ADVERTISEMENT

Cable TV is dead. That's why the next round of college football realignment could look more like the

The overall premise of the article is correct but some of the logic is flawed and ignores certain realities. First, college football is about tradition and rivalry. Most state legislatures would not allow a breakdown into four conferences with eight teams that abandons everyone else. There is no way in hell that the state of Washington would willingly see WSU fall into irrelevance without a fight. Cal is far too influential in the state of California for that state to allow them to disappear. Stanford alums don't care a lot, but at the same time, they would fight it. Oklahoma State's graduates would never let OU get ahead of them. You think Georgia gets a pass and Georgia Tech gets hosed......think again. Look at that list and there are dozens of very influential schools that are left off.

I believe that there will come a time when FCS teams are banned from playing FBS teams because of TV ratings. ESPN doesn't want to pay money for nobody to watch Auburn play McNeese State. Eventually, I could see a rule that says that you aren't eligible for the college football playoff if you play any FCS teams.

Even though I mentioned WSU above, we are one of the handful of schools that are in danger of the dominoes start to fall and conferences actually start to fracture on a widespread basis. The scenario with four 16 team superconferences is very likely and I don't know that WSU would make the cut. I'd like our chances overall but you never know. I just don't see the desire to drop major college football down to 32 teams. We already have the NFL and two leagues trying to do the same thing never works out.
 
The overall premise of the article is correct but some of the logic is flawed and ignores certain realities. First, college football is about tradition and rivalry. Most state legislatures would not allow a breakdown into four conferences with eight teams that abandons everyone else. There is no way in hell that the state of Washington would willingly see WSU fall into irrelevance without a fight. Cal is far too influential in the state of California for that state to allow them to disappear. Stanford alums don't care a lot, but at the same time, they would fight it. Oklahoma State's graduates would never let OU get ahead of them. You think Georgia gets a pass and Georgia Tech gets hosed......think again. Look at that list and there are dozens of very influential schools that are left off.

I believe that there will come a time when FCS teams are banned from playing FBS teams because of TV ratings. ESPN doesn't want to pay money for nobody to watch Auburn play McNeese State. Eventually, I could see a rule that says that you aren't eligible for the college football playoff if you play any FCS teams.

Even though I mentioned WSU above, we are one of the handful of schools that are in danger of the dominoes start to fall and conferences actually start to fracture on a widespread basis. The scenario with four 16 team superconferences is very likely and I don't know that WSU would make the cut. I'd like our chances overall but you never know. I just don't see the desire to drop major college football down to 32 teams. We already have the NFL and two leagues trying to do the same thing never works out.
College football is about MONEY. Period. If you believe concepts like rivalries exist at the highest level without being packaged to make $$$$ you've been duped and you have drunk the kool-aid. The reason we play the rivalries we do is because enough people have bought the marketing line sold them. Sometimes rivalries are geographically dictated (UW/WSU or USC/UCLA), or sometimes things like coach's wives play a role (SC/ND). But make no mistake: unless those games make enough money for enough people and the right sort of people, they go away, no matter how they began. Don't make the mistake of thinking rivalry games are permanently carved in stone from God. They exist because marketing efforts have worked. If the paradigm changes to be more upfront about money, where demand for excellence becomes even more direct (which is one of the author's points), then there will be little demand for ANY game that can't sell advertisers. Companies have a finite advertising pie, and as rates go up demand for airtime on lower tier games will shrink, and the demand for those games will dry up. Call this phenomenon advertising "memes" or whatever, but, as another post made clear about College Station and ATM, the mentality of southern people regarding football is simply different. Yes, that's nurture not nature but it's been drilled into them from Day One. Southerners continue to drink the kool-aid that insists that football is as essential to life as air and water. And that is due to successful marketing.

