Where do we want to be sitting when the music stops?

[Hoo's That]

I guess the question is whether it will be a league of regional interest versus national interest. If fewer schools means less interest spread across the country and fewer eyeballs on television sets, that could mean less money than they hope for/expect.

I look at college sports relative to my interest in SU. If there is a league that SU doesn't participate in, I likely will have no interest in that league. I suspect there are other SU fans and fans of other non-factory schools that think similarly. Sure, there are the sports junkies that will watch as much football as they can regardless, but are there enough of them to support a semi-pro college league? How many people watch triple A baseball or g-league basketball? Once something becomes professional, most people only want to watch the highest level of it.

As far as national interest is concerned, will people tune in to watch 2-9 Alabama play 3-8 Auburn simply because they're in the semi-pro league? My Grandmother always said, "Be careful what you wish for." The fans of the semi-pros are in for a rude awakening when teams refuse to play them because their players don't have to go to class and they only play each other. No "buy" games. No games against Vanderbilt or NWern. Their greed is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

[Chip]

As far as national interest is concerned, will people tune in to watch 2-9 Alabama play 3-8 Auburn simply because they're in the semi-pro league? My Grandmother always said, "Be careful what you wish for." The fans of the semi-pros are in for a rude awakening when teams refuse to play them because their players don't have to go to class and they only play each other. No "buy" games. No games against Vanderbilt or NWern. Their greed is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Everyone realizes that the schools were making bank and turned college football into big business. And were fairly shameless about growing that business. To the point that it just wasn't sustainable to only sell a free education to all the players.

However, if the turn of the worm ends up being less of an association with the "college" part of college football, and it becomes obvious to all that the schools are just the brand name that accompanies the product, will it remain as popular? Or will it start to feel like the minor leagues?

I think there are too many cooks in the kitchen, no real leader, and this could really blow up.

There's so much history with this sport though, it might be able to survive anything.

 

[upperdeck]

I wonder how many schools were making bank.. yeah some fball and bball were making money.. but the vast majority were not and it was funding all the other things on campus..

no different than research schools brining in big bucks and using that money for other things which actually happens at many more schools than those making money on sports.

 

[Chip]

I wonder how many schools were making bank.. yeah some fball and bball were making money.. but the vast majority were not and it was funding all the other things on campus..

no different than research schools brining in big bucks and using that money for other things which actually happens at many more schools than those making money on sports.

Maybe, but look at coaches salaries. Head coach to assistants at top schools. ADs and staff probably saw salary spikes as well. I don't think that was regular cost of living increases.

Not to mention that a coach could just up and jump at a better offer.

Now the players can too, and the offer isn't just education and a starting job.

 

[Toga]

The NIL system "as is" will get blown up. Most kids cannot manage money at this age. Most will get a rude awakening from the IRS. Further, the scholarships are likely to be deemed income by the IRS. Let's be real, any kid receiving a scholarship is receiving services and goods for "work" and now with the NIL the nexus is too close to "pretend" there is no economic exchange.

Further, the concept that schools will pay significant money to maintain a semipro team is really not conceivable when most schools lose money on sports. Before you go crazy, yes, football makes money or breaks even at most schools but the problem is Title IX must be honored. If you separate football from all other sports, there is no money to operate the remaining sports. If you keep all of the other sports, few schools make money as it is, there is little to no money to pay the football (and possibly hoops) teams.

In am sure there is a balance but at the moment the system is unbalanced. In the end, blowing up CFB for a semipro league is less likely than the conferences working together as the pros do and creating a league that represents the country, not just two regions.

One wonders if Title IX would currently survive a legal challenge.

 

[Scooch]

Maybe, but look at coaches salaries. Head coach to assistants at top schools. ADs and staff probably saw salary spikes as well. I don't think that was regular cost of living increases.

Not to mention that a coach could just up and jump at a better offer.

Now the players can too, and the offer isn't just education and a starting job.

Bingo. It's never been about schools making money, per se. It's been about administrators, coaches, etc. making gobs of money. The financial health of the institution has never been a concern at many schools. It's about people getting theirs.

 

[Scooch]

I think there are too many cooks in the kitchen, no real leader, and this could really blow up.

There's so much history with this sport though, it might be able to survive anything.

These are both spot on.

