Can we stay competitive in the NIL era?

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,066
So, a team could theoretically go say, 7-5 (7-1 in conference and 0-4 OOC) and still be in the playoffs by winning their conference. OOC games would not matter if only conference champs get in. Just sayin'. Seems to really devalue OOC games, in a way. I think there's something wrong with that.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,974
Location
Auburn, AL
So, a team could theoretically go say, 7-5 (7-1 in conference and 0-4 OOC) and still be in the playoffs by winning their conference. OOC games would not matter if only conference champs get in. Just sayin'. Seems to really devalue OOC games, in a way. I think there's something wrong with that.
I think what you will see is a 10 game conference schedule and the possible elimination of FCS opponents as well. THAT will basically be a deathblow to smaller schools who depend on the payout for the game to fund their athletic programs.

But honestly ... we may never see a reasonable change to the system. It's not about the title, it's about money. The SEC wants more possible teams in the playoff because a) they think they deserve them and b) it expands the conference payouts. The ACC is against it because in all likelihood, they will have just one team and ... they want more so that they too can ... get more money.

So unless you figure out a fair distribution of the money, any changes are moot. That's why I think what will ultimately happen is the SEC is going to lead to a 32 team national super conference. And they will mimic the NFL ... Commissioner Greg Sankey has already talked about this more than once and as Earl Nightengale said, "We become what we think about."
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,151
Kids sitting out - that cow is out of the barn. No change to playoff / bowl structure is going to stop that trend. There’s just too much money for guaranteed NFL talents to risk injury for another couple of games. I honestly don’t think the profile / importance of the games matter either. It won’t be long before you see a couple top players sit out of CFP games.
Two interesting scenarios present:
1. NIL rules (right now) would suggest that there could be a financial incentive to post season. I could see NIL paying bowl bonuses or buying guys crazy insurance policies for kids in case of injury. All it will take is for one top player to opt out of a “meaningful” bowl and some booster will seek a solution.
2. Playoff won’t solve the opt outs, and honestly it may exacerbate the issue (if you consider it an issue). If a kid thinks one game isn’t worth the risk of career ending injury, why would they embrace the prospect of playing 3 or 4? What could be really fun and interesting is how the second tier Power 5 programs would adjust recruiting if playoffs expand. Like basketball, several teams may start recruiting for 4 year guys who won’t likely opt out for NFL money. Top seeds could suffer “opt out” attrition late in the season and all of a sudden, we have a really fun playoff system with opportunities for some unexpected teams to win championships.
I suspect the powers that be would step in to try to somehow mitigate that because initial reaction would be that we can’t have these big boy powers devaluing the playoff, but honestly, it could be more fun for fans of the other 85-90 football programs.
I don’t see the “super conference” thing working out as neatly as others anticipate but there is certainly no shortage of programs who would sell out to be an NFL development league. In my opinion, they can have it. I hope it implodes. As much as I hated the “one and done” notion for college basketball, I wish the NFL would start taking kids sooner, as I feel like it might actually serve to stabilize college football
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,046
So, a team could theoretically go say, 7-5 (7-1 in conference and 0-4 OOC) and still be in the playoffs by winning their conference. OOC games would not matter if only conference champs get in. Just sayin'. Seems to really devalue OOC games, in a way. I think there's something wrong with that.
The way I see it, if nonconference games don’t matter, that frees up teams to schedule very compelling matchups that the fans want to see. No more cupcakes.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,066
The way I see it, if nonconference games don’t matter, that frees up teams to schedule very compelling matchups that the fans want to see. No more cupcakes.
I can envision contenders playing a meaningless OOC game with their second strings or using it as a scrimmage. Compelling matchups won't be so compelling.
I don't think it's good to have games that don't count toward the championship.
If a contender loses an OOC game, the ever-ready excuse will be that they weren't trying to win because it didn't matter.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,539
I can envision contenders playing a meaningless OOC game with their second strings or using it as a scrimmage. Compelling matchups won't be so compelling.
I don't think it's good to have games that don't count toward the championship.
If a contender loses an OOC game, the ever-ready excuse will be that they weren't trying to win because it didn't matter.
Most NCAA championships work that way. Conference champions get automatic spots in the playoffs and some number of teams get at-large spots. High schools in Georgia determine playoff spots and seeding based solely on conference records. I can't think of any other major sport that determines championships by wishy-washy standards that change from year to year. (How important are high-quality wins?, How important is it that losses not be bad losses?, How important is the "eye-test"?)

If the playoff sports are filled by conference champions, then the conferences should be freed up to decide how to determine who the conference champion is. The ACC would already not have two division champions playing each other in the championship game if it wasn't for the other P5 conferences preventing the change.