Societies and their loves change. I believe wazzu won a national title in college boxing. Now collegiate boxing would be considered one step above bear-baiting. Marketing both creates this change and is a slave to it. So if the powers that be can convince legislatures and college admins that it's worth millions to their schools to do X and to drop Y, they'll do it. Rivalries or no rivalries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 425cougfan
College football is about MONEY. Period. If you believe concepts like rivalries exist at the highest level without being packaged to make $$$$ you've been duped and you have drunk the kool-aid. The reason we play the rivalries we do is because enough people have bought the marketing line sold them. Sometimes rivalries are geographically dictated (UW/WSU or USC/UCLA), or sometimes things like coach's wives play a role (SC/ND). But make no mistake: unless those games make enough money for enough people and the right sort of people, they go away, no matter how they began. Don't make the mistake of thinking rivalry games are permanently carved in stone from God. They exist because marketing efforts have worked. If the paradigm changes to be more upfront about money, where demand for excellence becomes even more direct (which is one of the author's points), then there will be little demand for ANY game that can't sell advertisers. Companies have a finite advertising pie, and as rates go up demand for airtime on lower tier games will shrink, and the demand for those games will dry up. Call this phenomenon advertising "memes" or whatever, but, as another post made clear about College Station and ATM, the mentality of southern people regarding football is simply different. Yes, that's nurture not nature but it's been drilled into them from Day One. Southerners continue to drink the kool-aid that insists that football is as essential to life as air and water. And that is due to successful marketing.

Societies and their loves change. I believe wazzu won a national title in college boxing. Now collegiate boxing would be considered one step above bear-baiting. Marketing both creates this change and is a slave to it. So if the powers that be can convince legislatures and college admins that it's worth millions to their schools to do X and to drop Y, they'll do it. Rivalries or no rivalries.

Regarding your point on rivalries, Oregon-Washington would survive the shakeout in college football that will happen long before WSU-Washington or OSU-Oregon. Just ask Oregon and Washington fans and see the fan followings of both.

Money will ultimately change college football to be more and more like the NFL.

As for the South and football, I think the marketing is only re-enforcing the passion that already existed for football.
 
I think the article is wrong in that it's unrealistically gloomy, it picks at least a half dozen of the wrong teams in it's final 32, and it ignores the possibility of shifting paradigms in how games are watched/broadcast.

It's true that cable is effectively dead, which is dragging down the networks which rely on it, as well as the contracts. In reality, based on what they're paying, I fully expect that within the next 4-5 years we'll see ESPN and other networks approach their partners to modify contracts that they can't afford to pay. That'll be the first domino.

It's also true that it's a business, and networks and CFB will both follow the money. But, that's where the paradigm will shift. More viewers will move to streaming services rather than cable. As that happens, money will follow. Advertisers will pay more to be streamed, and in greater numbers. Streaming fees and revenues will go up, and streaming services will pay conferences and teams for rights to their games. The money will still be there, it'll just be in different places.

As a business move, nobody's going to let CFB get down to 32 teams. I don't even think it'll go to 64. While there's certainly less national interest in most teams and a lot of rivalries, there's still significant regional interest, and there's still money tied to that...and there's someone who wants that cash. Until that changes, there won't be a major contraction in CFB. Realignment will happen every few years, to some degree, and there will be small market teams with small fan bases and low levels of success who fall back down to FCS (like Idaho). But money is money, and nobody's going to leave profit on the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fab5Coug
College football is about MONEY.

You could have stopped there.

We have non-cons because teams wanted warm up games, but the 13 game season is all about money. "Hey, people will actually show up and pay to watch this crap! Oh, and look! They'll watch on TV too!! Better add a full slate of 3 non-cons then!"

There isn't a decision that isn't made without $$$ being a top 3 factor, if not THE driving factor. Its the reason for the crap bowls, crap tv deals, crap body bag games... pretty much everything crap about college football.
 
Regarding your point on rivalries, Oregon-Washington would survive the shakeout in college football that will happen long before WSU-Washington or OSU-Oregon. Just ask Oregon and Washington fans and see the fan followings of both.

Money will ultimately change college football to be more and more like the NFL.

