to fans, and then coming together at the end of the season in a clash of the titans — traditionally in major bowl games and more recently in the CFP as well — has been a formula for massive success. But now that we’re on the cusp of finally, fully capitalizing on the distinctiveness of the sport with an expanded CFP that puts the ultimate prize within reach of a larger and more inclusive collection of titans, we’re rushing instead to convert it to NFL-lite.

I certainly could be wrong about this. But I suspect the consolidation and possible breakaway of the blue-blood programs — separating them from the lesser peers who historically have enabled them to sustain their winning traditions and premium brands and big fan bases, in favor of throwing them together in a brand-leveling meat-grinder — will eventually transform the top level of college football into a minor league pro sport with a minor league fan following.

I get what you’re saying.

I have been taking it toward an extreme conclusion of a blue blood-only Super League up to this point.

Now, having said all of that, the NFL still has 32 franchises and many of them aren’t marquee brands. So, is it a revenue maximizing proposition for the networks to actually have a top level of college football that’s *smaller* than the NFL itself? Probably not in the long run because you’d be cutting off wide geographic swaths of the country from that top level. However, you probably do get that coverage at around 48 schools (such as 24 teams in both the Big Ten and SEC).

I go back to English soccer as the roadmap since it has the most similarities to US college sports. The vast majority of soccer clubs are *not* in the Premier League. Yet, those clubs could still (a) hypothetically play themselves in to the Premier League via promotion and/or (b) c compete with them directly annually in the FA Cup.

Pro/rel in option (a) won’t ever happen in America, but option (b) still effectively exists in college sports via the 12-team CFP and NCAA Tournament. It might be practically extremely insanely monumentally hard for anyone outside of the top level to win the FA Cup, but they aren’t *structurally* excluded from participating in it. The fact that the FA Cup still exists is what continues to connect all of those local lower tier clubs with the top level Premier League clubs that are worth billions of dollars.

The CFP and NCAA Tournament can continue to serve a similar role in college sports. That would be my advice to the Big Ten and SEC and/or whoever else is left standing at the end: you can make it practically impossible for anyone else to win a championship, but don’t completely cut off access where it’s *structurally* impossible for them. That’s how you keep all of those local colleges connected to the big national brands in the same way the English soccer system works.

I’m a pretty big believer in the old adage, “Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.” I think the P2 can still eat a fair amount more before they become hogs, but the bright line would be if they try to hog ALL of the access.

(08-14-2023 10:39 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 10:10 AM)Aztecgolfer 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.

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.

College football was not hurt by all the private schools and commuter schools (UTA, Lamar, Long Beach St., Cal St. Fullerton, etc.) dropping football from the 50s to the 80s. There are a lot of schools that should drop football. Schools like San Jose St., UL Monroe and Eastern Michigan should really give a thought to dropping football and focusing resources on other sports. And if you are playing on Tuesday and Wednesday nights a lot before empty stadiums, you need to re-think what is going on. What is your purpose in doing this?

Advertising. Most people fail to recognize how important it is for schools to advertise their school's name on national TV. A football game is a 3.5 hour advertisement for the 2 schools.

Regional schools don't need national advertising.

(08-14-2023 10:42 AM)Troy_Fan_15 Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 10:10 AM)Aztecgolfer 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.

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.

College football was not hurt by all the private schools and commuter schools (UTA, Lamar, Long Beach St., Cal St. Fullerton, etc.) dropping football from the 50s to the 80s. There are a lot of schools that should drop football. Schools like San Jose St., UL Monroe and Eastern Michigan should really give a thought to dropping football and focusing resources on other sports. And if you are playing on Tuesday and Wednesday nights a lot before empty stadiums, you need to re-think what is going on. What is your purpose in doing this?

The fans are though. Whether you want to believe it or not schools like EMU and ULM still have fans who do care about those programs. Just because you don't care about them doesn't mean there aren't others who do.

Barely. And many of their fans are as big or bigger fans of USC/LSU/Michigan than their own schools. They could shift resources to sports where they could have more success.

(08-14-2023 12:02 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:16 PM)LatahCounty 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.

Kinda. Except they're also turning pockets of hardcore college football fans all over the country into casual fans, or turning them off altogether. I can pretty much promise the west coast is going to be less interested in college sports than it was.

Yeah that's a big risk to the world where only the SEC and Big 10 are relevant. College football fans are interested in their team first and foremost and then that interest sparks interest in waht is going on in the rest of the country. If there is not much interest in the local and regional teams, you get situation like the NE where there is much less interest in college football. The indifference to college football that you see in the NE could spread to other regions if local and regional teams aren't participating at the highest level.

The northeast got killed by the pros. Same thing happened to SMU, Rice and Tulane who once drew huge crowds. To a lesser extent it happened to Minnesota and Georgia Tech who were powers in 1960. Washington and USC are the only schools in major pro markets who draw really well and USC doesn't do very well considering their level of success.

(08-14-2023 01:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 11:57 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 08:20 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(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.

Fair point. Of course the counterpoint is that we already have an NFL. And that means fully replicating the NFL’s (or EPL’s) core dynamic of “parity in pursuit of the playoffs” runs the risk of turning college football into minor league pro football.

Moreover this risk is amplified by the combined impact of the liberalized transfer portal, unfettered use of NIL compensation as a recruiting inducement, and litigation that may result in the conversion of student-athletes into unionized employees.

IMHO college football’s distinctiveness from NFL football has been one of the key drivers in growing and maintaining its popularity. Having a large number of consistently elite teams piling up wins on their way to conference championships that deeply matter to fans, and then coming together at the end of the season in a clash of the titans — traditionally in major bowl games and more recently in the CFP as well — has been a formula for massive success. But now that we’re on the cusp of finally, fully capitalizing on the distinctiveness of the sport with an expanded CFP that puts the ultimate prize within reach of a larger and more inclusive collection of titans, we’re rushing instead to convert it to NFL-lite.

