For the good of college football

[augustabuzz]

a lot of people saying for us to not be in the big league with the super teams. while that may sound good when the athletic program has this much debt i’m not sure if that’s really a good idea for us. our tv money will absolutely tank if we do that. no one is gonna pay money to watch the second tier of college football. for that reason i’m not sure it would make sense to our athletic directors to go with that

They will if they need the programming.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

Playoff ratings have sucked for awhile. Parity is a better business model. Whether that means a super conference that is essentially a JV NFL or something else remains to be seen, but eventually something will be done because the current state of college football will continue to lose interest and therefore, lose money.

I don’t think a super conference means doom for programs like us. I personally don’t think even half of the Power 5 programs can actually afford to be a part of a Super Conference, so there will still be plenty of respectable football programs that are a part of the second tier of college football and still enough interest to gain TV rights and what not. College football is sold by tradition and pageantry and there will still be plenty of that from those second tier programs.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I think you all are missing a very important point. Football (and Men's Basketball to an extent) pay for all the other sports. So, if the football schools break away, so will all the other sports too. Without the big payday in football, our volleyball, women's basketball, golf, baseball, softball, track&field, etc. all suffer. We will have to drop down in competition at all levels because we won't have the revenue to compete in facilities and cover costs that the "football" schools will be able to do. Are you ready to step down in every sport at GT? Not sure enough people are thinking this through enough. Our NCAA budget is built by and funded through the football team.

That doesn't necessarily have to be true across the board. Some sports, Golf for instance, would be just fine. Baseball would probably be ok as well. For instance, Augusta University in Augusta, GA is a Division II school without a football team. Their Golf team competes in Division I and won the 2010 and 2011 DI National Championship in the sport. Since there is a fully funded endowment for Golf scholarships at GT, we could easily stay DI there. With the money Texiera is pouring into baseball, we likely could stay DI there as well. Even a lesser amount of football and basketball revenue will pay for Tennis, Track, and Volleyball.

 

[FlatsLander]

I appreciate the optimism. While I think it would be refreshing to remove the semi-pro programs from what we currently know as college football, I am resigned to the fact that those semi-pro programs will hijack what we currently know as college football and leave the rest cobbling together some lesser version. Quantifying “lesser” is what has me concerned. All of the money and the history and the broadcasting, and consequently, the fanfare will follow the semi-pro version.

I actually think it would be the exact opposite. I think you could move all the 4- and 5-startplayers to a semi-pro, NFL farm team league with little to no change in viewership for NCAA football. People watch CFB for the schools the teams represent, not to watch the best football. You'd still have The Game, the Iron Bowl, all the other rivalries fueling viewership, plus with more of an even playing field talent-wise, you'd have more people stay interested.

 

[1979jacket]

I think you all are missing a very important point. Football (and Men's Basketball to an extent) pay for all the other sports. So, if the football schools break away, so will all the other sports too. Without the big payday in football, our volleyball, women's basketball, golf, baseball, softball, track&field, etc. all suffer. We will have to drop down in competition at all levels because we won't have the revenue to compete in facilities and cover costs that the "football" schools will be able to do. Are you ready to step down in every sport at GT? Not sure enough people are thinking this through enough. Our NCAA budget is built by and funded through the football team.

I think their may be a TV market for the non-Super conference football. Particularly if the super conference has a limited number of teams, 15 from SEC (including Texas and Okie), 6 from PAC12 -Arizonas and USC Washington and UCLA, about 4 from BIG12, AND maybe 10 from BInteger, ACC Clemson FSU Miami Louisville VT, Notre Dame probably in Super conference although maybe not. Take those 40 away and you still have a lot of fans for non-Super conference. Also crossover games ax

I don't believe Super conference will want more than top 40 because after that you are diluting your paycheck. Basketball doesn't have to change.

 

[augustabuzz]

I think their may be a TV market for the non-Super conference football. Particularly if the super conference has a limited number of teams, 15 from SEC (including Texas and Okie), 6 from PAC12 -Arizonas and USC Washington and UCLA, about 4 from BIG12, AND maybe 10 from BInteger, ACC Clemson FSU Miami Louisville VT, Notre Dame probably in Super conference although maybe not. Take those 40 away and you still have a lot of fans for non-Super conference. Also crossover games ax

I don't believe Super conference will want more than top 40 because after that you are diluting your paycheck. Basketball doesn't have to change.

