Official 2021 College Football thread

[BYU 14]

I would 100% be all out on minor league Football. College Football is my favorite sport and I record every game during the season. With the majority I watch the key plays as I do cardio during the week, which a a really cool feature of Youtube TV, but I also watch 3-6 complete games each weekend depending on what we have going on.

The NCAA sucks, but the crowds, traditions, rivalries and variety of College Football is better than any sport out there IMO.

I have zero desire to see a bunch of generic minor league teams run NFL cookie cutter offenses at a lower level of execution. I want to switch from BYU's west coast offense, to the service academies running the ball down peoples throats, to Mike Leach's wide open Hal Mumme scheme. The upsets, storylines, pageantry and excitement that make College Football what it is will be non-existent under a minor league format.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And you really hit on something there that's the bane of my viewing pleasure with a number of things: the $#%$# casuals

I don't mind their existence, it's not them I'd like to dip in honey & drop in a fireant mound. No, that's reserved for the fucking idiots who insist on steering courses based on the whims of people who don't actually give a shit about their product. And never ... fucking .. WILL.

NASCAR, pro wrestling, now college sports.

I wish there was a way to favorite this post so I can easily copy and paste it into the NBA and soccer threads when needed.

[Solecismic]

I feel the same way about Jeopardy! Especially since they're bringing back the celebrity clown show and putting it in prime time.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I would 100% be all out on minor league Football. College Football is my favorite sport and I record every game during the season. With the majority I watch the key plays as I do cardio during the week, which a a really cool feature of Youtube TV, but I also watch 3-6 complete games each weekend depending on what we have going on.

The NCAA sucks, but the crowds, traditions, rivalries and variety of College Football is better than any sport out there IMO.

I have zero desire to see a bunch of generic minor league teams run NFL cookie cutter offenses at a lower level of execution. I want to switch from BYU's west coast offense, to the service academies running the ball down peoples throats, to Mike Leach's wide open Hal Mumme scheme. The upsets, storylines, pageantry and excitement that make College Football what it is will be non-existent under a minor league format.

And that seems to be the general consensus. To me, I think it is time just like the D-league in the NBA. There needs to be another source for talent to continue to refine their game, as well as an alternative to those kids who don't fit in a college setting. You don't need a degree to rush a quarterback, or find the hole to run the ball. Just the small time that the NFL Europe existed it sourced some pretty important NFL talent, including HOF'er Kurt Warner. Something like that would never compete with college football, especially now that the NIL is a thing. It would have the potential to develop more quality players, and give guys a chance to extend their pro careers.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

dola: Question for Jon (or other who may know):

How does men's basketball figure into all this money-wise?

Do the UNCs, Kentuckys, Kansases of the world actually move the money needle? Or is that all still pretty much dwarfed by whatever could generate a few more percentage points of increased football revenue?

Fairly little at the conference level. Simplest breakdown I've seen was this from last year by the editor at The Athletic

Bowlsby said the Big 12's TV deal ($250M/yr.) is 50% OU/Texas. So, the others = $125M.

TV deals are 80% football. So, rest of Big 12 hoops = $25M.

That's 1/2 what the B1G makes in TV *per school.*

If Kansas doesn't move the needle in a conference that ain't exactly awash in football powers, it's hard to find many cases where anybody would.

And that's not without good reason tbh.

This piece from last fall aggregates a number of things that illustrate the reason basketball isn't considered much in these moves. The easiest one might be this detail: the most watched regular season MBB game in 2020-21 had 2.6 million viewers. 58 regular season college football games matched or beat that number.

https://medium.com/run-it-back-with-...t-25c54db7cb34

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I guess what I do wonder then is yeah, what's the goal? Is it to get more viewers, or to get the viewers you already have to watch more football?

edit: And in those calculations...honestly, do they GAF what those in the SEC think? Aren't they already tapped out, if viewers in Alabama will watch anything that drapes itself in maroon but essentially nothing else?

