Official 2021 College Football thread

[RainMaker]

I don't really know who the Big 10 would go after now. Maybe sit back and see how things play out. Virginia and Notre Dame would be my top two targets in the ACC if they are able to get them out of their deals.

No one really that appealing out west. Maybe Oregon and BYU? Not sure that moves the needle though. They already got the two schools that matter for TV deals.

[RainMaker]

SBJ Unpacks: EXCLUSIVE: Apple back in on Big Ten talks

[Solecismic]

https://twitter.com/pac12/status/154...080640/photo/1

Ouch. That is not a strong statement. In fairness, they went from what was seemingly a strong position dominating western collegiate sports to losing their biggest media market in less than 24 hours. But I don't think you want to lead with "surprised and disappointed" and you don't want to admit you're already scrambling for "potential members." That's kinda like me every time I tried to expand what I do. Anyone want my potential card-game suite?

[bob]

Wonder how quickly the ACC dissolves now. The grant of rights might be until 2035 or whatever, but if the individual schools don’t do something else soon they will all be on the outside looking in.

[Solecismic]

The one thing we haven't seen is an indication that football will split from other sports.

For football, an elite league makes sense.

For everything else, 16 seems like too big for a conference. Basketball gets a huge percentage of its revenue from the NCAA tournament, and that can't be controlled by these moves.

For the non-revenue sports, why marry yourself to lost rivalries and increased travel costs? As much as it seems like a coup because of the media dollars, I'm not sure, ten years from now, the Big Ten is going to be happy with this. Aside from the fun of having Spartans battle Trojans, with nary an Athenian in sight (because they're busy being one of the Bulldogs of the SEC).

Especially if it makes the first move toward super-conference and expands to 20 by gobbling up the other great Pac Twelve targets. The ACC is only in bad shape if the future is two super-conferences. And that's only football.

We don't know what form the future will take in college football. Conference affiliation may not be part of it at all.

[HerRealName]

Next step:

Several schools - most of them from the Pac-12 - have contacted the Big Ten about joining the conference, sources tells @SINow.

The Big Ten, as they did USC and UCLA, will review and study potential options, but nothing is expected soon/imminent.

— Ross Dellenger (@RossDellenger) June 30, 2022

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

For the non-revenue sports, why marry yourself to lost rivalries and increased travel costs? As much as it seems like a coup because of the media dollars, I'm not sure, ten years from now, the Big Ten is going to be happy with this. Aside from the fun of having Spartans battle Trojans, with nary an Athenian in sight (because they're busy being one of the Bulldogs of the SEC).

Jon seems more in tune with the media rights stuff so maybe he can answer. But it sure seems like the money out there is going to be astronomical for these big conferences. Especially since some of these streaming services have money to burn. The MLS just got $250 million a year.

I saw numbers of $1 billion a year being floated before UCLA and USC joined. And that doesn't include their network which just added the 2nd biggest media market and a whole lot more people paying monthly carriage fees.

Maybe that bubble bursts in 5-10 years and they regret this, but that's a lot of money.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Jon seems more in tune with the media rights stuff so maybe he can answer. But it sure seems like the money out there is going to be astronomical for these big conferences. Especially since some of these streaming services have money to burn. The MLS just got $250 million a year.

Such is the desperation for content.

But, like the Olympics, it's the sort of thing that can wreck a network's finances (and ad inventory) for years if the most optimistic projections aren't hit.

Sooner or later, the golden goose will keel over ... and might end up taking a whole lot of network executives with it.

[tarcone]

Im seeing Oregon and Washington as the next 2 schools to join the B1G

WTF? Lets go to one 64 team conference. Olympic sports stay in their region, football and BB have marquee matchups weekly.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's just a rumor, but it seems to have some legs. Jaden Rashada just signed with Miami. He's a quarterback who would be a welcome addition just about anywhere.

The rumor is that Miami offered an NIL package worth $9.5 million and that other schools were even offering more money.

To put that in perspective, that would be the four-year complete compensation for an end-of-first-round NFL draft pick. Or about equivalent to the signing bonus that the 13th overall pick just took home.