The next tier should disallow any competition with the professionals. That would also include the other sports as the money raised from professional football would provide too great an advantage in the remaining sports.

 

[CEB]

I actually think it would be the exact opposite. I think you could move all the 4- and 5-startplayers to a semi-pro, NFL farm team league with little to no change in viewership for NCAA football. People watch CFB for the schools the teams represent, not to watch the best football. You'd still have The Game, the Iron Bowl, all the other rivalries fueling viewership, plus with more of an even playing field talent-wise, you'd have more people stay interested.

I hope so... really hope so! Maybe I'm down on it because some fun rivalries would go away (Clemson, UGA, FSU) but honestly, maybe I need to let it go... if they were to approach it with an NFL-esque 32 team model, there would be plenty of good football left. I don't think supercon could go any bigger than 32, and that would allow essentially two 16-team "divisions" that (outside of football) could basically function the same way conferences do today in all other sports. Whether or not there is a trickle down effect in other sports is another debate....

Start filling out the 32-team list... its not easy. Football is the driver, and I wonder if any big "basketball first" schools would consider, although a couple may take their football lumps just to gain revenue for basketball. There may be a few hold outs for "academic" reasons also, but I think revenue will win out there. So:

Big Ten departures - Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Mich State (honestly, I think Michigan and Michigan St could be on the fence. Michigan likes to tout their academics and not that Mich St would base their decision on anything done in Ann Arbor, but I feel like they'd think twice if Michigan didn't jump... but lets assume revenues and major football rivalries win out and they both go)

SEC departs - Bama, UGAg, aTm, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, LSU(Auburn is a toss up, but I think if both Bama and UGAg are coming off the schedule, they're in)

Big 12 Departs - Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas? (Tx and OU are already gone and obviously going as big as possible, I think OSU would be primed. Kansas is intriguing. I almost think they would entertain it just because they DON'T care about football and the revenue would be huge for basketball. the supercon would be no slouch in basketball, and out of conference bball games would be easy enough to swing... if the conference would have the Kansas football program)

PAC Departs - USC, Oregon? Washington? (Admittedly, I don't know a heck of a lot about sentiment in the pac ten, but I just don't see a lot of schools that fit the bill here)

ACC - FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC? NCSt? (UNC is kind of like Kansas with a more respectable football program. They're obviously basketball first but would jump on the revenue. NCSt I could see also...)

Others - UCF, Cincy?, ND? (have the Bearcats gotten a taste for football; is ND finally going to join a conference? )

With all of those teams, I am at 26 (if I counted right). That leaves 6 slots with no OBVIOUS candidates remaining, and even a few of the 26 questionable. I'd say the most likely would be Kentucky, Arkansas, Mizzou and maybe Maryland or the Mississippi schools? The takeaway; there would be some eyebrow raising schools involved in the new supercon (in my opinion), but more importantly, there are a LOT of really good schools and competition left in the restructure of college athletics.

Yes, this is all RAMPANT speculation, but putting a little more thought into it gives me some hope... Maybe I am underestimating how may schools would jump at the chance, but don't prove me wrong... I am slowly talking myself into this now!

 

[forensicbuzz]

That doesn't necessarily have to be true across the board. Some sports, Golf for instance, would be just fine. Baseball would probably be ok as well. For instance, Augusta University in Augusta, GA is a Division II school without a football team. Their Golf team competes in Division I and won the 2010 and 2011 DI National Championship in the sport. Since there is a fully funded endowment for Golf scholarships at GT, we could easily stay DI there. With the money Texiera is pouring into baseball, we likely could stay DI there as well. Even a lesser amount of football and basketball revenue will pay for Tennis, Track, and Volleyball.

Don't forget Title IX.

 

[forensicbuzz]

The next tier should disallow any competition with the professionals. That would also include the other sports as the money raised from professional football would provide too great an advantage in the remaining sports.

that was my point.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Don't forget Title IX.

Title IX is probably the most misunderstood rule out there. It does not require equal number of scholarships for men and women or individual scholarships of equal value. However, the total amount of assistance awarded to men and women must be substantially proportionate to their participation rates in athletic programs. It doesn't even require equal number of programs.

