Conference Realignment

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,390
Growing a league in the 1950s and the 2020s/30s would be wildly different ballgames.

And we're not even talking about the giant elephant in the room: kids don't care. And now your historically best way to turn kids into big-time-CFB fans - on campus when they're in school - suddenly is missing 60% of the schools? That seems like another footgun.

It reminds me a bit of how (with a few exceptions like ABC/NBC/Fox broadcast networks starting Hulu in 2007) the cable TV industry spent a decade dismissing the internet/millenial trends and streaming because subscribers kept going up! And the price they could get away with charging those subscribers kept going up! It wasn't until 2013-2016 or so that that subscriber count number peaked and then... well... crap. It was too late to be in the driver's seat for future services. It's really easy to be in denial when some numbers are still moving in positive directions, look at AT&T's catastrophic DirecTV purchase from 2015.
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
9,089
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Neither of your points are true. The NFL shook out in the 1950's and has a limited number of teams. It has done nothing but grow.

As to team allegiances, that's also false. Since the new playoff system, most teams are fully eliminated but fan's adjusted by having two favorites now. Studies confirm this as does viewership.
No, both of my statements are true. You’re talking about viewership for a playoff. There’s no proof that those numbers will translate to regular season games. To think that someone in California or Massachusetts gives a crap about Mississippi State playing Florida during the regular season is wishful thinking. Even Alabama v. uga doesn’t draw those types of eyes. Once those games have zero bearing on their team, that minor interest will become even less.
 
Last edited:

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,390
No, both of my statements are true. You’re talking about viewership for a playoff. There’s no proof that those numbers will translate to regular season games. To think that someone in California or Massachusetts gives a crap about Mississippi State playing Florida during the regular season is wishful thinking.
Fantasy Football is another one of those things that the NFL leveraged brilliantly that doesn't really exist in the same way in college to get fans in NE to care about Matt Stafford or whoever every week.

EDIT: I picked Stafford since New England->Los Angeles is about as far away as it gets, not cause of the UGA connection, but it sorta inadvertently goes to my "the regionalization of the last 20 years of college football is killing interest" point since not seeing **** about UGA much while living in CA has made me truly care much less about them. ;) So yay for UGA not mattering, boo for the health of college football.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,346
Location
Auburn, AL
Growing a league in the 1950s and the 2020s/30s would be wildly different ballgames.

And we're not even talking about the giant elephant in the room: kids don't care. And now your historically best way to turn kids into big-time-CFB fans - on campus when they're in school - suddenly is missing 60% of the schools? That seems like another footgun.

It reminds me a bit of how (with a few exceptions like ABC/NBC/Fox broadcast networks starting Hulu in 2007) the cable TV industry spent a decade dismissing the internet/millenial trends and streaming because subscribers kept going up! And the price they could get away with charging those subscribers kept going up! It wasn't until 2013-2016 or so that that subscriber count number peaked and then... well... crap. It was too late to be in the driver's seat for future services. It's really easy to be in denial when some numbers are still moving in positive directions, look at AT&T's catastrophic DirecTV purchase from 2015.
College football will still exist. Kids will still pull their team. It just won't be Pottsville.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,346
Location
Auburn, AL
No, both of my statements are true. You’re talking about viewership for a playoff. There’s no proof that those numbers will translate to regular season games. To think that someone in California or Massachusetts gives a crap about Mississippi State playing Florida during the regular season is wishful thinking. Even Alabama v. uga doesn’t draw those types of eyes. Once those games have zero bearing on their team, that minor interest will become even less.
They don't. And I didn't say they did. I said the SEC has a desire to create a product that ultimately does.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,369
One other thought I had last night. What happened this week makes it more difficult for expansion to occur for the SEC (and ACC). With B12 bringing on 4 new P5 members and ESPN holding 2/3 of the B12 media contract, that means starting with the 2024 season ESPN is effectively on the hook for $80M more per year in payouts than it was expecting a week ago. Given its current financial condition, ESPN certainly is not going to be saying to the SEC and ACC - go out and expand. I expect the message would be the opposite - if you expand, don't expect your payout to increase.
I may be dense but why is ESPN having to pay more to the Big 12 because they added teams? Was that part of their contract with the Big 12?
 

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,390
They don't. And I didn't say they did. I said the SEC has a desire to create a product that ultimately does.
I don't think SEC leadership has enough nationwide or age-demographics-wide perspective to pull this off without doing more damage burning the CFB world down than they'll be able to recover from afterwards.

And that'll make me sad if it just accelerates the kids/young adults moving to us being a country of soccer fans instead.
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
9,089
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Maybe. But I would look for schools like Bama, UGA and LSU to schedule SoCal, UCLA etc. Because as viewership increases, so does the value of the media rights.

Oh yeah. Thats the strategy
That’s just it. The SEC, historically, has weak OOC schedules. They’re not going to schedule these blockbuster games, except infrequently. Even if this did become the norm, there is no evidence that viewership is going to increase.

Logically, viewership will decrease because fans of teams left on the outside won’t have any interest in a team across the country that has no bearing on what their team will or will not achieve on the field.

PS: and posting it twice doesn’t make it more convincing!!!😉
 

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,390
That’s just it. The SEC, historically, has weak OOC schedules. They’re not going to schedule these blockbuster games, except infrequently. Even if this did become the norm, there is no evidence that viewership is going to increase.

Logically, viewership will decrease because fans of teams left on the outside won’t have any interest in a team across the country that has no bearing on what their team will or will not achieve on the field.
Shoot, is there anyone on this message board that will claim to be a bigger fan of CFB overall, and more likely to watch Big 10 games, than they were 20 years ago?

