Time for college football to adopt a pay per view model

[IthacaMatt]

It seems very unlikely that college football is going to happen this year at all with people in the stands.

The players, of course, may boycott. The entire NCAA "amateur" athletic system is on the verge of collapse.

Did you read the article by the Pac-12 players ? They aren't kidding.

They want half the money generated, and they are demanding colleges to fund non-revenue sports from their endowments, if necessary, to honor and keep those kids' scholarships, too. They want health insurance, they want to unionize.

College sports as "big time" financial drivers at universities may be ending. No way the current system remains unchanged.

Pay per view is the only way I see of athletic departments to make enough money this year. The only reason the Premier League can succeed, to an extent, with games in empty stadiums is because they reach a global audience that dwarfs that of the Super Bowl every week.

And many of THEIR teams can't make it work financially. Even mighty Barcelona is talking about players and coaches taking forced pay cuts.

How popular will college football be without fans? Let's be honest, the NFL audience is mostly about betting and fantasy sports. Those degenerates will still watch. But college? How much of their game day revenue is tickets, parking and concessions? Maybe PPV can bridge the gap.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I should probably clarify what I mean - the networks continue to broadcast games, of course; they just take their top tier games (ranked teams head-to-head, important rivalry games) and put them on a pay-tier.
You might see Alabama 5 or 6 times on regular TV, but the Auburn game, for instance is part of a $100-200 season ticket. Clemson vs. Notre Dame, Miami vs. Fla State or Florida. UCLA vs. USC.

If you're going to play to empty stadiums, I don't think it's as easy for college sports as for pros.

 

[Scooch]

There is no universe where the TV networks would dream of doing this.

 

[Vorony]

This might be the worst idea I’ve ever read on this board.

 

[corpjet]

ummmmm.....NO

 

[Alsacs]

I think the players should receive pay for playing in revenue sports.

If colleges have to cut non-revenue sports as a result tough luck for those athletes. Football players bring in tons of money. Give them a cut and there is still enough to justify the sport.

Men’s soccer and women’s lacrosse athletes would have to be paid if football players are paid and schools aren’t going to pay athletes in sports they don’t profit.

 

[Hoo's That]

Congress won't let PPV happen.
.
Title IX is still a law, not just an NCAA policy.
.
Does the PAC-12 players' list of demands become "the first brick in the wall" for a move to the Ivy model for all athletes, both money-wise and competition level-wise? Non-rev athletes give more money absolutely and per capita to both sides of the house than football and basketball players do, so that "demand" is a non-starter.
.
At what point do the schools tell the NFL and NBA to make up their own minor leagues like baseball? Please don't say "there's too much money involved" because the academic sides of the houses see little, if any, of the money the Athletic Departments bring in.