If the ACC had leeway, the 2012 conference championship would have been FSU against Clemson instead of GT. However, in order to have a championship game it was mandated to have two divisions and the two division champions play each other. Which gets back to my original point. FBS football is having to change, modify, alter, and add conditions constantly to try to get the "system" to work. If they just used the same system that every other NCAA sport uses, it wouldn't take so much tweaking and explaining.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,066
Most NCAA championships work that way. Conference champions get automatic spots in the playoffs and some number of teams get at-large spots. High schools in Georgia determine playoff spots and seeding based solely on conference records. I can't think of any other major sport that determines championships by wishy-washy standards that change from year to year. (How important are high-quality wins?, How important is it that losses not be bad losses?, How important is the "eye-test"?)

If the playoff sports are filled by conference champions, then the conferences should be freed up to decide how to determine who the conference champion is. The ACC would already not have two division champions playing each other in the championship game if it wasn't for the other P5 conferences preventing the change.

If the ACC had leeway, the 2012 conference championship would have been FSU against Clemson instead of GT. However, in order to have a championship game it was mandated to have two divisions and the two division champions play each other. Which gets back to my original point. FBS football is having to change, modify, alter, and add conditions constantly to try to get the "system" to work. If they just used the same system that every other NCAA sport uses, it wouldn't take so much tweaking and explaining.
With 14 and 16-team conferences, the conference schedules are uneven, let alone the OOC schedules. Most sports have everyone playing everyone else in the conference. Not so with football. You'll end up with conference champions having inferior records against a softer schedule in the playoff, while a team with a better record against a tougher schedule sits it out. That's wrong. All games should count toward the championship, IMO.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,539
With 14 and 16-team conferences, the conference schedules are uneven, let alone the OOC schedules. Most sports have everyone playing everyone else in the conference. Not so with football. You'll end up with conference champions having inferior records against a softer schedule in the playoff, while a team with a better record against a tougher schedule sits it out. That's wrong. All games should count toward the championship, IMO.
The conferences would be able to decide how to determine the championship and who the champion is. If a team with a bad record becomes the conference champion, blame the conference not the overall system.

Like I said, the conference championship should not be restricted to two divisions and the leader of each division. If the conference had 16 teams, you could have four divisions and during the last week of the season have the four division leaders start a four team conference playoff. The remaining twelve teams could play against each other to get the 12th game. Going with such a system, even if a team with a lesser record because the conference champion it would be because they did it on the field against the best teams in the conference.

Also as I said before, all of these "fixes" are to correct issues with a system that is different than every other NCAA championship system. Scrap the current system and go the what the other NCAA sports do. If they do that, then all of these "fixes" and "adjustments" become totally unnecessary. The FBS championship system is kluged together to maintain the bowl system. Get rid of that and all of the issues go away.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,066
Like I said, the conference championship should not be restricted to two divisions and the leader of each division. If the conference had 16 teams, you could have four divisions and during the last week of the season have the four division leaders start a four team conference playoff. The remaining twelve teams could play against each other to get the 12th game. Going with such a system, even if a team with a lesser record because the conference champion it would be because they did it on the field against the best teams in the conference.
That's an interesting idea. Four teams make the conference playoff and still 12 games for everybody except the two finalists. One less OOC game for everybody.

I'm not saying having only conference champions in a playoff is necessarily a bad idea overall but having OOC games that don't matter regarding the championship seems a problem. There would be no incentive for 'Bama, OSU, and the like to schedule anybody but cupcakes OOC. And that really applies to anyone who thinks they might have a shot at the playoff, which would be everybody except maybe Vanderbilt and the like. These games would become mere tune-ups and scrimmages. You could just get rid of the OOC games, but I would hate to see that. It's nice to play someone different now and then.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,539
That's an interesting idea. Four teams make the conference playoff and still 12 games for everybody except the two finalists. One less OOC game for everybody.

I'm not saying having only conference champions in a playoff is necessarily a bad idea overall but having OOC games that don't matter regarding the championship seems a problem. There would be no incentive for 'Bama, OSU, and the like to schedule anybody but cupcakes OOC. These games would become mere tune-ups and scrimmages. You could just get rid of the OOC games, but I would hate to see that. It's nice to play someone different now and then.
High schools in Georgia go strictly off of region games. (At least every one that I have seen) A team could go winless outside of their region but win every region game and they would be a number one seed in the playoffs. Some teams do schedule easy games out of conference. Some teams schedule very tough teams out of conference.

I don't understand why you think teams wouldn't schedule a hard OOC schedule? In the current system if Alabama scheduled Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, and Clemson as their four OOC games, it would reduce their chances of making the playoffs. If the conference championship guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, they could schedule those games and make even more money. If there weren't bowl games for teams that don't make the playoffs, then there wouldn't even be any advantage for lower level teams to schedule FCS schools.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,066
High schools in Georgia go strictly off of region games. (At least every one that I have seen) A team could go winless outside of their region but win every region game and they would be a number one seed in the playoffs. Some teams do schedule easy games out of conference. Some teams schedule very tough teams out of conference.