Anecdotes != data and all, but if you want a case study of interest in national powerhouses in a different geographical region from a fanbase of a team that's had a rough half-decade...
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,726
Here’s a ranking of how ACC schools look to the SEC, from the Bama people at USA Today:

After a bunch of years in the wilderness, it’s nice to not be on the bottom. Also, it’s just one person’s opinion—but, it’s from an SEC perspective and not from an ACC one.

Also, MLS swapped to mostly streaming this year. Thursday night football went to Amazon Prime. This is the shift in how games are broadcast, but moves to streaming (and other less accessible media) is pushing viewership down. It’s how younger viewers watch sports, and it’s profitable for the broadcasters, but is it the best thing for the sports?
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,346
Location
Auburn, AL
That’s just it. The SEC, historically, has weak OOC schedules. They’re not going to schedule these blockbuster games, except infrequently. Even if this did become the norm, there is no evidence that viewership is going to increase.

Logically, viewership will decrease because fans of teams left on the outside won’t have any interest in a team across the country that has no bearing on what their team will or will not achieve on the field.

PS: and posting it twice doesn’t make it more convincing!!!😉
Sorry. My colleague studies this. Not shown to be true. You don't have to believe it of course.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,394
We're starting to see a consolidation of conferences...but one thing I strongly believe is that we'll start seeing a consolidation of the media money as well. This is why I think a national conference with a large amount of eyeballs will be more advantageous to a regional conference.

What I mean, specifically, is you'll start seeing Fox or ESPN (or whoever exists in the next 10-20 years) focus on pumping MORE money into conferences that have established brands that will give them more bang for their buck as opposed to spreading $$$ around to different conferences. Fans of college sports need to accept something: Just because a conference or college team exists, does NOT mean a media company is obligated to pay them. Read that again because GT can easily be stuck in no man's land like Stanford and Cal right now. Look at what just happened to the PAC12. Everyone thought it was inevitable everything would get worked out because the PAC12 and its members, some of them truly an institution of college sports like Stanford and Oregon, have always been on TV. Well, the reality is starting to come to light. Instead of a media company paying the PAC12 (I'm just using these numbers as an example) $1+ billion a year AND the B1G $1.75 billion a year, they'll plow another $500 million into the B1G that has access to every major media market across the country, not get into a partnership with a conference like the PAC12 or SoCon, and save $500 million they can put into production and other investments that will give them a better return.

Everyone is making fun of the BIG12 for adding schools like UCF, Cincy, BYU...but at the end of the day, their reach across different regions and time zones is attractive because a media company no longer has to invest in multiple regional conferences to get air time and eyeballs. The BIG12 and B1G are serving the ultimate purpose that media companies want: media content for their different time slots, all in one package. It's why the BIG12 was able to work out a media contract, and the PAC 12 was left to wither on the vine. I'll say it now: If your team is in a "regional" conference, you better be making moves or else the doomsday clock is ticking for you. The B1G will be in 4 time zones, the SEC will be in 3 time zones, and the BIG12 will be in 4 time zones. That's a LOT of eyeballs and time slots that media companies can leverage as opposed to spreading a LOT of money amongst a lot of smaller conferences.

I keep seeing that this is the end of college sports. Maybe for the smaller schools and conferences that didn't have foresight. College sports will continue on, the "haves" will get richer and get more exposure, and the "have nots" will get poorer and their brand will fade into obscurity outside of their own fanbase. Some teams will struggle to survive, and the teams in bigger conferences will survive. Fans will continue to watch college sports and they will find a team to support in "national" conferences. The young kids today will grow up not knowing any differently, and the older fans will phase out.

I touched on this years ago and got a LOT of push back. Well, we're starting to see it come to fruition. I said at the time that the SEC and B1G were both working on something college fans still can not comprehend. They are making next level moves...and the BIG12 is wisely doing a good job of setting up to be the 3rd conference after the Power 2. It may not seem like it now, but the BIG12 is set up with up coming teams that will be able to compete with the B1G and SEC teams in the next decade on. There's already talk that the B1G is moving to 10 conference games. At some point, it will be like the old AFL and NFL. It will be a heavy conference emphasis on scheduling, and the other teams will be left fighting for scraps. I'm sorry, but the GOR will be only a temporary reprieve for the ACC and GT. Once the GOR is either broken by some creative lawyering or it's natural expiration, the ACC will cease to exist in its current form. The major "brands" will inevitably leave for the SEC, B1G, or BIG12...just like the PAC12 teams are doing right now.
 

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,390
Also, MLS swapped to mostly streaming this year. Thursday night football went to Amazon Prime. This is the shift in how games are broadcast, but moves to streaming (and other less accessible media) is pushing viewership down. It’s how younger viewers watch sports, and it’s profitable for the broadcasters, but is it the best thing for the sports?
This is one of those meta-points that I haven't seen discussed much compared to other parts of it.

Once you're in your own little walled-off thing, discoverability drops and there more steps for the viewer acquisition funnel.

The cable system was incredibly friendly to college sports in particular I think, since whether you're on CBS or FS1 or ESPN or even ESPNU, a viewer can find you and the channels both can compete with each other but also have symbiotic benefits of "more cable subs help all of us."

That symbiosis doesn't seem to be discussed for college football much post-cable-decline, and I think that could be a big damaging factor for the long-term fan-acquisition-funnel in a way that no pareto analysis of today's TV eyeballs can easily account for.
 

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,390
Sorry. My colleague studies this. Not shown to be true. You don't have to believe it of course.
The reason I'm asking about viewer demo breakdowns, geographic dispersion, "what school are they a fan of first" is because I have former colleagues now in the streaming industry who are intently interested in all of those things for long-term-pie-growing reasons (sports or non-sports) and it's been pretty completely absent from the analysis of college football revenue and conference moves that I've seen so far.
 
Top