There's no plan being executed here. Where collegiate sports ends up a decade from now is completely unknown. If one thing has been proven time and time again for the past 3+ decades it's that most everyone involved is reactive and a short-term thinker. To paraphrase Rick Pitino, Pete Rozelle or David Stern aren't walking through that door.

Also, the idea that the tens of millions of avid college football fans are going to just slink away if there's some kind of 'minor league' approach to the sport is preposterous. This sport is woven into the social fabric of places all over the country. It's going to survive, no matter how much people try to kill it from the inside.

 

[WoadBlue]

As far as national interest is concerned, will people tune in to watch 2-9 Alabama play 3-8 Auburn simply because they're in the semi-pro league? My Grandmother always said, "Be careful what you wish for." The fans of the semi-pros are in for a rude awakening when teams refuse to play them because their players don't have to go to class and they only play each other. No "buy" games. No games against Vanderbilt or NWern. Their greed is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

It is not is not the Bamas and Ohios States, the LSUs and Michigans that will suffer competitively if this P2 monopoly of 40 or so teams becomes reality. It is the Ole Misses and Purdues, the SoCars and Iowas, the Kentuckys and Marylands. The teams that most often finish bottom half of the SEC and BT will become cannon fodder for the schools that usually are top 3rd of the SEC and BT.

 

[WoadBlue]

I guess the question is whether it will be a league of regional interest versus national interest. If fewer schools means less interest spread across the country and fewer eyeballs on television sets, that could mean less money than they hope for/expect.

I look at college sports relative to my interest in SU. If there is a league that SU doesn't participate in, I likely will have no interest in that league. I suspect there are other SU fans and fans of other non-factory schools that think similarly. Sure, there are the sports junkies that will watch as much football as they can regardless, but are there enough of them to support a semi-pro college league? How many people watch triple A baseball or g-league basketball? Once something becomes professional, most people only want to watch the highest level of it.

Your last sentence is the key. Some will deny that that truth by talking about the long ago days when even Single A baseball often had sizable crowds, as did some 'semi-pro' football and basketball teams. But all that began to die as TV began broadcasting more games of the 'major' professional leagues.

 

[All4SU]

These are both spot on.

There's no plan being executed here. Where collegiate sports ends up a decade from now is completely unknown. If one thing has been proven time and time again for the past 3+ decades it's that most everyone involved is reactive and a short-term thinker. To paraphrase Rick Pitino, Pete Rozelle or David Stern aren't walking through that door.

Also, the idea that the tens of millions of avid college football fans are going to just slink away if there's some kind of 'minor league' approach to the sport is preposterous. This sport is woven into the social fabric of places all over the country. It's going to survive, no matter how much people try to kill it from the inside.

I suspect, and fear, you are correct.

 

[Hoo's That]

It is not is not the Bamas and Ohios States, the LSUs and Michigans that will suffer competitively if this P2 monopoly of 40 or so teams becomes reality. It is the Ole Misses and Purdues, the SoCars and Iowas, the Kentuckys and Marylands. The teams that most often finish bottom half of the SEC and BT will become cannon fodder for the schools that usually are top 3rd of the SEC and BT.

At some point the boosters of bottom feeders have to come to realize they are getting zero return on their investment and decide to move on to something better. There's that old joke, "If you can't tell who's the patsy when you're sitting at the poker table, then you're the patsy." They big boys are going to suffer competitively because they're going to find less padding for the schedule. No more "buy" games and a lot fewer of the bottom feeders.

"Everyone" wants to compete at the highest level. How many plans for 64/48/{pick another number} teams have you seen on message boards? I see it on The Sabre and wonder how far up their anal orifices do some of our fans have their heads, let alone SCAR's and Kentucky's. But when the ADs tell them the price tag for "bare survivability" many will reluctantly see the light.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

These are both spot on.

There's no plan being executed here. Where collegiate sports ends up a decade from now is completely unknown. If one thing has been proven time and time again for the past 3+ decades it's that most everyone involved is reactive and a short-term thinker. To paraphrase Rick Pitino, Pete Rozelle or David Stern aren't walking through that door.

Also, the idea that the tens of millions of avid college football fans are going to just slink away if there's some kind of 'minor league' approach to the sport is preposterous. This sport is woven into the social fabric of places all over the country. It's going to survive, no matter how much people try to kill it from the inside.