And nothing apparently prevents him from turning around next year and doing the same thing with his free transfer.

This transition period to acknowledging that major college basketball and football players are, indeed, professional athletes who should be compensated is getting very interesting.

Michigan recently gave athletes permission to use Michigan trademarks, I'd guess with some restriction (no porn sites, maybe?).

But is all this sustainable? It's seemingly a lot like the perceived value of the NFT market, with superfans able to participate by purchasing players for their favorite teams. At some point, you have to worry about organized crime and fixing games. The NCAA simply doesn't have any hope of getting any measure of control of this.

There has to be some sort of CBA at some point. But then how are players allocated to teams?

No less sustainable than paying coaches tens of millions of dollars.

As for playing allocation, the way that med schools do match day could be fashioned for college football/basketball if someone was concerned about fairness, but you'd also need to be paying players and it seems we're still going to act like that's not good.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

it seems we're still going to act like that's not good.

It's not only "not good", it's a fucking abomination.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Such is the desperation for content.

But, like the Olympics, it's the sort of thing that can wreck a network's finances (and ad inventory) for years if the most optimistic projections aren't hit.

Sooner or later, the golden goose will keel over ... and might end up taking a whole lot of network executives with it.

Yeah, seems like a lot of the regional sports networks got roasted by some bad deals. But everyone else still craves something live. Never thought I'd see the day where pro wrestling was on network TV in primetime each week.

The interesting aspect are the streaming services. I don't think the conferences would allow them to buy up the rights to all the games, but I do think some of those companies would pay a stupid amount of money for just a piece. Apple is doing it with baseball. Amazon with NFL. And these companies are so big that dropping a few hundred million a year for the 3rd choice in the Big 10 is pocket change for them.

Maybe I'm putting too much stock into what people are saying about Apple's interest, but that college football fan demographic seems right up their alley.

[Kodos]

Report: Washington and Oregon eyeing Big Ten admittance

Washington and Oregon want in, but have been put on hold.

Sources: Oregon and Washington have been told by @bigten that it is standing pat for now. Waiting on a decision by Notre Dame.

— Dennis Dodd (@dennisdoddcbs) July 1, 2022

[albionmoonlight]

My preliminary thoughts on Division Super A College Football (or whatever you want to call it)

Get rid of the current conferences. Take the best/biggest 64 teams. 8 divisions of 8 teams each. Winner of each division goes to playoff. 4 wild card teams make playoff. Top 4 division winners get a first round bye.

Would also be kind of cool to have a relegation system set up where, like, the bottom 4 teams get relegated and another 4 can join the group of 64, but I can't see the schools being on board with that.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

My preliminary thoughts on Division Super A College Football (or whatever you want to call it)

Get rid of the current conferences. Take the best/biggest 64 teams. 8 divisions of 8 teams each. Winner of each division goes to playoff. 4 wild card teams make playoff. Top 4 division winners get a first round bye.

Would also be kind of cool to have a relegation system set up where, like, the bottom 4 teams get relegated and another 4 can join the group of 64, but I can't see the schools being on board with that.

If this was the format, I think you would almost have to have some type of relegation system, that would give the second tier schools something to play for. It would also make the bowl system more useful, because you could take the winners of 8 second tier divisions and let them play in 4 bowl games, winners get promoted. Hell, let's really make it fun and take the 8 last place place teams from tier 1, have them play in 4 bowl games and the losers get relegated.

[Kodos]

It was predicted!

[tarcone]

Fox is based in LA and seems to love the Trojans. Fox owns 61% of the BTN which just added the LA market to their other huge markets. B1G loves eyeballs. Fox is also sitting in on the negotiations with the B1G and other networks when it comes to the next deal.