As for the South and football, I think the marketing is only re-enforcing the passion that already existed for football.
How did this happen: well, unless you or someone actually wants to attempt to make some sort of biological argument for southern human DNA being different and having an affinity for football at conception, it is a learned behavior. So marketing is the fuel that keeps it going on some level. If Bubba 1 trains Bubba 2 as the latter is still in the crib (which is decked out in Woodland Camo, btw), then that it is still nurture, and I suspect that if we traced it back far enough there is some logo, slogan, mantra, song, narrative, etc., etc. invented by some Mad Men that keeps the southern juices flowing.....
If football didn't exist would the south have to invent it?? Good question
 
College football is about money but at it's core, the people that support college football are about college football rivalries. A large percentage of fans only watch college football because of their affiliation with a local college team. You eliminate 75% of the teams and you will lose around 40% of your overall fans and the magic money ball blows up. I would not watch one second of college football if WSU was one of the teams that wasn't covered. I watch about 20 minutes of SEC football in any given season and maybe a few bit of the most prestigious bowl games.. I don't spend my January 1st watching a bunch of teams that I didn't care about before that day. Nobody wants a lower level NFL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: longtimecoug
How did this happen: well, unless you or someone actually wants to attempt to make some sort of biological argument for southern human DNA being different and having an affinity for football at conception, it is a learned behavior. So marketing is the fuel that keeps it going on some level. If Bubba 1 trains Bubba 2 as the latter is still in the crib (which is decked out in Woodland Camo, btw), then that it is still nurture, and I suspect that if we traced it back far enough there is some logo, slogan, mantra, song, narrative, etc., etc. invented by some Mad Men that keeps the southern juices flowing.....
If football didn't exist would the south have to invent it?? Good question


I think it's genetic...or a way for the South to get revenge on the North for their loss in the Civil War.:D
Whatever it is, it's working. The South has been kicking the North's arse for years now in football...and many other sports.
 
Four things...

Butts in seats matter. WSU has a captive audience. Once students turn into alums, the propaganda campaign should have been so successful they line up to buy tickets for the next season - after they've left Pullman.

Cable may die, streaming may begin. How do you capitalize on streaming advertising dollars? How can you collect marketing info on who is streaming the games and what products they might be interested in?

I go back and forth on the scheduling... Either line up the lesser West Coast schools OR each team plays a full conference slate with 1 non conference game.

I've always thought that the big viewing dollars would include the entirety of Power 5 football, not pieces of it. Much like the NFL.
 
Four things...

Butts in seats matter. WSU has a captive audience. Once students turn into alums, the propaganda campaign should have been so successful they line up to buy tickets for the next season - after they've left Pullman.

Cable may die, streaming may begin. How do you capitalize on streaming advertising dollars? How can you collect marketing info on who is streaming the games and what products they might be interested in?

I go back and forth on the scheduling... Either line up the lesser West Coast schools OR each team plays a full conference slate with 1 non conference game.

I've always thought that the big viewing dollars would include the entirety of Power 5 football, not pieces of it. Much like the NFL.

I'd venture that the market research on who watches CFB is pretty set in stone, as well as who the cable cutters are. You could just Venn diagram the two and advertise based on the cross-over, or sell ads for both markets.

Speaking directly to streaming, I'd be the first in line to buy an ala carte Pac12 network streaming subscription, as would pretty much every other Coug/ Directv customer I know. Either they have their heads so far up their kiester that they can't see the writing on the wall or they signed a horrible contract that won't allow them to do so (giving up the rights to their own content - who the f does that?)
 
Four things...

Butts in seats matter. WSU has a captive audience. Once students turn into alums, the propaganda campaign should have been so successful they line up to buy tickets for the next season - after they've left Pullman.

Cable may die, streaming may begin. How do you capitalize on streaming advertising dollars? How can you collect marketing info on who is streaming the games and what products they might be interested in?

I go back and forth on the scheduling... Either line up the lesser West Coast schools OR each team plays a full conference slate with 1 non conference game.

I've always thought that the big viewing dollars would include the entirety of Power 5 football, not pieces of it. Much like the NFL.
Not necessarily replying to you but I don't see the conferences cutting all those teams, either. Defies every money making scheme I've ever seen. At least those that make money.

Regarding attendance... It matters and it doesn't. There is a real shift happening. The market focus is changing. It matters now but will it matter in 20 years? Depends on the customer and if they're willing to sit on their ass in a couch or at the game in uncomfortable bleachers. What are they willing to pay to sit on their coach vs. watch in person?