If there are only 30 or so teams in the pay league, people who aren't fans of those schools IMO are less likely to watch. People are fans of their school first, more so than the sport in general. Why would someone care about 6-3 LSU at 5-4 Michigan? The sport will still do great but there will be a lot of teamless fans. They aren't invested in the game and are harder for the sport to keep. They are now casual fans instead of die hards. Additionally, people who do have a team won't watch as much if their team stinks. These fans are used to 10 win seasons. What happens when they go 4-8? Look at the NFL, by November the Giants lose a lot of viewers. That will happen in a "minor" league.

College football is about the connection and passion. That goes out the window if you team isn't in the league or if your team stinks.

TV will still do great, better than any other sport. But there will be a dip.

 

[Scooch]

If there are only 30 or so teams in the pay league, people who aren't fans of those schools IMO are less likely to watch. People are fans of their school first, more so than the sport in general. Why would someone care about 6-3 LSU at 5-4 Michigan? The sport will still do great but there will be a lot of teamless fans. They aren't invested in the game and are harder for the sport to keep. They are now casual fans instead of die hards. Additionally, people who do have a team won't watch as much if their team stinks. These fans are used to 10 win seasons. What happens when they go 4-8? Look at the NFL, by November the Giants lose a lot of viewers. That will happen in a "minor" league.

College football is about the connection and passion. That goes out the window if you team isn't in the league or if your team stinks.

TV will still do great, better than any other sport. But there will be a dip.

Are you assuming that the 6-3 LSU team isn’t in the running for a playoff spot? I think it’s unlikely that the same post-season structure that exists in a P5/130 team FBS world would exist in a Big 2/40 team world.

And while I agree that CFB is, at heart, about regional interest and connection. There is also a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the national audience. As you get past the 30-40-50 most popular programs there is vanishingly less audience to add to the total.

Regardless, I’m not convinced this hypothetical super league will ever come to be. The political ramifications alone may make it difficult, if not impossible, to pull off. Is the Senator from Oregon going to disenfranchise his OSU constituency, for example?

 

[Newhouser]

College football will do fine as long as people like to gamble. Eventually gambling sites will be brokering schedule matchups that will draw the most action.

 

[HtownOrange]

Are you assuming that the 6-3 LSU team isn’t in the running for a playoff spot? I think it’s unlikely that the same post-season structure that exists in a P5/130 team FBS world would exist in a Big 2/40 team world.

And while I agree that CFB is, at heart, about regional interest and connection. There is also a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the national audience. As you get past the 30-40-50 most popular programs there is vanishingly less audience to add to the total.

Regardless, I’m not convinced this hypothetical super league will ever come to be. The political ramifications alone may make it difficult, if not impossible, to pull off. Is the Senator from Oregon going to disenfranchise his OSU constituency, for example?

Teams below the 30-50 popular teams are cannon fodder. You cannot have top tier teams without cannon fodder, thus the need for many teams. When you limit the number of teams to 40 or so, many teams who do well beating up bottom feeders will now become the bottom feeders.

 

[HtownOrange]

College football will do fine as long as people like to gamble. Eventually gambling sites will be brokering schedule matchups that will draw the most action.

I don't doubt what you are saying, but is there proof? What are the gambling stats of major league v. minor league baseball? What are the gambling stats of NFL v. USFL? What are the gambling stats of NFL v. CFB? What are the gambling stats for NBA v. G-League? What are the gambling stats of P5 v. G5 CFB?

I am not sure we will get a clear picture but we should be able to get some semblance of a picture.

 

[storange]

Sect 333
Row D
Seats 1 and 2

 

[TexanMark]

In the case of the Big12, the conference wants Texas and Oklahoma to pay a buyout to end their GOR. Wouldn't they be better off to let them go as fast as possible and get their SEC money? I don't know anything about GOR contracts, so this is just speculation, but it appears that the GOR is tied to the teams duration and value in the conference it was signed with. Also, teams could argue that they are being put in a non competitive position due to the league's inability to stay at par with the competition.

Nobody put a gun to their head. Pretty sure we are safe as a league for 8-10 years

 

[Scooch]

Teams below the 30-50 popular teams are cannon fodder. You cannot have top tier teams without cannon fodder, thus the need for many teams. When you limit the number of teams to 40 or so, many teams who do well beating up bottom feeders will now become the bottom feeders.

