College football is a mess

[Root4GT]

That’s not the point I’m making. That’s like profoundly stating that water is wet.

Reading comprehension courses for both of you.

Actually you have failed to make a point. Your comment -

"The infusion of huge TV $$$ has changed the calculus of the CFB AA. It’s now a large part about the money."

Really - No "censored." That is not new. The only difference now and decades ago is the dollar amounts. It's simply more pronounced in 2024. At the core it's the same issue.

Why did GT never play any SEC games in Mississippi? Why did Clemson always play games in Atlanta. Money! And the Power which goes with Money.

Now it's changing conferences. Well it was that last Century. That's why the ACC came into being. That's why the SWC dissolved. Money has always ruled. Money will always rule. The amount of money now is astronomical, that's the only difference.

 

[stinger78]

Actually you have failed to make a point. Your comment -

"The infusion of huge TV $$$ has changed the calculus of the CFB AA. It’s now a large part about the money."

Really - No "censored." That is not new. The only difference now and decades ago is the dollar amounts. It's simply more pronounced in 2024. At the core it's the same issue.

Why did GT never play any SEC games in Mississippi? Why did Clemson always play games in Atlanta. Money! And the Power which goes with Money.

Now it's changing conferences. Well it was that last Century. That's why the ACC came into being. That's why the SWC dissolved. Money has always ruled. Money will always rule. The amount of money now is astronomical, that's the only difference.

Only you could say this. You should say: I will not accept any point you make unless it agrees with my thinking. That would be an accurate assessment. I acknowledge your position, I just see it differently. You (apparently) fail to comprehend mine.

It’s all good. To each his own.

Next.

 

[stinger78]

Truth!

 

[Southern psu fan]

Truth!

I miss the good old days where the kids played for an education and had pride playing in bowl games. I was all for giving them enough spending money but it’s gotten out of control and it probably won’t have a good ending. We already have the NFL.

 

[IM79]

I suppose you can argue it was money. I recall that Tech PAID to join the ACC because many of its contracts with historical SEC teams were ending and they were struggling to remain scheduled with almost anyone. The ACC gave them two things ... immediate access to the basketball tourney and longer-term, access to a reasonable and reliable schedule.

So Tech got a small percentage of the gate at other schools as soon as they were scheduled. I see it more as a "we need a stable schedule" and perhaps others see it as a money lifeline. Potato-Potatoh.

When Tech joined the ACC one of the big sticking points for the existing ACC teams was the ACC Bball tourney ticket allotment. all the ACC teams got less tickets when Tech joined which cost them money. ACC tourney tickets was a big deal back then. I can't remember how that was settled. I do remember UNC fans were buying Tech season tickets to get access to Tech's tournament allotment tickets.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Baloney.

Your typical non-profit has to at least break even, if not make a small bottom line. Money is important, since you have to pay the bills, but it’s not about the money. The infusion of huge TV $$$ has changed the calculus of the CFB AA. It’s now a large part about the money.

It would be interesting to see how the money increased with the proliferation of TV games. I know that in my lifetime I’ve gone from being lucky if Tech had one or two regular season games on TV to being able to just about see the entire season on TV.

So, to understand your argument, you are suggesting that stability of scheduling (as well as joining with other like minded academic institutions) would have been a driving factor in joining the ACC. You certainly are correct that it became both more difficult for Tech to hang onto traditional rivalry games as an independent while also becoming less advantageous for certain SEC teams to schedule Tech.

So what was the role of money in joining the ACC? And did money become bigger after the fact as conferences began to control more and more of the access to weekly TV coverage?

To ask the question a different way, if Tech had its own TV contract like Notre Dame, and could rake in $50 million a pop, would Tech have stayed independent?

 

[Root4GT]

Only you could say this. You should say: I will not accept any point you make unless it agrees with my thinking. That would be an accurate assessment. I acknowledge your position, I just see it differently. You (apparently) fail to comprehend mine.

It’s all good. To each his own.

Next.

I don’t comprehend yours as you only say I can’t read never your real point.

Can you repeat your point? If it is college football teams change conferences for big bucks we agree on that as I have repeatedly said.

If it is college football wasn’t driven by money in the 20th century we disagree on that. Money has always mattered a lot in college football.

It’s fair to disagree on whether money matters more now than last century.

If you have other thought On this topic away with them, I am curious.

 

[L41k18]

Actually you have failed to make a point. Your comment -

"The infusion of huge TV $$$ has changed the calculus of the CFB AA. It’s now a large part about the money."