Regarding the shift from cable to streaming, Bleed mentions it... It's because everyone is tired of paying for 300 channels and only watching 20. I'm among them! With streaming the market has evolved into smaller packages. Meaning the "stations" are getting money that they generate only, a smaller piece of the pie that they are SOLELY responsible for. No more riding coat-tails of other stations... That means less money. With those bigger packages, they'd get larger chunks of the pie. BUT... if Verizon, ATT, etc. continue to buy up these smaller streaming providers, I can easily see them constructing a similar pattern as what is available now. Big packages with hundreds of stations no one watches. Because of the flip side, as an example... If the Pac 12 contracts become too small... why wouldn't they cut everyone out and become their OWN provider?! All games EXCLUSIVE on the Pac 12 app, kind of thing. That's the real balance...
 
I agree with the premise of the article, but I too think that it's unrealistically gloomy. Without question, there will always be an upper crust in the collegiate sporting world, and WSU will not be a part of it. That's already the case today.

What WSU has going for them is their West coast location. If (when) the time comes where the upper crust wants to break off and form their own NFL type of alignment, WSU is positioned to move into the 2nd layer. What programs out West are legitimately candidates for the upper crust? UW, Oregon, Stanford, USC, UCLA, maybe the Arizona schools, but not necessarily.

When the dust settles, and the big boys move up, there will still be a huge market for the teams who stay back. Unlike the East, South East, Midwest, and Southwest, there aren't as many teams for WSU to compete with for a seat at the table. WSU, Oregon State, Cal, San Diego State, Colorado, Utah, Boise State, Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming....see how quickly the well dries up? I'm older now, and if we formed a league with some of the above mentioned schools, it wouldn't bother me at all. We could still play the Apple Cup, still play OOC games with Oregon, Stanford, USC, etc. Most importantly, we'd still be able to recruit at a high level, given how few true super power programs there are out West.

Quite frankly, WSU has been VERY fortunate to be associated with the Pac10/12 for as long as we have. On the spreadsheet, we don't deserve to be there. Because we've hung around as long as we have, our University has grown in prominence to the point where we now have a huge satellite campus network, a new Medical school, and are clearly the 2nd biggest school in WA state and the entire inland NW.

For those of you younger fans, trust me when I say that our outlook was A LOT darker back in the 70's and 80's, when WSU was barely hanging on. We now have a glistening campus, and a University that has distinguished itself from virtually every other large public school in the NW.
 
Reading articles like this just reminds me there will come a day when I don't watch college football anymore. The day they go super conferences and WSU is left scrambling to find another league is probably that day.

I can put up with a lot as a college football fan. Every game kicking off at 7:30, then taking 4 hours, keeping me up till almost midnight. Horrible, uncompetitive non conference schedules. Yawn inducing bowl matchups. But, the day the Pac 12 dissolves will be the day I've had enough.
 
Reading articles like this just reminds me there will come a day when I don't watch college football anymore. The day they go super conferences and WSU is left scrambling to find another league is probably that day.

I can put up with a lot as a college football fan. Every game kicking off at 7:30, then taking 4 hours, keeping me up till almost midnight. Horrible, uncompetitive non conference schedules. Yawn inducing bowl matchups. But, the day the Pac 12 dissolves will be the day I've had enough.
And I'll probably leave a little sooner than you. When the Pac12 turns into something that I don't even recognize, I'll be out. Even if WSU is still in.

When/If college football turns into Mini-NFL, I'll be gone.
 
And I'll probably leave a little sooner than you. When the Pac12 turns into something that I don't even recognize, I'll be out. Even if WSU is still in.

When/If college football turns into Mini-NFL, I'll be gone.

Ironically, the entire push of a definitive NCAA football champ via a playoff system has hastened that move to be more like the NFL.

I don't think there is any turning back as money drives all of this...and will continue to do so. That is why WSU is in a precarious situation. USC, UCLA, Furd, etc. will have no hesitation to leave us on the outside looking in.

Football pays the bills, as we know, but it is also the all-consuming beast whose appetite for more money can never be satisfied.
 
There are still a lot of the college football BUSINESS pundits who are cautioning this "NFL style" move, as they favor more of an expanded landscape for college football.

Super conference, NFL type league, whatever; fans will tire of a scenario where the same 30 schools battle it out every year. It'll be seen as NFL-lite. Money rules all, and in my opinion (as a businessman), the NCAA would be wise to figure out a way to add more programs to the mix, not less.
 