You guys talk like people are incapable of recalibrating their expectations. In a ~40 team super league the standards of success would change. Just because someone wants a 10-2 season in the current landscape doesn't mean they won't understand that a 7-5 playoff berth season in the new landscape isn't "good" as well.

 

[gmoney44]

College football will do fine as long as people like to gamble. Eventually gambling sites will be brokering schedule matchups that will draw the most action.

Gambling didn’t stop the decline of boxing and horse racing and it won’t save college football or basketball if they keep going in their current direction.

 

[sufandu]

Are you assuming that the 6-3 LSU team isn’t in the running for a playoff spot? I think it’s unlikely that the same post-season structure that exists in a P5/130 team FBS world would exist in a Big 2/40 team world.

And while I agree that CFB is, at heart, about regional interest and connection. There is also a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the national audience. As you get past the 30-40-50 most popular programs there is vanishingly less audience to add to the total.

Regardless, I’m not convinced this hypothetical super league will ever come to be. The political ramifications alone may make it difficult, if not impossible, to pull off. Is the Senator from Oregon going to disenfranchise his OSU constituency, for example?

But if teams 41 and under aren't in the same league as 1-40, the fans of those teams have less incentive to pay attention to the superleague. People pay attention now because everyone sees their team through the lense of the current league and in relation to the top teams.

 

[All4SU]

First, as others have noted, the end game probably won’t happen until 2033-2035. Lots of time between now and then for things to settle down and hopefully for a group of schools to form that want to field top notch athletic programs featuring real student athletes. No pro franchises.

I am good seeing the schools that are so desperate to win that they are willing to pay the free agents they sign obscene amounts of money. Don’t care if those schools bother to pretend their players are students or not. I am not a pro football guy. Good luck to these schools and I hope the kids they sign make a lot of money. I won’t ever watch them play, even if they play Syracuse in exhibition or OOC games.

I believe most schools in the Northeast and most in the ACC will align with schools like Syracuse, BC and Pitt and a very good all sports league will form. It will probably make a lot more sense geographically and I suspect the scheduling will also be done a lot more intelligently. I believe there are networks that will value this level of play and the schools involved will make enough money to host very good athletic facilities. I believe there are many future student athletes who will value having the opportunity to attend these kinds of institutions and the quality of play will be very good in all sports.

Similar leagues will form in other areas of the country.

The split will be good for the academic minded schools. The playing field for winning a football national championship will be dramatically leveled. Far more schools will have a chance to win and fan interest will be high. As will ratings.

A new organization will be formed to replace the NCAA and it will actually be run by competent people that have the best interests of the sports and the athletes in mind. We might even see schools like Maryland and West Virginia, and yes, even Rutgers part of the new league.

Good post. Hope you’re right. I tend to be more cynical when it comes to sports. But I hope you’re right.

 

[CousCuse]

Nobody put a gun to their head. Pretty sure we are safe as a league for 8-10 years

I'm thinking that the B1G is going to absorb most of the PAC, as their GOR is ending soon. That would leave the football first programs in the ACC that could play in the P2 in a very bad situation.

 

[Scooch]

But if teams 41 and under aren't in the same league as 1-40, the fans of those teams have less incentive to pay attention to the superleague. People pay attention now because everyone sees their team through the lense of the current league and in relation to the top teams.

Right, but like I said, there are diminishing returns after a certain threshold of fan size.

And trust me, there are more "unaffiliated" CFB fans that some of you might expect.

 

[Hoo's That]

One wonders if Title IX would currently survive a legal challenge.

Here is the text of Title IX -

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation, in be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Now, the only thing subject to legal challenge is the Department of Education's interpretation of Title IX which is that any institution receiving Federal money (hint: just about all but a couple of D-3 schools do) can't discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex. They interpret spending more on men's sports than women's, especially since non-STEM schools and the military academies are majority female as discrimination. They really only go after glaring cases and have built in some work-arounds, like offering the max number of women's scholarships to sports that have been shown to have interest on that campus, to be in compliance. The only thing that could possibly be challenged is that since the athletic departments don't receive Federal money they can discriminate.