Those markets -- generally speaking -- are the ones that watch college football. They prefer games with local connections but they watch more generally as well. Go back to the pre-SEC Network days (since it's existence skews subsequent ESPN data IMO), as many as 16 of the top 25 markets for CFB viewing were in the SEC footprint. And that's with the top SEC game of the week being on CBS, not ESPN.

Found the 2011 data -- with USC & Stanford finishing in the top 7, USC was preseason #1 -- LA & SF ranked 43rd and 44th in TV ratings.

Now a 1.4 and 1.3 rating in huge media markets (compared to twice that rating in the 20s and 4x that rating in Birmingham year in & year out) is going to produce nice raw numbers but those are also the absolute peak possibilities, you're not going to get those consistently.

Another good piece from 2012 (around the Rutgers to B10 talks) had several quotable highlights, among them noting how NYC is 73rd of 77 markets in terms of "percentage of avid college football fans" but that's enough to be 2nd in raw numbers of fans. To me though, the key there is "avid". Those people are likely to watch OSU-Michigan or OU-Texas or Bama-Auburn (as long as the games are competitive) without regard to what conference Rutgers is in.

To be fair - against my own arguments frankly - the article notes that carriage fees drive the deals, not audience (conceding that nothing is likely to drive the audience there). That comes down to the malleability of the cable providers, which isn't something I'd bet on being reliable but mileage may vary.

Does Rutgers really bring in NYC market? - Dollars - ESPN Playbook- ESPN


At it's core, in the television era, college football is IMO a regional sport that has national reach. Similar to NASCAR in its prime. There are pockets outside the core but it's not a significant 365 day a year concern in too many places outside those areas.

[Solecismic]

All this is why I wonder more about the end-game than what's going on now.

I think the powers-that-be understand that major college football requires a different approach than anything else.

Everyone understands that a minor league system, run by the NFL, somewhat like the other major sports, means an end to the cash cow piece of college football.

There's money in men's college basketball, but a huge share comes from the NCAA tournament, and it works best with at least 64 teams and representation from every conference. As opposed to football, where the first-round mismatches wouldn't be all that interesting, would expose teams to injuries, and would extend the season by too many weeks.

For now, everything is driven by media rights. Even the argument made by the Big Ten when adding Nebraska, which seems like ancient history, was that even though Lincoln and Omaha weren't major markets, the media rights were worth a lot because you not only got the Big Ten Network on cable there, you could charge arms and legs for carriage because such a high percentage of sports fans living in Nebraska cared most about Nebraska football. But then just getting onto cable meant enormous money when expanding to Maryland and Rutgers.

Just getting into a market isn't enough. There has to be a university that can support a brand. That's the tricky part. You don't see anyone talking up Temple as a major even though Philadelphia is a major market. You need facilities and a fan base if you're building that kind of brand. It doesn't happen overnight. What this means is that the new form of college football must come from a very limited number of universities.

So... the end game.

It seems the Big Ten and the SEC are battling for control of some sort. In this case, it must mean partial or complete control over whatever major college football league emerges.

What happens to UCLA and USC when football splits from other sports? Without football media rights and with the NCAA tournament as the right balance for maximizing revenue in the only other sport that doesn't lose money, conferences should probably become smaller again. The hardcore fans enjoy the rivalries, want their team always invited and relevant in conference tournaments.

There really isn't that much risk involved, because consolidation will revolve around the old rivalries and geography. Jon's calculations of the value of current Big Twelve basketball seem reasonable, but reasonable as a sum of the parts rather than something conferences can capture.

I think this current gold rush is pointless for everyone but the SEC and Big Ten, and perhaps even worse for these two.

For the Big Twelve and ACC and Pac Twelve, it seems focused 100% on trying to maintain a seat at the playoff table. But that's short-term. Since it's inevitable that a national league forms, there's no saving Iowa State or Oregon State - those brands simply aren't going to attract invitations. So there's value in maintaining a valuable presence in the short term, but not in trying to compete with the super-conference model. Twelve is a good size. So is ten. Even eight, if you maintain your seat long enough.

For these three conferences, it's about preservation. Staying large enough long enough so that your best brands don't die.