There are still a lot of the college football BUSINESS pundits who are cautioning this "NFL style" move, as they favor more of an expanded landscape for college football.

Super conference, NFL type league, whatever; fans will tire of a scenario where the same 30 schools battle it out every year. It'll be seen as NFL-lite. Money rules all, and in my opinion (as a businessman), the NCAA would be wise to figure out a way to add more programs to the mix, not less.

I think this is a key point. If college football becomes NFL-lite, it's basically just the minor leagues or a developmental league.

Presently, at least in theory, fans of WSU (and, for that matter, any FBS school) ostensibly can hope for a national championship or, at least, something truly meaningful. There's a lot to be said for that keeping fans like us interested in what goes on nationally. If the games of WSU, Oregon State, or maybe even Oregon, Boise State, etc. all become nearly as meaningless as the current FCS national playoffs, many, many fewer people will tune into any of their games, and I think this would offset any increased eyeballs they think they could get over "superteam" games. I also think it would make the "superteam" games less interesting to many, compared to what currently would be an interesting out of conference matchup that has relevance to me as a fan of a Pac-12 school. Yes, I like to watch a USC-Texas A&M game now, for example, because it's relatively rare and potentially meaningful for the Pac-12. If you have a bunch of those types of games every week and remove my Pac-12 tie to it, such that there's no real reason for me to care whether it's Alabama vs. USC, Notre Dame vs. Texas, or whatever in the ultimate championship game, then why would I be all that interested in it at all?

Also, unlike other sports leagues, you can't ignore the impact of rivalry. Yes, money governs all, but let's say college football becomes some kind of 30-team group of "superteams" where the northwest's only participant is UW. You really think fans in Oregon or Eastern Washington who have U of O, Oregon State, or WSU ties are going to root for UW and attend its games, watch it on TV, or whatever, the way they might do for a Seattle baseball team? No. We not only are indifferent to UW at best, but we sure as hell aren't going to take a major interest in its success as fans or alumni of rival schools the same way we might get behind a Seattle pro sports team. College sports are different from pro sports in this respect, and that can't be ignored.
 
If college football goes the way this author suggests, it'll be a 30 or 40 team league. I think that will bore fans, and lets also not for get that there will be 100+ programs that will form leagues of their own. So you'll have NFL-lite, and a smaller, but larger group of teams competing against each other. In some respects, I could see the smaller league being more attractive to fans.

9 Mountain West programs averaged over 20K fans/game. There are 8 FCS schools that averaged over 18K fans per game. Then you have the many, many current power-5 programs who would get left out of the NFL-lite league, that average between 30K-100K fans/game. These schools aren't simply going to fold their tent stakes and give up football. They're going to come up with an answer, and it won't be as bad as the doomsdayers think.

If the NFL-lite league wants to go there, so be it. I'd still be interested in a West Coast league that looked like this:

WSU
Oregon State
Cal
Boise State
SDSU
Nevada
UNLV
ASU
Arizona
Montana
Fresno State
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico
Wyoming
 
There are still a lot of the college football BUSINESS pundits who are cautioning this "NFL style" move, as they favor more of an expanded landscape for college football.

Super conference, NFL type league, whatever; fans will tire of a scenario where the same 30 schools battle it out every year. It'll be seen as NFL-lite. Money rules all, and in my opinion (as a businessman), the NCAA would be wise to figure out a way to add more programs to the mix, not less.

"fans will tire of a scenario where the same 30 schools battle it out every year." Really? How would that be different than now. If you're talking about a NC how many of those has ucla, oregon, uw won between them? Maybe 2? Just a quick check of nat champs since 1990 (27 years) reveals 16 teams have won them all, and I would bet that if one stipulated 25 teams you could go back quite a long ways further (maybe 50-60 years) http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/index.html.

I think most NFL fans (due to the draft, buying players, parity rules, etc.) have more expectations that their team "has a shot" at the Super Bowl than than does the average college football fan think his team will win a NC....
 
Ultimately, the game will follow the money. Bigger money is only available with a wider and growing audience. All the money sources rely on having more interested people who will spend money. That means that the business model will fight consolidation, not promote it. Because you only get the bigger audience for broadcast, streaming, clothing, memorabilia, and even game day attendance by having a bigger audience. You don't get a bigger audience by contraction in the number of teams. That may not be the initial steps taken, because there are reasons for consolidation. But ultimately, money will benefit from a bigger audience, and that will put the brakes on consolidation.
 