Really - No "censored." That is not new. The only difference now and decades ago is the dollar amounts. It's simply more pronounced in 2024. At the core it's the same issue.

Why did GT never play any SEC games in Mississippi? Why did Clemson always play games in Atlanta. Money! And the Power which goes with Money.

Now it's changing conferences. Well it was that last Century. That's why the ACC came into being. That's why the SWC dissolved. Money has always ruled. Money will always rule. The amount of money now is astronomical, that's the only difference.

Of course you are 100% correct. Money has always ruled CFB. But when people have made up their mind that the sky is falling, it is almost impossible to encourage them. Even with the truth.
Sigh.

 

[L41k18]

I miss the good old days where the kids played for an education and had pride playing in bowl games. I was all for giving them enough spending money but it’s gotten out of control and it probably won’t have a good ending. We already have the NFL.

How far back do you want to go with "the good old days"? All the way back to when CFB was invented by the elite of the elite because there was no war to fight and they were worried their privileged scions would get soft? Nobody was "playing for an education" and common folk like me (maybe you too I don't know your situation) were certainly not welcome in their collegiate halls of ivy.

 

[Randy Carson]

How far back do you want to go with "the good old days"? All the way back to when CFB was invented by the elite of the elite because there was no war to fight and they were worried their privileged scions would get soft? Nobody was "playing for an education" and common folk like me (maybe you too I don't know your situation) were certainly not welcome in their collegiate halls of ivy.

How about this:

The "good old days" refers to the time when college football was played for the love of the game and not as a stepping stone to the NFL. In the "good old days", stadiums were full on Saturday afternoons because television wasn't broadcasting "marquis matchups" that competed with the local team. In the "good old days", your biggest rivals were within driving distance, and you and your buddies weren't above pulling some pranks on their campus the night before the game.

Wow.

I stopped typing right there as I got lost in the reverie. Just imagine 1955-1965, and you'll be on the right track.

 

[L41k18]

How about this:

The "good old days" refers to the time when college football was played for the love of the game and not as a stepping stone to the NFL. In the "good old days", stadiums were full on Saturday afternoons because television wasn't broadcasting "marquis matchups" that competed with the local team. In the "good old days", your biggest rivals were within driving distance, and you and your buddies weren't above pulling some pranks on their campus the night before the game.

Wow.

I stopped typing right there as I got lost in the reverie. Just imagine 1955-1965, and you'll be on the right track.

There is so much inaccuracy in your post... where to start? I'll try (and I'll stick to your strangely cherry picked decade).
But first, one question: Do you remember CFB in that decade? IOW did you live through it?

Ok:
1) CFB was the means-to-an-end for most who played it then. Then, as now, it was a great way for a young man to improve his future in life through a college education.(which is still true btw, only a tiny minority of CFB players ever sniff the NFL)

2. "stadiums were full". Have you looked at attendance figures in that time frame?

3. I will grant you the rivalries were more localized. Of course people weren't nearly as mobile then as they are now.

4. Just to verify; you'd prefer to only have one CFB game on tv each Sat? Just one. Like it was in that decade?

 

[takethepoints]

I think the present disquiet about college football - that I share, btw - is not due to the "influence of money". As many above have pointed out, money has been an influence since the sport started. The problem is scale and lack of constraints.

I'm in the process of reading, for about the fifth time, The Financial Crisis Commission Report, the final report of the commission of the same name. (If you haven't read this, btw, either of on line and do so or buy a hard copy.) The level of irresponsible risk taking and sheer unadulterated greed outlined therein are a useful lesson for all Americans. And the parallels to college football are very telling. Mindless consolidation to maximize revenues? Check. Rating services selling their services to all comers - especially colleges - to enhance the reputations of their programs? Check. Executive salaries out of all proportion for those "bringing in the revenues"? Check. Constant competition for "star talent"? Check. Lack of any regulation of the base processes, like, at all? Check. A constant bubble of salaries and prices (tickets, in this case) driven by investor ("booster") bidding? Check. An increasing divergence between basic institutional and social goals and a drive for recognition and "market" approval? Check.

Modern college football hasn't done anything all that new any more then the financial system did before "The Madness" that led to the Great Recession. Money has always been a force in both areas. MBS securities have been around since the 30s and so have recruiting scouts. And so on and so on. What has happened is that, just like the financial world, college football has succumbed to a variety of forces that have combined to create machines to dangle money in front of football programs in such amounts and in such new and complex forms that the sport has pretty much lost its connection to collegiate education.