Equal Opportunity In Intercollegiate Athletics: Requirements Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

This policy interpretation examines the law requiring that athletic programs be operated in a manner free from discrimination on the basis of sex.

www2.ed.gov

 

[forensicbuzz]

Title IX is probably the most misunderstood rule out there. It does not require equal number of scholarships for men and women or individual scholarships of equal value. However, the total amount of assistance awarded to men and women must be substantially proportionate to their participation rates in athletic programs. It doesn't even require equal number of programs.

Equal Opportunity In Intercollegiate Athletics: Requirements Under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

This policy interpretation examines the law requiring that athletic programs be operated in a manner free from discrimination on the basis of sex.

www2.ed.gov

I understand Title IX. Tech has a 3:2 ratio now, so, getting closer to 50:50. There has to be a proportional opportunity, not just assistance. So, you can't just have a golf team and a baseball team. You have to have, proportionally, the same opportunities for women and men (or show how the underrepresented sex is not being disadvantaged).

 

[augustabuzz]

that was my point.

I was responding to 1979 Jacket. Which of your posts did you believe I responded? Thanks.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I was responding to 1979 Jacket. Which of your posts did you believe I responded? Thanks.

I didn't think you were responding to my post at all. You basically reiterated (more succinctly) the point of my post, which is what 1979 Jacket was responding to in the first place. I was agreeing with your re-statement.

 

[augustabuzz]

I didn't think you were responding to my post at all. You basically reiterated (more succinctly) the point of my post, which is what 1979 Jacket was responding to in the first place. I was agreeing with your re-statement.

Yes, it is close except that I don't see us moving down. Rather, they will be moving up and will be disallowed from playing the "lower levels". They will then have to have about half of their 30 to 40 teams finish each sports' season with a losing record. How long will the prima-donnas put up with that?

 

[Richard7125]

I hope so... really hope so! Maybe I'm down on it because some fun rivalries would go away (Clemson, UGA, FSU) but honestly, maybe I need to let it go... if they were to approach it with an NFL-esque 32 team model, there would be plenty of good football left. I don't think supercon could go any bigger than 32, and that would allow essentially two 16-team "divisions" that (outside of football) could basically function the same way conferences do today in all other sports. Whether or not there is a trickle down effect in other sports is another debate....

Start filling out the 32-team list... its not easy. Football is the driver, and I wonder if any big "basketball first" schools would consider, although a couple may take their football lumps just to gain revenue for basketball. There may be a few hold outs for "academic" reasons also, but I think revenue will win out there. So:

Big Ten departures - Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Mich State (honestly, I think Michigan and Michigan St could be on the fence. Michigan likes to tout their academics and not that Mich St would base their decision on anything done in Ann Arbor, but I feel like they'd think twice if Michigan didn't jump... but lets assume revenues and major football rivalries win out and they both go)

SEC departs - Bama, UGAg, aTm, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, LSU(Auburn is a toss up, but I think if both Bama and UGAg are coming off the schedule, they're in)

Big 12 Departs - Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, Kansas? (Tx and OU are already gone and obviously going as big as possible, I think OSU would be primed. Kansas is intriguing. I almost think they would entertain it just because they DON'T care about football and the revenue would be huge for basketball. the supercon would be no slouch in basketball, and out of conference bball games would be easy enough to swing... if the conference would have the Kansas football program)

PAC Departs - USC, Oregon? Washington? (Admittedly, I don't know a heck of a lot about sentiment in the pac ten, but I just don't see a lot of schools that fit the bill here)

ACC - FSU, Clemson, Miami, UNC? NCSt? (UNC is kind of like Kansas with a more respectable football program. They're obviously basketball first but would jump on the revenue. NCSt I could see also...)

Others - UCF, Cincy?, ND? (have the Bearcats gotten a taste for football; is ND finally going to join a conference? )

With all of those teams, I am at 26 (if I counted right). That leaves 6 slots with no OBVIOUS candidates remaining, and even a few of the 26 questionable. I'd say the most likely would be Kentucky, Arkansas, Mizzou and maybe Maryland or the Mississippi schools? The takeaway; there would be some eyebrow raising schools involved in the new supercon (in my opinion), but more importantly, there are a LOT of really good schools and competition left in the restructure of college athletics.

Yes, this is all RAMPANT speculation, but putting a little more thought into it gives me some hope... Maybe I am underestimating how may schools would jump at the chance, but don't prove me wrong... I am slowly talking myself into this now!