[tarcone]

USC and UCLA also get in on the billions and billions of research dollars that the B1G has access too. And they are excellent educational institutions. Now if the B1G would get rid of Nebby

[Kodos]

And Rutgers. And Maryland.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by tarcone

USC and UCLA also get in on the billions and billions of research dollars that the B1G has access too. And they are excellent educational institutions. Now if the B1G would get rid of Nebby

The Alliance has 10 billion in grants. UCLA alone grabbed 1.4 in external grants. I'm not sure UCLA needs help in accessing grants

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

The Alliance has 10 billion in grants. UCLA alone grabbed 1.4 in external grants. I'm not sure UCLA needs help in accessing grants

True.

Unfortunately their athletic department is deeply in the red. They need B1G money.

[BishopMVP]

When does the B1G try to kick out Rutgers, Nebraska, Maryland and Iowa for ND/Clemson/Washington/Oregon?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

When does the B1G try to kick out Rutgers, Nebraska, Maryland and Iowa for ND/Clemson/Washington/Oregon?

That's not how this is going to work. Those NYC/DC tv screens aren't going to be ceded so the ACC to revive the Big East, because that's what'd happen if you did that.

Washington and Oregon aren't remotely as lucrative TV markets as DC/NYC metro, sorry. Who cares about on-the-field performance, this is all about media rights deals and expanding footprints.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

That's not how this is going to work. Those NYC/DC tv screens aren't going to be ceded so the ACC to revive the Big East, because that's what'd happen if you did that.

Washington and Oregon aren't remotely as lucrative TV markets as DC/NYC metro, sorry. Who cares about on-the-field performance, this is all about media rights deals and expanding footprints.

Media rights were about the last round of expansion and led to clear mistakes. More and more sports are being watched on streaming services and eyeballs mean far more there than how many people are in your market. Not to say market doesn't mean anything, but you need to matter in that market. Apple, Amazon, Netflix, ect don't are how many people could theoretically watch your product.

[tarcone]

B1G did kick Iowa out back in the 30s. Well, teams refused to play them.

Bring in ND, Mizzou, Oregon and Washington. If you cant get Mizzou, get Pitt.

Done deal. That is 20.

[Solecismic]

There's no telling what will happen until football splits from the rest of the college sports landscape.

I'm wondering what was said in the homes of the UCLA and USC baseball and softball coaches last week. At least beach volleyball was spared.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Not to say market doesn't mean anything, but you need to matter in that market.

This, this, a million fucking billion times THIS.

This simple reality does, sadly, come with a caveat though: even the people who are paid to understand this fact have a disturbing tendency to ignore it.

Claiming that Rutgers somehow matters in a meaningful number for how many people in the largest media market watch college football is The Emperor's New Clothes of the entire broken system.

It's the old cable network "available in a trillion households" ... yes, but how many of those households CARE? con.

But we live in a world where media companies AND media buyers don't understand how the most basic bath of their business even works.

[cuervo72]

Yeah, I still don't buy the effectiveness of the market theory. Ok, I am in the Maryland (DC) market. Do I care? Hell no. I mean, I'll wish the Terps well, but there are about 30 other teams I'd watch before them if given the choice.

[Solecismic]

Big Ten Network has distribution deals with the three major local cable providers - nj.com

It certainly drove things not that long ago. It may matter less today, but, believe it or not, 65% of households still have cable subscriptions and prices keep going up.

Rutgers may have stretched the proverbial limits of the value of a program that matters to a tiny percentage of households getting a network onto basic cable, but it did its job.

I don't pretend to know what's going on in Indianapolis (HQ of the Big Ten, or is it Chicago now, can't remember), but I would not dismiss the addition of the 15th largest market (Seattle) or even 25th (Portland, which cares about long-distant Eugene because there's no other game in town). They just took #2 (LA) and could also take #12 (SF) or #19 (Denver).

Most experts say San Francisco is not a top priority. That tells me this is more about football than anything else. You want a university that would fit in with the Big Ten, have some LA rivalries, connect a major market, give you international prestige... well, Stanford. And in just about every sport this side of football, it's a force. So, this is about football, the goal is a super-conference and they probably need more western opponents.

Like I said, I don't know where this is headed. Perhaps there's confidence that Stanford would never consider the SEC super-conference, so this is about establishing boundaries. It's not quite Coke and Pepsi, but it seems somewhat similar.

Of course, one leader somewhere could change all of this in an instant. The SEC fired that shot in going to 16. The Big Ten responded, and again changed the landscape. It's all very interesting, but it will absolutely require football to split off on its own, maybe sooner than we think possible.

[Solecismic]

Going long here...

So let's say this is about football and the goal is a super-conference that brings billions in revenue. You're the Big Ten. You have a collection of great universities and fans everywhere.

But... you're #2 or worse on the field. You can't compete head-up with the SEC because a large percentage of athletes grew up in areas where the SEC is king.

You can't be satisfied with a super-conference that rivals the SEC super-conference (assuming Clemson and Florida State get out of the anchor that the ACC threw around them with that 2036 media rights agreement). Because there will be better football, on average, in the SEC.

The status quo is only fine for now. Long-term, with a football-only landscape, you need to thrash the SEC in media rights. You need to beat them by so much, per school, that the elite athletes growing up in SEC country consider the Big Ten the place where elite athletes play.

The only way you do that is to lock up media rights. I hope the Big Ten is savvy enough not to sign immediately on a new deal, or sign short-term. Let potential partners see a league that might bring in the whole west coast, maybe Denver and Phoenix as well.

Because once you've beaten the SEC in this high-stakes battle, what you've done is gained control over what will be The Superconference, and you've guaranteed your core universities a place at the table - something the lesser southeastern markets won't have unless the SEC becomes The Superconference.

Maybe it can't happen. Maybe geography is too strong a pull for teenagers. But this seems like it has to be the goal if you're sitting in the Big Ten's seat.

[cuervo72]

Hey, by 2036 the B1G will be #1 in the country after the SEC states all secede...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Yeah, I still don't buy the effectiveness of the market theory. Ok, I am in the Maryland (DC) market. Do I care? Hell no. I mean, I'll wish the Terps well, but there are about 30 other teams I'd watch before them if given the choice.

I got a pretty good education on how ineffective it can be back in my days of dealing with local market TV on a regular basis.

Maybe the easiest example is a real one, from the market I know best: Atlanta

When you deep dove into the numbers for alllll the college football games airing here, and I mean going week by week, game by game the pattern was pretty consistent.

The worst possible SEC game of the week on the shittiest station at noon (the old syndicated package before anybody had their own network) regularly outdrew -- in every demo -- the very best the ACC had to offer. It was better, not good but better, when GT happened to be in the featured game ... but up to 2x as many people would watch Vandy-Kentucky when neither had a win.

What matters, in terms of delivering eyeballs, is how many people give a shit about the team involved. And there's not a statistically significant number of people in Atlanta who give the slightest flying fuck about ACC football unless there's a nationally relevant team at the moment. Literally week after week, the the syndicated games were putting up 0.0 ratings regularly (to do that you have to have less than 0.04% of the demo watching, cause 0.05 will round up to a 0.1 rating) and the ABC featured game on the #1 station in the market was lucky to get to a 0.4.

Whereas the absolute worst possible SEC game -- Vandy vs a I-AA team -- would put up at least a 0.9 or 1.0 ... literally over 10 times the audience that Wake vs Maryland (random example) could put up, and double a headliner like FSU vs Va Tech (back in the day)

So anybody "yay, the ACC has "Atlanta" in their footprint" all they want, if nobody gives there gives flying fuck then it doesn't have value to anyone who knows how numbers work.

I've picked on the ACC and Atlanta here but the same principle applies to any conference and any market.

[PilotMan]

Ditch the NCAA and start a pro developmental league and siphons the money from the schools. Collegiate football should die the death it deserves at this point.

[bob]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I've picked on the ACC and Atlanta here but the same principle applies to any conference and any market.

To go along with this, there were 3 or 4 times I couldn’t even find the GT games available on Atlanta area cable last fall.

I keep telling friends that the only value of GT / Atlanta for the Big10 would be to give those Big 10 schools a reason to come to town for recruiting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by bob

To go along with this, there were 3 or 4 times I couldn’t even find the GT games available on Atlanta area cable last fall.