This is too bad and I'm upset about it. I love college football at all levels and I feel it does have a useful role to play when it is not drunk on its receipts. It is, I think, unlikely we'll get the sport to govern itself. At one time it could, but the disparities in power between the NCAA and most major college programs have become too great. I see four ways out. 1) the colleges get rid of "scholastic" football aid and the entire sport - and all the others - go Div III. 2) The NCAA casts out the P5 programs (or vice versa) and tells them to seek professional tie-ins (this might come anyway). 3) The colleges decide to imitate the NBA and lay on restrictions to equalize competition. 4) Congress steps in and settles everybody's hash for them. I wish I though otherwise, but I think sooner or later the schools who find themselves uncompetitive will ask for 4. And get it, good and hard.

 

[green&gold]

If anyone here thinks GT will be in the new “major league“ - you’re lying to yourself.

I’m more than happy with Georgia Tech being an actual institution of learning than what the “University“ of Georgia will become the next 10 years.

the SEC and BIG10 will be the new sports reality.

 

[g0lftime]

It would be interesting to see how the money increased with the proliferation of TV games. I know that in my lifetime I’ve gone from being lucky if Tech had one or two regular season games on TV to being able to just about see the entire season on TV.

So, to understand your argument, you are suggesting that stability of scheduling (as well as joining with other like minded academic institutions) would have been a driving factor in joining the ACC. You certainly are correct that it became both more difficult for Tech to hang onto traditional rivalry games as an independent while also becoming less advantageous for certain SEC teams to schedule Tech.

So what was the role of money in joining the ACC? And did money become bigger after the fact as conferences began to control more and more of the access to weekly TV coverage?

To ask the question a different way, if Tech had its own TV contract like Notre Dame, and could rake in $50 million a pop, would Tech have stayed independent?

ND also gets ACC money from other sports. The total take is likely pushing $70M.

 

[GT33]

The NFL doesn't have a poll.

Superbowl champ gets the hardest schedule out of the next year, #2 gets the 2nd hardest, etc. You can do that when you have only 6 out of 17 games against those in the AFC East for example, the other 11 games you're told where and who to play.

NCAA needs to get to four 16 team conferences rapidly. Each year #1 in the conference plays #2 thru 11 for 10 conferences games based on last season's standings, they can't pad their schedule by having 8 homes games and only 4 on the road like UF used to do. Each team gets a "kickoff game" of their choice each season and the last game of the year's their pick of a 2nd out of conference game which could be their rivalry game.

Top 8 in each conference go against the #1-8 on the other conferences in a 32 team playoff. Seed them like the field of 64. You'd have 31 games total over 5 weeks ending the 2nd week of January. All games matter and you can use the existing bowls as the playoff locations.

The only thing keeping that from happening in the sec and big would lose the stranglehold they have over the media and tv which is where the money is at.

 

[stinger78]

There is so much inaccuracy in your post... where to start? I'll try (and I'll stick to your strangely cherry picked decade).
But first, one question: Do you remember CFB in that decade? IOW did you live through it?

Ok:
1) CFB was the means-to-an-end for most who played it then. Then, as now, it was a great way for a young man to improve his future in life through a college education.(which is still true btw, only a tiny minority of CFB players ever sniff the NFL)

2. "stadiums were full". Have you looked at attendance figures in that time frame?

3. I will grant you the rivalries were more localized. Of course people weren't nearly as mobile then as they are now.

4. Just to verify; you'd prefer to only have one CFB game on tv each Sat? Just one. Like it was in that decade?

The product on the field is very good these days. That follows advances in nutrition, S&C, and coaching, all beginning at the HS level. Yes, money has purchased part of that, but not all of it. Many of those players who end up coaching are ones who didn't make it to the NFL. Coaching at the HS level is much better today overall than it was back in 1974. I'm not sure college coaching is as much, but probably somewhat. That is due to more former players at high levels entering the coaching field - an unintended consequence. I don't think many want to go back to 1974 for the CFB game itself.

Where the greatest effect of today's money is felt, IMO, is in the absurd escalation of coaches' salaries, constantly upgraded state of the art locker rooms and other facilities designed to catch recruits' eyes, expensive means of travel - such as helicopters, significant expansion of staffs, the rampant cost of "education," and now NIL. None of that, except staff expansion, really improves the game on the field but it sure explodes the cost. It's ludicrous that a college football coach makes over 10x what the President of the US makes, or research scientists seeking cures to disease. Yet, that's where we are. You may love it... I don't. It's not helping the game at all, IMO.