For the Big Ten and the SEC, this high-stakes battle seems more like a game of chicken once the biggest schools join. There might be 8-10 universities remaining outside these two conferences that can support a brand at the national level in the long-term league. So what do you do to maintain control? Do you really care, long-term, if you can somehow squeeze a Vanderbilt or a Rutgers into this league, above objections?

For the SEC, yes. The SEC benefits most from as much status quo as possible. This means no draft so that geography keeps the talent in the footprint. You took Texas and Oklahoma because these were huge prizes that added average value to the league, and they were sitting there within your footprint. You look around and you might like Miami or Florida State or Clemson, because footprint and strength. The stronger you are within that footprint, the harder it is to create that mega-league. You don't have the brand capacity of the Big Ten, but you're too big to break up. You're tempted to give Arizona a call, but there's no connection to your core fans or any of your member universities. While Phoenix is worth a lot, it's not the game you need to play because you're on defense, not offense.

For the Big Ten, no. You want markets and bigger rights fees. You want so much that the SEC can't compete any more. Then you get access to the talent. You want a CBA and a draft, a university league that is the de-facto, branded, minor league of the NFL. The only delay in adding more Pac Twelve schools is because you already have them all asking, maybe even begging, and you want to leverage Notre Dame. If you get Notre Dame, the ACC can be plucked, too. The Big Ten is on offense and doesn't care about alliances or rivalries.

[cuervo72]

So then are we at the point of waiting for Toto to pull back the curtain? If that's [what Jon details] the case I'm wondering where if at all the opportunity for growth is, and if conference realignment is akin to shuffling the deck chairs, or even making sure you're one of the ones that gets on the lifeboat.

[NobodyHere]

This is all in the interest of amateur athletics right?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

This is all in the interest of amateur athletics right?

I think it is. Because once football separates, the NCAA can focus on the non-revenue sports and the conferences can return to their regions.

With a few individual exceptions, the NIL money won't be that great and the value of a scholarship means a lot to these families.

It's important to remember that outside of the biggest college football teams and a significant subset of Division I men's college basketball teams, not a single college team in any sport generates any profit at all. So the NCAA amateur approach can and does work.

As for football, why pretend any more? Major college football is a professional sport. This is about brand preservation and not killing a cash cow for universities - one that finances all these amateur sports, in the end.

There's even room to preserve the amateur model for football once a super-league or leagues form.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think it is. Because once football separates, the NCAA can focus on the non-revenue sports and the conferences can return to their regions.

With a few individual exceptions, the NIL money won't be that great and the value of a scholarship means a lot to these families.

It's important to remember that outside of the biggest college football teams and a significant subset of Division I men's college basketball teams, not a single college team in any sport generates any profit at all. So the NCAA amateur approach can and does work.

As for football, why pretend any more? Major college football is a professional sport. This is about brand preservation and not killing a cash cow for universities - one that finances all these amateur sports, in the end.

There's even room to preserve the amateur model for football once a super-league or leagues form.

Except haven't the profits from football and, to a lesser extent, basketball (and a handful of other programs) been used to prop up all other sports, which are money losers?

SI

[bob]

Yep, my understanding is that in most cases, 1) football money pays for the others, and 2) without needing to balance football with Title IX, lots of women's sports go away.

[bob]

Title IX: Compliance often comes down to fuzzy math

This article talks about some of the tricks used to game the system. If football is no longer in the equation, then I think we see lots of changes in sports and scholarships.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Except haven't the profits from football and, to a lesser extent, basketball (and a handful of other programs) been used to prop up all other sports, which are money losers?

SI

Which brings an interesting possible scenario to mind

It requires some assumptions buuuuut, work with me here

1) football superleague(s) form
2) the rest of college sports -- including non superleague football -- return to a fairly recognizable form
3a) Would the athletic departments _outside_ the superleague end up in better shape financially than the ones that have basically lost football being under their roof? They have normalized expenses presumably but still have SOME football revenue.
3b) Or do the athletic departments _inside_ the superleague have an enormous (insurmountable) advantage over everyone that doesn't have football megadollars (in a scenario where some of that revenue is "donated" back to the parent school)

3a or 3b probably come down to a question of "what is the eventual relationship between schools and the superleague football teams that ostensibily represent them" One possible answer I can see is that the superleague teams pay a "licensing fee" back to the school for the right to use their imaging and branding etc .... and that might very quickly turn the reformed conferences into the same haves/have nots situation that already exists

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by bob

Title IX: Compliance often comes down to fuzzy math

This article talks about some of the tricks used to game the system. If football is no longer in the equation, then I think we see lots of changes in sports and scholarships.