I don't understand why you think teams wouldn't schedule a hard OOC schedule? In the current system if Alabama scheduled Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, and Clemson as their four OOC games, it would reduce their chances of making the playoffs. If the conference championship guaranteed a spot in the playoffs, they could schedule those games and make even more money. If there weren't bowl games for teams that don't make the playoffs, then there wouldn't even be any advantage for lower level teams to schedule FCS schools.
SOS matters, as it stands now.

If only conference winners get into the playoff, OOC schedules won't matter. Teams won't want to get worn out dragging some tough opponent up and down the field and have to leave their starters in and maybe get hurt when they could rest them for the games that matter. They'd rather play a team they would feel they had a good chance of pulling their starters in the second half and give them some rest - a scrimmage, a tune-up game. Or so it seems to me.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,539
SOS matters, as it stands now.

If only conference winners get into the playoff, OOC schedules won't matter. Teams won't want to get worn out dragging some tough opponent up and down the field and have to leave their starters in and maybe get hurt when they could rest them for the games that matter. They'd rather play a team they would feel they had a good chance of pulling their starters in the second half and give them some rest - a scrimmage, a tune-up game. Or so it seems to me.
As I said in my previous post, the same is true in high school football in Georgia. Some teams do that. Other teams play extremely tough schedules preparing themselves for deep runs in the playoffs.

Why does that really matter? If a team feels as though resting is more important than playing, then let them. It most likely would not be a conference champion only playoff. The FCS playoffs have 24 teams. 10 automatic qualifiers and 14 at large. If a team scheduled 4 scrub teams, they likely wouldn't have any chance of getting an at large berth, so they won't do that.

If a team like GT were to schedule extremely soft to play only conference games and scrimmage games, revenue would suffer tremendously. GT could play four P5 teams every single year and make much more revenue. Could play in a neutral site game, a home P5 game, an away P5 game, and the rotating mutt game. Revenue would go up a lot. Alabama could probably arrange to play two neutral site games, one G5 home game, and one P5 home-away scheduled games every year.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,066
As I said in my previous post, the same is true in high school football in Georgia. Some teams do that. Other teams play extremely tough schedules preparing themselves for deep runs in the playoffs.

Why does that really matter? If a team feels as though resting is more important than playing, then let them. It most likely would not be a conference champion only playoff. The FCS playoffs have 24 teams. 10 automatic qualifiers and 14 at large. If a team scheduled 4 scrub teams, they likely wouldn't have any chance of getting an at large berth, so they won't do that.

If a team like GT were to schedule extremely soft to play only conference games and scrimmage games, revenue would suffer tremendously. GT could play four P5 teams every single year and make much more revenue. Could play in a neutral site game, a home P5 game, an away P5 game, and the rotating mutt game. Revenue would go up a lot. Alabama could probably arrange to play two neutral site games, one G5 home game, and one P5 home-away scheduled games every year.

Mainly what I see as flawed is the idea of only conference champs getting into an expanded playoff. With at-large qualifiers, it makes more sense.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,740
So after college football, women's college basketball players have made the most money through NIL.


It also sounds like they may be doing the best in terms of what I will call 'true NIL' opportunities (ie, not the collectives that are basically paying guys to go to specific schools, but rather actual companies with products and services).
Men's basketball has underperformed more than any other college sport.


'Women’s basketball has been a marketer’s dream"
A lot of female athletes have social media followings, especially on Instagram and TikTok, that marketers crave,” Doerr said. “They cut across different demographics. They reach the youth space. They reach, for lack of a better term, the soccer mom space. They reach the 18-to-25-year-old space, both female and male. … Who follows them is a really tough demographic to reach. Some of these quarterbacks, they have big followings, but those followings are almost people you already have in your ecosystem.”

Engagement is what separates women’s college basketball. Marketers don’t want a boring post that merely pitches a product. Athletes who are active on their pages and interact with their followers have people coming back more regularly. More eyeballs and more visits provide more opportunities for a follower to become a consumer. Doerr said he would rather partner with someone with 500,000 followers and a 75 percent engagement rate than someone with 1 million followers and a 25 percent engagement rate.

“Women dominate social media in terms of TikTok and Instagram and some of the other outlets that are more popular among the younger audience,” said Lee McGinnis, professor of marketing and director of the integrated marketing communications master’s program at Stonehill College in Massachusetts. “Women are better at establishing relationships with their online followers. It’s a perfect alignment from a marketing standpoint. … You don’t need a huge audience as traditional media in order to be profitable because you’re able to engage your audience members in a much more interactive way. That’s extremely powerful.”
 
Top