I certainly could be wrong about this. But I suspect the consolidation and possible breakaway of the blue-blood programs — separating them from the lesser peers who historically have enabled them to sustain their winning traditions and premium brands and big fan bases, in favor of throwing them together in a brand-leveling meat-grinder — will eventually transform the top level of college football into a minor league pro sport with a minor league fan following.

I get what you’re saying.

I have been taking it toward an extreme conclusion of a blue blood-only Super League up to this point.

Now, having said all of that, the NFL still has 32 franchises and many of them aren’t marquee brands. So, is it a revenue maximizing proposition for the networks to actually have a top level of college football that’s *smaller* than the NFL itself? Probably not in the long run because you’d be cutting off wide geographic swaths of the country from that top level. However, you probably do get that coverage at around 48 schools (such as 24 teams in both the Big Ten and SEC).

I go back to English soccer as the roadmap since it has the most similarities to US college sports. The vast majority of soccer clubs are *not* in the Premier League. Yet, those clubs could still (a) hypothetically play themselves in to the Premier League via promotion and/or (b) c compete with them directly annually in the FA Cup.

Pro/rel in option (a) won’t ever happen in America, but option (b) still effectively exists in college sports via the 12-team CFP and NCAA Tournament. It might be practically extremely insanely monumentally hard for anyone outside of the top level to win the FA Cup, but they aren’t *structurally* excluded from participating in it. The fact that the FA Cup still exists is what continues to connect all of those local lower tier clubs with the top level Premier League clubs that are worth billions of dollars.

The CFP and NCAA Tournament can continue to serve a similar role in college sports. That would be my advice to the Big Ten and SEC and/or whoever else is left standing at the end: you can make it practically impossible for anyone else to win a championship, but don’t completely cut off access where it’s *structurally* impossible for them. That’s how you keep all of those local colleges connected to the big national brands in the same way the English soccer system works.

I’m a pretty big believer in the old adage, “Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.” I think the P2 can still eat a fair amount more before they become hogs, but the bright line would be if they try to hog ALL of the access.

There already was a practical impossibility for all but about 20 schools. Its just that 5 of those schools have moved into the Big 10 and SEC. Notre Dame, FSU, Clemson, Miami and maybe Colorado are the only ones left outside the p2.

(08-14-2023 12:10 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 12:02 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:16 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:  Kinda. Except they're also turning pockets of hardcore college football fans all over the country into casual fans, or turning them off altogether. I can pretty much promise the west coast is going to be less interested in college sports than it was.

Yeah that's a big risk to the world where only the SEC and Big 10 are relevant. College football fans are interested in their team first and foremost and then that interest sparks interest in waht is going on in the rest of the country. If there is not much interest in the local and regional teams, you get situation like the NE where there is much less interest in college football. The indifference to college football that you see in the NE could spread to other regions if local and regional teams aren't participating at the highest level.

Yep. I'll use Washington as an example. In a USCLA-less PAC 10, UDub would be competing with Oregon and Utah for a playoff spot every year and Wazzu would still be playing all its rivalry games. College sports fandom would be alive and well in that state.

Now? UDub will be competing with Wisconsin for 8th place in an 18-team midwest league and Wazzu fans will just be deflated. A whole lot of people are just gonna watch the Seahawks.

By the time UW figures in the implications of travel they will not be making more in the B10 than they would have with base pay in the PAC through the end of the decade. They already have a $9M/year budget deficit. They currently carry 9 men's sports. I see them getting rid of men's track and XX which will allow them to cut some women's sports as well. I believe both them and WSU was hoping for help from the state but I don't see that happening now, not with what they did to WSU.


Seattle has great fans. Not sure how that will be impacted if they are not finishing high in the standings. Seattle has a lot of professional sports competing with UW, NFL, MLB, NHL and MLS. They are trying to get a NBA team back as well.

(08-14-2023 01:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2023 12:02 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(08-13-2023 11:16 PM)LatahCounty 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.

Kinda. Except they're also turning pockets of hardcore college football fans all over the country into casual fans, or turning them off altogether. I can pretty much promise the west coast is going to be less interested in college sports than it was.

Yeah that's a big risk to the world where only the SEC and Big 10 are relevant. College football fans are interested in their team first and foremost and then that interest sparks interest in waht is going on in the rest of the country. If there is not much interest in the local and regional teams, you get situation like the NE where there is much less interest in college football. The indifference to college football that you see in the NE could spread to other regions if local and regional teams aren't participating at the highest level.

The northeast got killed by the pros. Same thing happened to SMU, Rice and Tulane who once drew huge crowds. To a lesser extent it happened to Minnesota and Georgia Tech who were powers in 1960. Washington and USC are the only schools in major pro markets who draw really well and USC doesn't do very well considering their level of success.

UCLA is even worse. No one will watch, much less go to the game, if the program is losing. This year they were ranked in FB most of the year and the school was given tickets away. I tell you, 42-44K in the Rose Bowl is a terrible optic, and they are stuck there until 2042. UCLA will not do well in football in the B1G. Additionally, their BB program will suffer due to the travel. Had the PAC stayed intact I could see them returning at the end of the decade. Now they cannot. When you figure in travel mitigation at, initially, $10M year and then Calimony which will now likely be, at least, $10M year, they will be at a distinct disadvantage in the B1G.

In the LA/Orange region you have:

Two NFL teams (LA only)
Two NBA teams (LA only)
Two MLB team
Two NHL team
Two MLS teams (LA only)

That's a lot of competition despite the large population, many of which are not that affluent.