College football is about MONEY. Period. If you believe concepts like rivalries exist at the highest level without being packaged to make $$$$ you've been duped and you have drunk the kool-aid. The reason we play the rivalries we do is because enough people have bought the marketing line sold them. Sometimes rivalries are geographically dictated (UW/WSU or USC/UCLA), or sometimes things like coach's wives play a role (SC/ND). But make no mistake: unless those games make enough money for enough people and the right sort of people, they go away, no matter how they began. Don't make the mistake of thinking rivalry games are permanently carved in stone from God. They exist because marketing efforts have worked. If the paradigm changes to be more upfront about money, where demand for excellence becomes even more direct (which is one of the author's points), then there will be little demand for ANY game that can't sell advertisers. Companies have a finite advertising pie, and as rates go up demand for airtime on lower tier games will shrink, and the demand for those games will dry up. Call this phenomenon advertising "memes" or whatever, but, as another post made clear about College Station and ATM, the mentality of southern people regarding football is simply different. Yes, that's nurture not nature but it's been drilled into them from Day One. Southerners continue to drink the kool-aid that insists that football is as essential to life as air and water. And that is due to successful marketing.

Societies and their loves change. I believe wazzu won a national title in college boxing. Now collegiate boxing would be considered one step above bear-baiting. Marketing both creates this change and is a slave to it. So if the powers that be can convince legislatures and college admins that it's worth millions to their schools to do X and to drop Y, they'll do it. Rivalries or no rivalries.
It costs MONEY to win. Period. If you want to keep up with the (Joneses), you have to pony out $$$ for contemporary facilities, expand stadia, coaches salaries, ect.
Next%20Big%2012%20Champs_zpsq91cjk2r.png
 
Because, unlike now, those same 30 teams would only play each other. That charm will wear off quickly, IMO.

So a national title game featuring Clemson v. Alabama for each of the next 10 years (that would be 12 straight) would lack charm?
 
Regional interest will always play a part in TV money. One wonders if a NFL lite would attract more fans or simply drive them away? If there are 30 college teams how will fans in other states or regions ally with a USC or Texas? Will all Washington State residents switch their allegiances to the dawgs? It used to be butts in the seats ,now it is butts on couches? I agree that 30-40 teams will drive away more fans away than attract.I seldom watch a SEC or Big !0 game unless i have money bet on the game? Somehow i do not see myself ever wearing a USC,udub or Alabama hat.If some entrepreneurs proceed with their planning of Super Conferences,they may just kill off interest in college football for most fans.A few fans can go to one college and support another glitzier college team but how many will actually do that? Sometimes greed run amok leads to financial disaster
 
So a national title game featuring Clemson v. Alabama for each of the next 10 years (that would be 12 straight) would lack charm?

We're talking about a "league" of 30 teams who would play only each other throughout the regular season. Clemson and Alabama would potentially play during the regular season as well. That would lack charm. The other 100+ teams not invited to that table would, in my opinion, be able to form a highly entertaining league that would compete with the premier NFL-lite league.
 
"fans will tire of a scenario where the same 30 schools battle it out every year." Really? How would that be different than now. If you're talking about a NC how many of those has ucla, oregon, uw won between them? Maybe 2? Just a quick check of nat champs since 1990 (27 years) reveals 16 teams have won them all, and I would bet that if one stipulated 25 teams you could go back quite a long ways further (maybe 50-60 years) http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/index.html.

I think most NFL fans (due to the draft, buying players, parity rules, etc.) have more expectations that their team "has a shot" at the Super Bowl than than does the average college football fan think his team will win a NC....

The reason that fans from schools like WSU watch right now is that even though we know it's unlikely, there is always a slim chance that we can make the college football playoff and have a shot at the brass ring. We know the stats about the dominance of certain teams, but teams like Louisville, TCU, Baylor (ugh!), Stanford, KSU, Houston, North Carolina, Colorado and Ole Miss have all made recent appearances in the Top 10 late in the season. The current system limits their chances of winning it all and I think that an 8 team playoff will happen so those teams actually get their chances, but in any given season, little ol' WSU even has a chance.