Few oppose the right of an athlete to market himself. No issue there at all. But that is not what all the money is about, and it is flowing so freely - like a narcotic - into the game today that the game is now hooked on money. Yes, it has always taken money to pay the bills. That is no different today than 1974, or 1954. But the money it requires now to run a "successful" program is decadent, again, in my opinion. There's a huge magnitude of difference in what we see today in AA budgets and what it took to run the non-profit AA back in 1974.

Just my opinion. You surely do not have to agree.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

The good old days were just as scummy as today. Our own Bobby Dodd used much older players to win games. Coaches have always been the same - win at all costs. The tools of the time have changed but the thought process is the same. Look at our 222-0 game. That was way more egregious than anything Bama has done. Our coach forced a school to field a team for 1 game or he’d sue them and then he did that. It’s always been scummy.

 

[stinger78]

Superbowl champ gets the hardest schedule out of the next year, #2 gets the 2nd hardest, etc. You can do that when you have only 6 out of 17 games against those in the AFC East for example, the other 11 games you're told where and who to play.

NCAA needs to get to four 16 team conferences rapidly. Each year #1 in the conference plays #2 thru 11 for 10 conferences games based on last season's standings, they can't pad their schedule by having 8 homes games and only 4 on the road like UF used to do. Each team gets a "kickoff game" of their choice each season and the last game of the year's their pick of a 2nd out of conference game which could be their rivalry game.

Top 8 in each conference go against the #1-8 on the other conferences in a 32 team playoff. Seed them like the field of 64. You'd have 31 games total over 5 weeks ending the 2nd week of January. All games matter and you can use the existing bowls as the playoff locations.

The only thing keeping that from happening in the sec and big would lose the stranglehold they have over the media and tv which is where the money is at.

The only point I disagree on is the need for 32 teams. That's half the field. I'd suggest top 3 in each conference. We're at 16 per conference now.
B1G will be 18 next year.
SECheat will be 16 next year.
ACC will be 18, counting ND, next year.
B12 will be 16 next year.

 

[takethepoints]

Btw, I screwed up. It's THE FINANCIAIL CRISIS INQUIRY REPORT, My bad.

Here's the URL:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf

Well worth the read, imho. The graphs explaining how mortgage based securities, CDOs, and synthethic CDOs work are well worth the price.

 

[Root4GT]

The product on the field is very good these days. That follows advances in nutrition, S&C, and coaching, all beginning at the HS level. Yes, money has purchased part of that, but not all of it. Many of those players who end up coaching are ones who didn't make it to the NFL. Coaching at the HS level is much better today overall than it was back in 1974. I'm not sure college coaching is as much, but probably somewhat. That is due to more former players at high levels entering the coaching field - an unintended consequence. I don't think many want to go back to 1974 for the CFB game itself.

Where the greatest effect of today's money is felt, IMO, is in the absurd escalation of coaches' salaries, constantly upgraded state of the art locker rooms and other facilities designed to catch recruits' eyes, expensive means of travel - such as helicopters, significant expansion of staffs, the rampant cost of "education," and now NIL. None of that, except staff expansion, really improves the game on the field but it sure explodes the cost. It's ludicrous that a college football coach makes over 10x what the President of the US makes, or research scientists seeking cures to disease. Yet, that's where we are. You may love it... I don't. It's not helping the game at all, IMO.

Few oppose the right of an athlete to market himself. No issue there at all. But that is not what all the money is about, and it is flowing so freely - like a narcotic - into the game today that the game is now hooked on money. Yes, it has always taken money to pay the bills. That is no different today than 1974, or 1954. But the money it requires now to run a "successful" program is decadent, again, in my opinion. There's a huge magnitude of difference in what we see today in AA budgets and what it took to run the non-profit AA back in 1974.

College Football is Capitalism at it's worst. Market forces drive the cost of goods but much of the revenue comes from rich boosters who artificially inflate the cost of theos goods. The "boosters' role also is a barrier to true competition.

Determining worth or individual income is basically what the market is willing to bear. In current society athletes, actors and musicians at the highest levels make astronomical amounts of money. Basically that is a values statements on our society. It does seem ridiculous but it is reality.

Hard to imagine how sanity returns to College Football.