I keep telling friends that the only value of GT / Atlanta for the Big10 would be to give those Big 10 schools a reason to come to town for recruiting.

I will point out that when ABC got involved with Big 10 games (and they aired on WSB-TV) those posted the same ratings or worse than the ACC.

It's why the whole "oh play only P5" cries are a great indication of somebody who doesn't understand college football fans and in particular don't understand Southern college football fans. People here would just as soon see Troy, Furman, Citadel, whoever as Illinois, Indiana, or any other P5 that isn't a top 10 team.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I will point out that when ABC got involved with Big 10 games (and they aired on WSB-TV) those posted the same ratings or worse than the ACC.

It's why the whole "oh play only P5" cries are a great indication of somebody who doesn't understand college football fans and in particular don't understand Southern college football fans. People here would just as soon see Troy, Furman, Citadel, whoever as Illinois, Indiana, or any other P5 that isn't a top 10 team.

It's also easier to sell success to fans and recruits when you're a 9 win team with 3 wins over non-P5 schools than a 6 win team against all P5 opponents. That's the nature of college football and it isn't changing.

People that casually watch may like seeing the "better matchups", but those that are putting money into the programs want wins above all else.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Atocep

People that casually watch may like seeing the "better matchups", but those that are putting money into the programs want wins above all else.

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.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Big Ten Network has distribution deals with the three major local cable providers - nj.com

It certainly drove things not that long ago. It may matter less today, but, believe it or not, 65% of households still have cable subscriptions and prices keep going up.

I think that is it. Rutgers and Maryland got their network into the New York and DC market. It's been estimated to bring in $50 million a year.

Now they've added Los Angeles market to that. Already a report that they've raised the carriage fee from $0.10 a subscriber to $1.50 a subscriber. I don't know how many homes subscribe in the Los Angeles market, but that feels like a lot more money.

And then you have your national TV deal where you've added two big name schools. It's an extra game you can sell networks or streaming services each week. There is already a report that Apple jumped into the bidding because of the move.

It's all about TV money right now. And adding more big name schools to your conference makes that TV package more enticing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It's why the whole "oh play only P5" cries are a great indication of somebody who doesn't understand college football fans and in particular don't understand Southern college football fans. People here would just as soon see Troy, Furman, Citadel, whoever as Illinois, Indiana, or any other P5 that isn't a top 10 team.

On the other hand, Saban has criticized fans for not showing up or leaving early when they play crap teams. The school had to make an app to encourage people to stay the whole game.

I get not caring about playing bad schools like Illinois or Washington State. But the quality of opponent and name recognition does matter in some regards. Their game against Texas will garner much higher TV ratings than their game against Utah State (and Utah State might not be much worse than Texas). And the secondary market shows the price for tickets against Texas A&M dwarf those for the game against Austin Peay this year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

On the other hand, Saban has criticized fans for not showing up or leaving early when they play crap teams. The school had to make an app to encourage people to stay the whole game.

I get not caring about playing bad schools like Illinois or Washington State. But the quality of opponent and name recognition does matter in some regards. Their game against Texas will garner much higher TV ratings than their game against Utah State (and Utah State might not be much worse than Texas). And the secondary market shows the price for tickets against Texas A&M dwarf those for the game against Austin Peay this year.

A&M had a certain degree of relevance this past season, so that's completely in line. (Hell, it's a premium game in some situations).

The old names -- Penn State, Texas, OU, hell even Nebraska perhaps -- have an elevated profile despite prolonged struggles in some cases.

But until we get down to the 30-40 team size/structure, it isn't always gonna be one of those bigger names. There aren't enough of those to go around for an insular P5 vs P5 scenario in the current structure. SOMEbody is always stuck playing the minnows when you add that up. Hell, even IN-conference has some of that. First visit aside (a thing I noticed, first visits are just different) nobody in Athens gives two fucks about playing Missouri. And honestly, they never will.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

On the other hand, Saban has criticized fans for not showing up or leaving early when they play crap teams. The school had to make an app to encourage people to stay the whole game.