Heck, if we can get by BSU and USC early this season, there's every reason to believe that the Apple Cup could decide which Pac-12 North team gets to play USC in the Pac-12 Championship game with a playoff berth possible for any of the three. How crazy would it be for the following national rankings to be in place heading into the AC?

#3 USC 11-1 (8-1)
#4 WSU 11-0 (8-0)
#5 UW 10-1 (7-1)

That's why fans get excited about college football. The truth is that UW and USC fans can't look at what I typed and scoff the way that they would have two years ago. UW hadn't posted double digit wins in 15 years but made the playoffs last season. There's a pretty decent chance for them to be heading into the final week of the regular season to do it twice in a row. Thinning the herd will destroy the audience for college football and all of the conference leadership knows this. That's why they've been bringing in teams instead of reducing them. They want fans of UTSA to be delusional and think they have a chance......because frankly, they do. Tiny and insignificant and bordering on "Dumb and Dumber" level of chance....but it's there.
 
I think one of the major differences between the NFL and College is, most of the fans WENT to whatever college. I WENT to WSU. That is what made me a fan of the football team. Sure, there are fans that didn't attend WSU and are still fans. But that is the major difference IMO. It isn't even about the rivalries. The foundation of these college football programs comes from actually attending that given college. Or a spouse, or whatever. But no one "attended" Seattle Seahawks University. In a period of our most influential time of our lives, we spent our weekends rooting for them.

So to me, all of the analogies with the NFL-mini is missing this. And if the NCAA is even remotely looking at it in that fashion, they are missing the cornerstone purpose of their school fandom. So to move on a business model that is analogous to the NFL will fall flat for this reason. And the outcome and fan's reactions are outlined well on this thread. Thus, it turns into "tradition" of what it was like when they went to school there. That stuff changes too much, people will be out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flatlandcoug
Frankly the NFL model sucks and I find it boring. I don't watch..... but I don't miss WSU football for nearly any reason! Go Cougs!
 
  • Like
Reactions: M-I-Coug
A couple of points about this.

1) There is definitely going to be a big shakeout. Cable is going away. One step closer to the problem is that ESPN has been bleeding away subscribers for close to half a decade now, and that trend seems to increase in number every year.

And quite literally ESPN by itself has been the driver or involved in EVERY major broadcast right contract signed by a pro league, or college sports.

Right now they are projected to go unprofitable in a few short years. (I've seen estimates that could happen as soon as 2019 or even 2018 if cut cording jumped up quick in a given year).

No matter when cable actually dies (or morphs into an internet provider), a la carte pricing is coming.

And since ESPN's business model basically requires them to be subsidized for that ridiculous figure of $7 or so for every subscriber a network has... well I can't see them lasting too long. It's complicated by the fact they are owned by Disney, but something is going to change.

And like I said in the end ESPN is basically on the other side of virtually all of these contracts somehow. Be it the NFL, Big 10 networks, SEC Network, NBA...

A lot of schools that have engaged in the facilities and coaching wars the past few years are going to see their base cash flow compromised, while still being on the hook for the latest "Learning Center (Now with more chrome and fountains).

2) Something unremarked on is the fact that very few college football teams are operating in the black (let alone whole athletic departments).

If you doubt me on this, there are a number of articles you can google doing analysis of this. There are maybe a max of 20 programs, perhaps as few as 10, that actually make a profit on football.

And that is in the current environment. Which brings to mind the question of why these schools are involved in college football (or any sport in a way) at all. Other than the fact they've had teams going back to 1897 or whatever, and played Wisconsin for the Scabby Bunion for close to a century.
 
A couple of points about this.

1) There is definitely going to be a big shakeout. Cable is going away. One step closer to the problem is that ESPN has been bleeding away subscribers for close to half a decade now, and that trend seems to increase in number every year.

And quite literally ESPN by itself has been the driver or involved in EVERY major broadcast right contract signed by a pro league, or college sports.

Right now they are projected to go unprofitable in a few short years. (I've seen estimates that could happen as soon as 2019 or even 2018 if cut cording jumped up quick in a given year).

No matter when cable actually dies (or morphs into an internet provider), a la carte pricing is coming.