I completely agree it's hard to determine the 32 teams. I would also ask, who gets to determine who those teams are? Secondly, even if a super-conference is created, NIL is here to stay for everyone (so say the courts). NIL dollars might not rise to the level of the super-conference teams, but there will still be a little bit of an arms race in the second tier. There will still be a lot of schools with rich alumni in the second tier wanting their school to succeed.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I understand Title IX. Tech has a 3:2 ratio now, so, getting closer to 50:50. There has to be a proportional opportunity, not just assistance. So, you can't just have a golf team and a baseball team. You have to have, proportionally, the same opportunities for women and men (or show how the underrepresented sex is not being disadvantaged).

Agreed, but if Augusta University can field a DI golf team, no football team, and still field women's sports to stay in compliance with title IX, then I am sure GT could if it "stepped down" a division.

Note: I am not advocating for GT to step down, just noting that if it did it wouldn't hamper other sports nearly as drastically as some think.

 

[WreckinGT]

I completely agree it's hard to determine the 32 teams. I would also ask, who gets to determine who those teams are? Secondly, even if a super-conference is created, NIL is here to stay for everyone (so say the courts). NIL dollars might not rise to the level of the super-conference teams, but there will still be a little bit of an arms race in the second tier. There will still be a lot of schools with rich alumni in the second tier wanting their school to succeed.

I don't think it's going to be 32 power teams randomly picked. It will be the SEC and Big 10 and whoever they decide to poach along the way. The legalities of breaking up those conferences, along with the payouts needed probably prevent that from ever happening. It will be funny to see Rutgers and Vandy as power teams but not USC, or Baylor.

 

[CLHarperJackt]

Well if the is projection in the attached article is correct, will NIL money make up for the projected loss of money from ESPN for super conference expansion? I’ve people say the ESPN is the driver for super conference expansion so would a massive decline in revenue to ESPN be good or bad for college football?


https://www.outkick.com/espn-lost-8-million-subscribers-in-2021-10-of-its-overall-subscriber-base/

"...Assuming that’s right then in the space of about twenty years ESPN’s business will have been cut in half, from 100 million cable and satellite subscribers to 50 million subscribers. That is, what projected to be a $12 billion a year business will become a $6 billion a year business in the next five years.
And, again, that’s assuming the consensus is correct and the subscriber floor is truly 50 million. (The consensus view is that ESPN will lose around 5 million subscribers a year between now and 2030ish, eventually settling at a floor of 50 million subscribers.) What’s important to note is that ESPN would be losing money hand over fist if this, the consensus view, occurs. Because as ESPN’s revenue declines the amount it can afford to pay for sports rights, at least if profitability is the goal, will decline substantially too, meaning the only reason people subscribe to ESPN, for the games, would be even less of a value proposition..."

 

[forensicbuzz]

I'm just saying it will be really hard, not impossible. Nothing's impossible. I'd even lean towards not likely.

 

[CEB]

Well if the is projection in the attached article is correct, will NIL money make up for the projected loss of money from ESPN for super conference expansion? I’ve people say the ESPN is the driver for super conference expansion so would a massive decline in revenue to ESPN be good or bad for college football?


https://www.outkick.com/espn-lost-8-million-subscribers-in-2021-10-of-its-overall-subscriber-base/

"...Assuming that’s right then in the space of about twenty years ESPN’s business will have been cut in half, from 100 million cable and satellite subscribers to 50 million subscribers. That is, what projected to be a $12 billion a year business will become a $6 billion a year business in the next five years.
And, again, that’s assuming the consensus is correct and the subscriber floor is truly 50 million. (The consensus view is that ESPN will lose around 5 million subscribers a year between now and 2030ish, eventually settling at a floor of 50 million subscribers.) What’s important to note is that ESPN would be losing money hand over fist if this, the consensus view, occurs. Because as ESPN’s revenue declines the amount it can afford to pay for sports rights, at least if profitability is the goal, will decline substantially too, meaning the only reason people subscribe to ESPN, for the games, would be even less of a value proposition..."

Interesting.... wouldn’t it be something if all of these TV deals broke up college football and then all of these TV deals crumbled? Wow.
Honestly, this plays into my initial concern somewhat.... if there is a “superconference” taking up all the major broadcast air time, the likes of ESPN can buy “the rest” on the cheap and stick it all on streaming services. I think that’s ultimately the death knell of college football broadcast.... but looking in the bright side, maybe that’ll fill stadiums!