As I wrote earlier, look at Army and Navy if you want to see how scholarships work in Division I when you don't have the same Title IX compliance issues. You get more men's sports, but not less women's sports. Universities do not reluctantly have sports programs. They have what they can afford. I can't emphasize enough that none of these sports, anywhere, generate any profit, football or no football. So having these programs is considered part of the university experience.

What happens when football moves outside? The gap between super-league and everyone else grows. But it's still expensive, outside what would be the super-league, to finance football.

Nothing really changes, then. Athletics at universities are still funded by the government and by mandatory student fees. And while many universities are tempted to drop football or never had a football team, alumni hate losing those teams.

Around here, Akron got itself into severe financial trouble because, among other things, they decided to spend enormous amounts of money on an e-sports stadium. So the powers that be spent more money making an extensive report about dropping football, only to conclude that to drop football meant leaving the MAC and the cost of leaving the MAC was greater than ten years of running the money-losing football program.

So they laid off a lot of professors (of course, administrators were relatively untouched) and called it a day.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

What happens when football moves outside? The gap between super-league and everyone else grows. But it's still expensive, outside what would be the super-league, to finance football.

Nothing really changes, then. Athletics at universities are still funded by the government and by mandatory student fees. And while many universities are tempted to drop football or never had a football team, alumni hate losing those teams.

Except now you're doing it in a landscape where the revenue potential of football is dramatically reduced. How do suddenly (at best) I-AA football programs (in terms of interest, eyeballs, donations, et all) fit with traditional D1 everything else?

I think what happens in this scenario is that the quality of everything drops a notch below what D1 non-revenue sports have been accustomed to, most noticeably in basketball.

And, sooner than later, we see basketball demanding to breaking away the same way football has, just with a bit larger pool for their "superleague"

[RainMaker]

Got a kick out of this.

Let's make one big college football super conference of evil

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except now you're doing it in a landscape where the revenue potential of football is dramatically reduced. How do suddenly (at best) I-AA football programs (in terms of interest, eyeballs, donations, et all) fit with traditional D1 everything else?

I think what happens in this scenario is that the quality of everything drops a notch below what D1 non-revenue sports have been accustomed to, most noticeably in basketball.

And, sooner than later, we see basketball demanding to breaking away the same way football has, just with a bit larger pool for their "superleague"

If you asked most college basketball fans in an honest moment, the quality of the college game has already gone dropped to an unacceptable level.

If the NBA finally gets rid of the one and done while at the same time going all in on making the G League a true development league, that pool may be smaller than you think. I don't even mean that in an antagonistic way either. Even if they kept going with one and done, I think the NBA believes it would be better off having the top 10-15 players out of high school in the nation join the G League and putting on 2 or 3 other teams with a similar setup to the G League Ignite as opposed to going to a college campus for a semester.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except now you're doing it in a landscape where the revenue potential of football is dramatically reduced. How do suddenly (at best) I-AA football programs (in terms of interest, eyeballs, donations, et all) fit with traditional D1 everything else?

I think what happens in this scenario is that the quality of everything drops a notch below what D1 non-revenue sports have been accustomed to, most noticeably in basketball.

And, sooner than later, we see basketball demanding to breaking away the same way football has, just with a bit larger pool for their "superleague"

I don't see the revenue needle moving much one way or the other below the major level, except for the annual farce (the Big Ten and Pac Twelve have phased this out for the most part, and Michigan never indulged, except when RichRod was faring so badly they needed a rout to convince those who don't know the difference that the program still had a pulse) where an FCS school travels to a major in order to get half its budget for the year while the players get their asses kicked.