And since ESPN's business model basically requires them to be subsidized for that ridiculous figure of $7 or so for every subscriber a network has... well I can't see them lasting too long. It's complicated by the fact they are owned by Disney, but something is going to change.

And like I said in the end ESPN is basically on the other side of virtually all of these contracts somehow. Be it the NFL, Big 10 networks, SEC Network, NBA...

A lot of schools that have engaged in the facilities and coaching wars the past few years are going to see their base cash flow compromised, while still being on the hook for the latest "Learning Center (Now with more chrome and fountains).

2) Something unremarked on is the fact that very few college football teams are operating in the black (let alone whole athletic departments).

If you doubt me on this, there are a number of articles you can google doing analysis of this. There are maybe a max of 20 programs, perhaps as few as 10, that actually make a profit on football.

And that is in the current environment. Which brings to mind the question of why these schools are involved in college football (or any sport in a way) at all. Other than the fact they've had teams going back to 1897 or whatever, and played Wisconsin for the Scabby Bunion for close to a century.


Agree. Big changes coming. Not sure when, but in the next few years. Where is the growth coming from? Not seeing it. Growth is the only option...or decline. Soccer taking more market share/dollars. A shakeout is coming.
 
Imagine the top 32 traditional teams playing only each other. Suddenly half of these football "blue bloods" are posting losing records each year. I think those AD's are smarter than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BiggsCoug
Ultimately, the game will follow the money. Bigger money is only available with a wider and growing audience. All the money sources rely on having more interested people who will spend money. That means that the business model will fight consolidation, not promote it. Because you only get the bigger audience for broadcast, streaming, clothing, memorabilia, and even game day attendance by having a bigger audience. You don't get a bigger audience by contraction in the number of teams. That may not be the initial steps taken, because there are reasons for consolidation. But ultimately, money will benefit from a bigger audience, and that will put the brakes on consolidation.
If pay tv viewership continues to tumble, expect ESPN to find a way to make their content available online without a cable subscription. It'll be a battle because once that happens cable will drop further. But I'm looking forward to that day, a lot.
 
If pay tv viewership continues to tumble, expect ESPN to find a way to make their content available online without a cable subscription. It'll be a battle because once that happens cable will drop further. But I'm looking forward to that day, a lot.
And I believe this is where the conferences are going to say… Well crap. ESPN has shrunk. We can get just as many eyes on the product as they can. Lets just make sure as many content internet providers have the Pac 12 Network app and we'll just continue to air them all ourselves. ESPN won't have the leverage anymore. It's a realignment, more than anything. ESPN already has their ESPN3 internet streaming. It's numbers, now. ESPN will shrink, conferences will react, someone will become the overwhelming habit, like Sling or maybe ESPN will continue but budgets will shrink or whomever. Someone will become the Big Dog and it'll start all over. By that time I'll be dead but OK. The market will shift to how many eyes equates to how many dollars. That is all that's going to happen.

But the bright side… I agree. Basically PPV or ala carte or whatever you want to call it, is coming. How much for the consumer will be the real question. May not be cheaper, fellas. That's the shadow I see. Hopefully I'm not seeing reality.
 
And I believe this is where the conferences are going to say… Well crap. ESPN has shrunk. We can get just as many eyes on the product as they can. Lets just make sure as many content internet providers have the Pac 12 Network app and we'll just continue to air them all ourselves. ESPN won't have the leverage anymore. It's a realignment, more than anything. ESPN already has their ESPN3 internet streaming. It's numbers, now. ESPN will shrink, conferences will react, someone will become the overwhelming habit, like Sling or maybe ESPN will continue but budgets will shrink or whomever. Someone will become the Big Dog and it'll start all over. By that time I'll be dead but OK. The market will shift to how many eyes equates to how many dollars. That is all that's going to happen.

But the bright side… I agree. Basically PPV or ala carte or whatever you want to call it, is coming. How much for the consumer will be the real question. May not be cheaper, fellas. That's the shadow I see. Hopefully I'm not seeing reality.
If it's on a per eyeball set metric, I could see ESPN coming up with something less than a cable subscription on a monthly basis and still being profitable, especially if it spikes site traffic and gooses their online ad revenue. The expensive part will be extracting itself from providers. Once estimates of revenue from one outstrip the costs of the other, it'll happen.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT