Conference Realignment

[Buzztheirazz]

If CFB becomes pro like the NFL, I won't care about that either.

Hmmm. Anyone want to tell him?

 

[tomknight]

Yeah, why would anyone care about a league with an order of magnitude greater skill where there have been as many distinct Super Bowl participants (2 teams in a league of 32 teams) as CFB playoff participants (4 teams in a league of 120+ teams) since the CFB playoffs existed.

Who wants to watch football played at the highest level and yet have enough drama that it’s hard to predict the winner the day of the Super Bowl, never mind the beginning of the playoffs or beginning of the season, when we can instead watch to see whether OSU, Clemson, or Alabama will best UGA this year while pretending any other team has a chance. And who the hell would want to miss the thrill of the same two teams playing each other in 2 championship games in the same season! I mean, talk about excitement!

Reasons.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The 24 team CFB playoffs are gonna be a joke.

Nearly every player with NFL aspirations is gonna sit them out.

I won’t be surprised to see a game where #1 Alabama loses to #12 Cincinnati by forfeit because Alabama doesn’t have enough “healthy” players to field a team.

That's a point I've been pondering for quite a while. With NIL and potential pay-for-play, how are these big boosters going to react when players decide to pass on playoff games to protect themselves for the NFL? It will be interesting.

 

[Vespidae]

That's a point I've been pondering for quite a while. With NIL and potential pay-for-play, how are these big boosters going to react when players decide to pass on playoff games to protect themselves for the NFL? It will be interesting.

Put it in the contract.

 

[slugboy]

Put it in the contract.

Not that the NCAA matters much, but there at least was a rule that NIL wasn’t pay for performance.

 

[CEB]

Not that the NCAA matters much, but there at least was a rule that NIL wasn’t pay for performance.

Agree... but it would seem a pretty easy explanation to say that we want high profile athletes to endorse / represent us in high profile games... that’s why we’re paying.
Not performance, per se, but to say that they’re paying a kid to represent on the field as long as they’re healthy.
Of course, then several high profile guys might get late season injury bugs...

ETA- do you think these companies and NIL collectives are going to start pushing for actual advertising? Who will be the first to let a kid wear a jersey patch or a helmet sticker? Ho long until they look like nascar drivers running around out there?

 

[RamblinRed]

Keep in mind, neither Clemson nor FSU were among the ACC schools reportedly vetted by the B1G recently.
Those were GT, UVA, UNC, Miami and Duke. (FWIW, the other 5 schools vetted were WA, OR, Stanford, Cal and Utah).
WA and OR were grabbed by the B1G because the situation had changed - not because they all of a sudden were more valuable. If B1G had to give them a full share they would have passed on them. They only brought them in because they were basically able to get them at a 50% discount. It was bargain shopping at its finest.

IMO UNC and UVA have the most overall value because both the SEC and B1G would be interested in adding them. Both fit into the long term strategies of the Big 2. For SEC it gives them the 'state' school in 2 states contiguous to its current footprint that it has no presence in. For B1G they are the 'state' school that is also highly regarded academically (and part of the AAU) in two states with large and growing populations.

Duke was likely vetted as a partner with UNC.
Miami and GT would give B1G a presence in the largest city in the 2 most populous states it currently does not have a team in.

All that being said, the environment has changed as well. If GT had been offered and accepted a spot in the B1G a decade ago it would be in a much different place financially (though not necessarily competitively) than it currently is. But the market is different now. It is pretty clear what the value of a non-Blue Blood school is. I think UNC and UVA could potentially get a full share due to the likely bidding war that would ensue over them, but very few other schools would. None of the other ACC schools vetted by the B1G fit into the SEC's strategy so they are likely worth less as they would not create a bidding process.

GT, Duke, Miami would be more likely to get an offer similar to WA or OR and that type of offer would make no sense to move right now. That is where the market is.
The next time to watch is going to be at the end of the decade as both the B1G and B12 contracts expire. If the environment is similar to what it is now then just getting a contract that kept the money flat would be considered a win. But we don't know what the environment will be, so maybe contracts will escalate again, but there is no guarantee there.

The idea that B1G didn't have much interest in FSU or Clemson goes deeper than just the GoR. It goes to what their strategy is for their conference. The fact they haven't even vetted Clemson or FSU when it has vetted at least 1/3 of ACC schools suggest they are pretty far down a list. What alot of programs are starting to find out now is that they are not nearly as attractive as they thought they were. Clemson and FSU are negatively impacted by the fact that neither really fits in with the long term strategies of the Big 2. Does that mean they would be left out - no, but it does mean they may not be the automatics that they think they are. Sankey has already implied that FSU is not worth a full share and SEC is not going to bring on anyone that isn't worth a full share.

There are demographic patterns at play that run against the idea of any big escalations in future college football contracts. While it is a major sport in the US, it doesn't really possess the demographics that are going to make it attractive to advertisers over the next 10-15 years, which could mean less money available. College football is largely an older sports fan sport (particularly an older, white sports fan sport). 82% white, 44% over 55 according to a Neilson study of viewership. Only 4% Hispanic viewership in a country that is now almost 20% Hispanic. I expect Soccer to be the biggest sport gainer over the next decade in the US and to potentially take some windows away from college football.

 

[slugboy]

….

There are demographic patterns at play that run against the idea of any big escalations in future college football contracts. While it is a major sport in the US, it doesn't really possess the demographics that are going to make it attractive to advertisers over the next 10-15 years, which could mean less money available. College football is largely an older sports fan sport (particularly an older, white sports fan sport). 82% white, 44% over 55 according to a Neilson study of viewership. Only 4% Hispanic viewership in a country that is now almost 20% Hispanic. I expect Soccer to be the biggest sport gainer over the next decade in the US and to potentially take some windows away from college football.

That’s one reason I wonder about the NFL moving more games to other days, including Saturdays—to take away “oxygen” for MLS. It’s one thing to yield Saturday to college football, which is the NFL farm system. MLS mostly competes for time with baseball, but it runs through mid-October in the playoffs

 

[Oakland]

Georgia Tech better hurry up and get a soccer team.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Those of you pushing for the BIG or return to the SEC, do you honestly think we could be competitive? I doubt Clemson or FSU would on a consistent basis. No doubt we would sell out more games, but I keep thinking of Nebraska, Maryland, Iowa, Rutgers, Minnesota, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Kentucky, Vandy, and the like.

 

[TooTall]

Put it in the contract.

It wouldn't matter. The money would have already been paid. Once the player declares that he will "skip the bowl game, playoff etc" they are headed to the NFL and are off the team. The guy is a quitter and who can make a quitter who is not an employee pay?

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

The 24 team CFB playoffs are gonna be a joke.

Nearly every player with NFL aspirations is gonna sit them out.

I won’t be surprised to see a game where #1 Alabama loses to #12 Cincinnati by forfeit because Alabama doesn’t have enough “healthy” players to field a team.

This is yet another reason I can’t wait for the expanded version. Not only will the little teams who have big years have a chance on the field (instead of playing in some worthless bowl) but the blue bloods will have obstacles in a playoff system such as 1) less time to prepare for a team they may have never played, 2) injuries, and 3) studs sitting out, 4) assistants leaving for new jobs after the regular season ends, etc.

It’s no different than in any sport. The Chiefs were razor thin close to Mahomes ankle keeping him out. They wouldn’t have won the Super Bowl without him. We saw the Bulls not win the 2 years Jordan sat out. Would UGA have won if Stetson were out?

Right now, Kirby is preparing for a 2 game season. That’s it. But put his staff in a position where they have 5 days to prepare week after week along with keeping those studs in check and we’ll see how they fare. You say 24 teams will be a joke. I say a sport where only 10 teams out of 60plus have a chance is a joke. Right now we all know the 4 teams in the playoffs will come from Bama, UGA, Michigan, Ohio State, Clemson, or Florida State. That’s it. Everyone else is playing 12 scrimmage games.

 

[roadkill]

This is yet another reason I can’t wait for the expanded version. Not only will the little teams who have big years have a chance on the field (instead of playing in some worthless bowl) but the blue bloods will have obstacles in a playoff system such as 1) less time to prepare for a team they may have never played, 2) injuries, and 3) studs sitting out, 4) assistants leaving for new jobs after the regular season ends, etc.

It’s no different than in any sport. The Chiefs were razor thin close to Mahomes ankle keeping him out. They wouldn’t have won the Super Bowl without him. We saw the Bulls not win the 2 years Jordan sat out. Would UGA have won if Stetson were out?

Right now, Kirby is preparing for a 2 game season. That’s it. But put his staff in a position where they have 5 days to prepare week after week along with keeping those studs in check and we’ll see how they fare. You say 24 teams will be a joke. I say a sport where only 10 teams out of 60plus have a chance is a joke. Right now we all know the 4 teams in the playoffs will come from Bama, UGA, Michigan, Ohio State, Clemson, or Florida State. That’s it. Everyone else is playing 12 scrimmage games.

I agree that if we have a rash of elite players sitting out, it's more likely to impact the blue bloods.

My memory is fuzzy on this, but haven’t most of the instances of players sitting out been for non-playoff bowls? It just seems like the NFL-bound players want to showcase themselves, or perhaps help their school more, in the playoff games on the biggest stage. Could be mistaken on this but would be interested in counterexamples.

 

[CEB]

I agree that if we have a rash of elite players sitting out, it's more likely to impact the blue bloods.

My memory is fuzzy on this, but haven’t most of the instances of players sitting out been for non-playoff bowls? It just seems like the NFL-bound players want to showcase themselves, or perhaps help their school more, in the playoff games on the biggest stage. Could be mistaken on this but would be interested in counterexamples.

Your memory isn’t that fuzzy. I won’t say zero, but I don’t recall many “opt-outs” from playoff games. It’s virtually expected in every other bowl game.

I wouldn’t expect opt outs if teams are actually playing for something. Maybe we start to see some after the “novelty” of the playoff wears off after a few years, but I still think most will play if they are actually playing for something.

 

[Vespidae]

Not that the NCAA matters much, but there at least was a rule that NIL wasn’t pay for performance.

I think you could argue that it isn't pay for performance, it's pay for image and the image is valuable if it is present. It's simple enough ... let's say you have an athlete you want to support via NIL.

Offer a base amount, say $200,000.
Eight games, at $100,000 a game. Put in escalators and de-escalators. "For every game, Recipient will dress and take the field if medically cleared to do so. If Recipient does not play, no game NIL funds will be provided. For every game where the Recipient does play, the NIL fee of $100,000 will be paid based on the total minutes played in the game and as outlined in Appendix A. Thirty percent of the total NIL payout will be paid after the end of the season. Failure to play in any post-season game will result in forfeiture of the NIL post-season money."

Something like that.

 

[CEB]

Those of you pushing for the BIG or return to the SEC, do you honestly think we could be competitive? I doubt Clemson or FSU would on a consistent basis. No doubt we would sell out more games, but I keep thinking of Nebraska, Maryland, Iowa, Rutgers, Minnesota, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Kentucky, Vandy, and the like.

Short answer, yes.
I think we are going to be competitive with our peer group, wherever that is. I think we will have more winning records than not, and find ourselves in bowls more often than not. Championships will be hard to come by, but they’re pretty hard to come by now.
In our case, I see a BIG or SEC move as opening the door to a larger pool of potential players and obviously a larger pool of cash. I recognize that our peers also have that cash but I believe we can compete on a mostly level field.
Conversely, if we combine all of our known hurdles (smallish enrollment, actual academics, small fan base) with being relegated to a “non-power” conference (actually or in perception) and tens of millions in additional budget disadvantages, I don’t see us competing with other programs that we currently consider peers / rivals.

 

[Techwood Relict]

"We love the ACC. My No. 1 goal is to stay in the ACC. That's my No. 1 goal," McCullough (FSU) - ESPN article.

I ran this through my AI Southern Translator. It replied, "I'd like more of the Carolina sauce for my crow please, it helps it go down better."

FSU can be contacted at the back of the line of anybody needs them.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I think you could argue that it isn't pay for performance, it's pay for image and the image is valuable if it is present. It's simple enough ... let's say you have an athlete you want to support via NIL.

Offer a base amount, say $200,000.
Eight games, at $100,000 a game. Put in escalators and de-escalators. "For every game, Recipient will dress and take the field if medically cleared to do so. If Recipient does not play, no game NIL funds will be provided. For every game where the Recipient does play, the NIL fee of $100,000 will be paid based on the total minutes played in the game and as outlined in Appendix A. Thirty percent of the total NIL payout will be paid after the end of the season. Failure to play in any post-season game will result in forfeiture of the NIL post-season money."

Something like that.

Those that sit out have a big payday coming. The NIL $$ at that point is insignificant. If the player gets hurt in the game, the payday may go away. That's why so many opt-out. It will be interesting because these aren't just exhibition games anymore.

 

[Techster]

Keep in mind, neither Clemson nor FSU were among the ACC schools reportedly vetted by the B1G recently.
Those were GT, UVA, UNC, Miami and Duke. (FWIW, the other 5 schools vetted were WA, OR, Stanford, Cal and Utah).
WA and OR were grabbed by the B1G because the situation had changed - not because they all of a sudden were more valuable. If B1G had to give them a full share they would have passed on them. They only brought them in because they were basically able to get them at a 50% discount. It was bargain shopping at its finest.

IMO UNC and UVA have the most overall value because both the SEC and B1G would be interested in adding them. Both fit into the long term strategies of the Big 2. For SEC it gives them the 'state' school in 2 states contiguous to its current footprint that it has no presence in. For B1G they are the 'state' school that is also highly regarded academically (and part of the AAU) in two states with large and growing populations.

Duke was likely vetted as a partner with UNC.
Miami and GT would give B1G a presence in the largest city in the 2 most populous states it currently does not have a team in.

All that being said, the environment has changed as well. If GT had been offered and accepted a spot in the B1G a decade ago it would be in a much different place financially (though not necessarily competitively) than it currently is. But the market is different now. It is pretty clear what the value of a non-Blue Blood school is. I think UNC and UVA could potentially get a full share due to the likely bidding war that would ensue over them, but very few other schools would. None of the other ACC schools vetted by the B1G fit into the SEC's strategy so they are likely worth less as they would not create a bidding process.

GT, Duke, Miami would be more likely to get an offer similar to WA or OR and that type of offer would make no sense to move right now. That is where the market is.
The next time to watch is going to be at the end of the decade as both the B1G and B12 contracts expire. If the environment is similar to what it is now then just getting a contract that kept the money flat would be considered a win. But we don't know what the environment will be, so maybe contracts will escalate again, but there is no guarantee there.

The idea that B1G didn't have much interest in FSU or Clemson goes deeper than just the GoR. It goes to what their strategy is for their conference. The fact they haven't even vetted Clemson or FSU when it has vetted at least 1/3 of ACC schools suggest they are pretty far down a list. What alot of programs are starting to find out now is that they are not nearly as attractive as they thought they were. Clemson and FSU are negatively impacted by the fact that neither really fits in with the long term strategies of the Big 2. Does that mean they would be left out - no, but it does mean they may not be the automatics that they think they are. Sankey has already implied that FSU is not worth a full share and SEC is not going to bring on anyone that isn't worth a full share.

There are demographic patterns at play that run against the idea of any big escalations in future college football contracts. While it is a major sport in the US, it doesn't really possess the demographics that are going to make it attractive to advertisers over the next 10-15 years, which could mean less money available. College football is largely an older sports fan sport (particularly an older, white sports fan sport). 82% white, 44% over 55 according to a Neilson study of viewership. Only 4% Hispanic viewership in a country that is now almost 20% Hispanic. I expect Soccer to be the biggest sport gainer over the next decade in the US and to potentially take some windows away from college football.

Oregon and Washington are coming in at a "discount" temporarily. It's similar to what Maryland and Rutgers agreed to when they joined the B1G. Oregon and Washington will go "full share" on the next TV contract. Current contract started in July 2023, and will end in 2030. This is a 50+ year decision, so to say it's "bargain shopping" is misleading. Oregon and Washington won't always be "partial share" members. USC and UCLA only got full share because the new B1G contract was negotiated knowing they were both joining the B1G. The B1G has been adamant that all their members would be full share members. The only reason Oregon and Washington are getting partial share is because the B1G already closed their media contract with FOX, and B1G was able to get UW and UO to agree to come in at a partial rate earlier than anticipated with FOX underwriting it.

As for the rest...we'll see in 2036 (or sooner). Everyone has made a lot of guesses about realignment. Half have been right, half have been wrong. One thing is certain, realignment and conference consolidation is far from over. Even at the G5 level, I expect to see massive movement over the next decade, and quite a few of those G5 conferences will struggle to stay alive once big media decides they no longer need them for content and to allocate those savings to what most likely will become "The Big 3" conferences. There's already talk that the remaining PAC12 teams + a select group of AAC schools will command between $10-20 million per school from a blended media deal with several different media companies. That is a BIG drop in revenue for the remaining PAC12 schools...and a glimpse into the future of the "have nots". Stanford, because they have so many endowments, and because they can count on BILLIONAIRE donors, really will not be affected in terms of funding. They just want a place for their SAs to compete. Cal and the remaining PAC12 schools are probably in trouble once the current PAC12 contract terminates.

 

[SimpleGT]

Just to confirm. Since F$U didn’t announce an intention to leave they will shut the f up for 11 months?