A big difference with the majors who won't make the cut. But maybe they've incurred costs they shouldn't be incurring, trying to keep up with the real powers. This is where the most impact will be felt, and, I think, a big reason why this arms race is taking place right now.

Now that people acknowledge these are essentially professionals and a scholarship is meaningless, things have to change. And what changes is that a line has to be drawn between professional and amateur in the college ranks. Below that line, they will have to reduce a bit, and they've never made money anyway.

I don't see how to keep the talent and eyeballs the same throughout the FBS. Clinging to that doesn't seem realistic if we're setting up a league with a CBA for the professionals. I don't think we'd see the Big Ten and the SEC at 16 with a high threat of further expansion if this wasn't where it was headed.

Should men's basketball go along? It doesn't have to lose its structure the way football does. The NBA already takes the players with the most potential after one year. Players can still get paid and have a contract as professionals. Given the NCAA tournament, the money works either way. Since the crazy money is there, yes, it probably should, only instead of a super-league, it could follow Division I when it goes back to conference sizes that work for every other sport. Basketball won't wag the dog, like football, but the amount of money warrants the switch to professional contracts.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

A big difference with the majors who won't make the cut. But maybe they've incurred costs they shouldn't be incurring, trying to keep up with the real powers. This is where the most impact will be felt, and, I think, a big reason why this arms race is taking place right now.

This is what I was referring to, though from your reply/comments I fear I did a poor job of making that clear. If that's the case, my bad 100%.

(I feel like my using the I-AA reference might have muddied my point)

What I was trying to say is that I expect "not super conference but still D1" football revenue to drop to levels that are more akin to I-AA revenue rather quickly. Think of it along the lines of what the playoff existence did to the lesser bowls.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Now that people acknowledge these are essentially professionals and a scholarship is meaningless, things have to change. And what changes is that a line has to be drawn between professional and amateur in the college ranks. Below that line, they will have to reduce a bit, and they've never made money anyway.

I think that line has been drawn for around 30 years now. Schools have been trying to consolidate power and remove the have-nots from the pie. I don't think any recent changes have changed the approach. Probably more urgency now that TV deals are being negotiated and schools not wanting to be left out.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What I was trying to say is that I expect "not super conference but still D1" football revenue to drop to levels that are more akin to I-AA revenue rather quickly. Think of it along the lines of what the playoff existence did to the lesser bowls.

I think the TV money is still so big that it won't. The American Athletic Conference just signed for $83 million a year. The Mountain West is getting $50 million a year. The tiny Sun Belt filled with a bunch of FCS jumpers is rumored to be around $5+ million a year. You have small conferences like the Ivy League and Patriot signing deals with ESPN+.

Maybe that media bubble pops (although many of these conferences have long term deals). But I still contend that the utter desperation from TV and streaming services for content makes even a 2nd or 3rd tier conference lucrative enough to fund their athletic department.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I think it is. Because once football separates, the NCAA can focus on the non-revenue sports and the conferences can return to their regions.

With a few individual exceptions, the NIL money won't be that great and the value of a scholarship means a lot to these families.

It's important to remember that outside of the biggest college football teams and a significant subset of Division I men's college basketball teams, not a single college team in any sport generates any profit at all. So the NCAA amateur approach can and does work.

As for football, why pretend any more? Major college football is a professional sport. This is about brand preservation and not killing a cash cow for universities - one that finances all these amateur sports, in the end.

There's even room to preserve the amateur model for football once a super-league or leagues form.

Yep, this is exactly where I'm coming from. It's a cash cow for a few, and the concept of a money heavy, top tier, college age, professional football program and still have room for the solid collegiate amateur games. The problem is that the NCAA will refuse to let any of that cash walk out the door, even if it's for the betterment of the overall sport.

[Ksyrup]

Sad news from yesterday that I just saw today - Oregon TE Spencer Webb died after sustaining head injuries in a cliff diving accident.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

As I wrote earlier, look at Army and Navy if you want to see how scholarships work in Division I when you don't have the same Title IX compliance issues. You get more men's sports, but not less women's sports. Universities do not reluctantly have sports programs. They have what they can afford. I can't emphasize enough that none of these sports, anywhere, generate any profit, football or no football. So having these programs is considered part of the university experience.