I get not caring about playing bad schools like Illinois or Washington State. But the quality of opponent and name recognition does matter in some regards. Their game against Texas will garner much higher TV ratings than their game against Utah State (and Utah State might not be much worse than Texas). And the secondary market shows the price for tickets against Texas A&M dwarf those for the game against Austin Peay this year.

If Alabama started dropping 2-3 games a year because they scheduled losses to top competition rather than guaranteed wins their fans would be selling their A&M tickets to A&M fans.

Wins mean everything to fanbases in college football. Years of sustained wins increases fan interest, drives ticket prices, drives facility improvements, and improves recruiting. Alabama fans give zero shits at the end of the season if they lost 2-3 games against the best teams in the country. They'd still want Sabans head on a pike if happened a couple of years in a row and it would start to erode fan interest.

The story is similar for every team in the country. Texas fans would rather win 9-10 in the Big 12 than 6-7 in the SEC. USC has had a big drop in home attendance as their winning has fallen off. They're going to help bring a lot more money to the Big 10, but they need to win or the fans do stop showing up to see 6 win football teams.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Ditch the NCAA and start a pro developmental league and siphons the money from the schools. Collegiate football should die the death it deserves at this point.

No money in it. I have always thought it would be better for the sport in general to have a minor league system for the NFL. But why would they when it would only lose money, and the NCAA does it for free? Sports only exist to pull money out of your pocket.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by tarcone

True.

Unfortunately their athletic department is deeply in the red. They need B1G money.

They are in the red, but only until the Under Armor lawsuit money kicks in. They weren't about to go under without it, either.

[albionmoonlight]

Jon's posts have really got me thinking. I guess that before you can start to game out how to do things, you need to figure out what you are trying to do.

CFB is being massively shaken up. What do we want left standing after the rubble settles? And different people are going to want different things.

[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?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I will point out that when ABC got involved with Big 10 games (and they aired on WSB-TV) those posted the same ratings or worse than the ACC.

It's why the whole "oh play only P5" cries are a great indication of somebody who doesn't understand college football fans and in particular don't understand Southern college football fans. People here would just as soon see Troy, Furman, Citadel, whoever as Illinois, Indiana, or any other P5 that isn't a top 10 team.

See, this dynamic is interesting to me though. SEC areas won't be interested in other conferences -- they have their allegiances/viewing habits and those are hard-set. But what of the other way around? Granted I'm only one data point, but I grew up rooting more or less for Penn State. But I just liked football, so I'd watch pretty much anybody decently ranked. PSU moved to the B1G so I guess I paid a little more attention to them, but it wasn't like I had some big allegiance. Even now, rooting somewhat for Purdue, I don't care that much. If there is a better SEC game on against a B1G game, I'll watch the SEC game.

What are CFB numbers like in places like NYC? You can't tell me there's nobody in a city of however million that watches it (but those that do I would say do so independently of uh, Rutgers). Or have you already pulled in whoever is going to be pulled in?

I mean, I guess my angle is that there's plenty of CFB available. But give me more quality CFB. That's not Bama vs Troy, or some random MAC matchup. If that's my only option, I'll do something else. Offer me a cross-conference P5 game though, you might keep my eyeballs.

[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?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

No money in it. I have always thought it would be better for the sport in general to have a minor league system for the NFL. But why would they when it would only lose money, and the NCAA does it for free? Sports only exist to pull money out of your pocket.

I disagree, I think there's tons upon tons of money in it, but it would completely gut all of college sports (because maybe it should). The NCAA and schools would lose out on their cash cow, but I think it would be so much better in the long term. Or go straight to the Academies model and stop pretending that the school is the important part. Who wouldn't want to attend the "Browns" developmental academy?!

[Kodos]

I basically watch:

1. Every Indiana game
2. Big Ten games of interest (if I am not doing something else with my family)
3. Big national games between P5 schools (if I'm not doing anything else with family)

[Kodos]

FWIW, a minor-league football thing would not attract my attention nearly as much as college football. The affiliation with my school is crucial to the interest level. Although I guess if Rochester had a minor-league football team, that would grab my interest.