What happens when football moves outside? The gap between super-league and everyone else grows. But it's still expensive, outside what would be the super-league, to finance football.

Nothing really changes, then. Athletics at universities are still funded by the government and by mandatory student fees. And while many universities are tempted to drop football or never had a football team, alumni hate losing those teams.

Around here, Akron got itself into severe financial trouble because, among other things, they decided to spend enormous amounts of money on an e-sports stadium. So the powers that be spent more money making an extensive report about dropping football, only to conclude that to drop football meant leaving the MAC and the cost of leaving the MAC was greater than ten years of running the money-losing football program.

So they laid off a lot of professors (of course, administrators were relatively untouched) and called it a day.

The Akron e-sports arena was only 750k and it was donor-funded, not paid for by athletic department funds. Varsity E-sports athletes aren't on full rides, they only get a $1k scholly.

Schools can afford to do whatever they want, sports do cost money but scholarships are not real money being spent but merely discounts on a drop in the bucket towards institutional enrollment. D3 schools surely do cost themselves money with sports and need to do play to play because their margins are so thin unless they have big endowments, but...D1 schools, even the state supported ones aren't going broke from sports, they're wasting money in other ways.

Football is a big part of this waste, there's no women's sport that nearly comes close to the bloat that football offers.

[GrantDawg]

Jeremy Pruitt's tenor at Tennessee officially racked up more tier 1 recruiting violations than wins.
Tennessee football recruiting violations under Jeremy Pruitt revealed

[Edward64]

To the SEC fans, do you know when they will announce the 3 permanent rivalry games? I assume only after Texas and OK joins?

[sterlingice]

ESPN initial offer for PAC media rights was 24.5 million, via Jason Scheer on an interview with 365 Sports (247 Arizona Insider) : CFB

ESPN has submitted their lowball offer to the Pac in an attempt to try and kill it off.

SI

[tarcone]

Watching the B1G network coverage of the media days. Scott Frost and nebby appear on the screen and my puppy starts growling and barking at them. Good girl.

[BishopMVP]

And right on schedule Big Ten AD's/Presidents start to change their tune on expanded playoffs post conference expansion Ohio State AD Gene Smith says 'you can't ignore' persistent talk of a 16-team College Football Playoff

[tarcone]

That was one of Warrens talking points was the expanded playoff and how the B1G is on board.

[Edward64]

Hogs have toughest schedule according to ESPN. We're always pretty high up there because we are in the SECW so no surprise.

We went 9-4 last year and surprised a couple (arguably) better football teams with our QB. Don't think we'll surprise anyone this year. Don't think we'll match that this year but will be happy with a winning record vs SEC teams.

2022 college football schedule superlatives -- Whose slate is hardest, easiest and everything in between

A handful of schools can make strong cases here, including Auburn, Georgia Tech, Indiana, LSU, Mississippi State, Stanford and Vanderbilt. But for the second straight year, Arkansas' schedule is brutal, with five games against top-25 teams.

The Hogs are one of five Power 5 teams (Georgia Tech, Oregon, Stanford and Texas Tech the others) that have two nonconference games against ranked teams -- No. 23 Cincinnati at home to open the season Sept. 3 and No. 19 BYU on the road Oct. 15.

In the three weeks leading up to that BYU trip, Arkansas faces No. 5 Texas A&M in Arlington, Texas, No. 1 Alabama at home and Mississippi State on the road. Throw in the trip to Auburn on Oct. 29, and the Hogs have a stretch where they play four of five games away from home.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Umm ...

and the Hogs have a stretch where they play four of five games away from home.

The difficulty of the schedule is fairly noted, but that's kind of cherrypicking (by the writer, not by you)

True enough, they play 4 of 5 away from home during a stretch ... but they also open the season with 4 of 5 at home and close the season with 3 of 4 at home.

I mean, streaks like the road one kinda have to happen if you're front and back loaded with home streaks.