For the good of college football

[CEB]

For a very brief moment this morning I found myself on a sports talk station. They were talking college football and actually weren’t slobbering all over the Dwags, so I stopped to see what they were saying.
They were talking NIL, recent Saban / Jimbo / Deion chatter and started talking about Pitt losing Addison to USC. Their position essentially is that it’s all for the good of college football because ALL of college football benefits more from having USC be a contender instead of Pitt. Pitt isn’t set up to be a perennial contender so who cares about them? USC on the other hand has the location, the fan base, the history, etc and all of college football benefits from their success.
Set aside the likelihood of either school contending, and just give your thoughts on that notion... Big “Brand” schools being perennial contenders is best for the game (even if it comes at the expense of other programs). Is college football better off?
Maybe a distinction without a difference but is college football better when the same 10 or so programs dominate playoff contention / spots annually?
Tipping my hand here but I view the “super conference” notion in much the same way... how does college football benefit by openly and intentionally relegating the 90% of D1, including the majority of current P5 programs, to second tier status?

 

[cthenrys]

I'm so ready for a super conference to take shape and the rest of college football to become a smaller, less profitable enterprise. I'll watch the same amount of GT games and tune out the rest. I just don't care at all to see UGA / Bama / Clemson / USC / Ohio State play every year.

 

[CEB]

I'm so ready for a super conference to take shape and the rest of college football to become a smaller, less profitable enterprise. I'll watch the same amount of GT games and tune out the rest. I just don't care at all to see UGA / Bama / Clemson / USC / Ohio State play every year.

Valid point... I just hope the superco is treated for the semi-pro league that it is and what’s leftover is valued. I fear it won’t be.
Maybe I’m a dinosaur, but I don’t want to be relegated to streaming broadcasts if I can’t attend... I love a tv broadcast even if mindless goons are calling it (notable exception Beth Mowins... I just can’t).

 

[JasonJ]

It may make football better. Even if the big schools have more NIL funds, kids do not want to be 3rd string and not see the field. They need to play to make it to the NFL. If schools like GT cannot compete financially against the large football programs, I would rather see them play schools they can compete against.

 

[WreckinGT]

Will the uprising of USC generate more fans and interest than will be lost when fans of smaller programs start to tune out because their team has no hope of national relevance? If so then I guess it's good for college football. Personally I think it will be awful for college football.

 

[rfjeff9]

It isn't better for the sport for the same perennial powers to always be at the top. Case in point is current trend.

I think it is better for a change in overall winners each year to keep the overall fanbase for every school interested.

Put it like this. Are you more likely to watch more college football (outside of Tech games) if it's Bama, tOSU, Oklahoma, and UGA in the playoffs, or will you be more interested if finally someone else ales it in? Say BYU, UNC, Minnesota, and Baylor?

A top heavy outcome every season is killing cfb, IMHO. Same thing every year. Who will Bama beat for the natty? "YAWN!!!!!"

I would give much to see Wake break into the cabal and pull an upset for the ages. And it would make the entire following season more interesting.

In other words, not knowing who will come out on top makes it interesting. But every year, all anyone talks about anymore is Alabama. Not their fault, but I think it ultimately damages the sport.

 

[CEB]

It may make football better. Even if the big schools have more NIL funds, kids do not want to be 3rd string and not see the field. They need to play to make it to the NFL. If schools like GT cannot compete financially against the large football programs, I would rather see them play schools they can compete against.

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.

 

[CEB]

Will the uprising of USC generate more fans and interest than will be lost when fans of smaller programs start to tune out because their team has no hope of national relevance? If so then I guess it's good for college football. Personally I think it will be awful for college football.

That’s the question... and I personally agree with your line of thinking on the answer.

It isn't better for the sport for the same perennial powers to always be at the top. Case in point is current trend.

I think it is better for a change in overall winners each year to keep the overall fanbase for every school interested.

Put it like this. Are you more likely to watch more college football (outside of Tech games) if it's Bama, tOSU, Oklahoma, and UGA in the playoffs, or will you be more interested if finally someone else ales it in? Say BYU, UNC, Minnesota, and Baylor?

A top heavy outcome every season is killing cfb, IMHO. Same thing every year. Who will Bama beat for the natty? "YAWN!!!!!"

I would give much to see Wake break into the cabal and pull an upset for the ages. And it would make the entire following season more interesting.

In other words, not knowing who will come out on top makes it interesting. But every year, all anyone talks about anymore is Alabama. Not their fault, but I think it ultimately damages the sport.

I agree with these two posts. I respect the opinion of some die hard fans that they’re going to be fans regardless, and they look forward to “cleaning up” the sport, but I think excitement will be lost for most of college football.

I would say it this way; I see ZERO damage done to college football when Cincinatti sneaks into the playoff. I also see ZERO gain in the resurrection of USC, FSU, or Texas... especially if it’s encouraged at the expense of other up and coming programs. I don’t need a “blue blood” to challenge Alabama... I just need someone to challenge Alabama (except that group out east).

 

[TooTall]

Commentators saying "x sport is better when y team is great" is just lazy reporting. If the team y in sport x is in a down slump does it take away from the other teams competing and winning? Absolutely not. But the reason its lazy is it forces the commentators to actually have to look into the history of other programs.

 

[Oakland]

The United States has to lead the world in car salesmen and sports commentators. We really need workers that can paint houses, work on cars, drive trucks, etc. Edit: I like car salesmen, most of them know what they're talking about... sometimes.

 

[gt13]

I am in favor of the big programs with essentially unlimited funds breaking off and form their own semi pro league, NFL Lite. Then the rest of us can resume actual college football

 

[TheStolenT]

Most major sports leagues found out a long time ago that parity is important to grow and sustain fanbases for your league, hence drafts favoring teams with bad years to hopefully rebuild for the future. I just cant see college football in its current state being very interesting for most of the country when the same 8 teams are the only teams with a chance to win the title every year and everyone else is just fighting for scraps. I mean, I love going/watching GT football games, but if there is no chance at all of winning a title each year, the pull just isnt the same. I dont know if creating a semi pro league out of the top tier team fixes that issue either, but I honestly dont know the solution. I miss the 90s.

 

[JacketFan137]

Most major sports leagues found out a long time ago that parity is important to grow and sustain fanbases for your league, hence drafts favoring teams with bad years to hopefully rebuild for the future. I just cant see college football in its current state being very interesting for most of the country when the same 8 teams are the only teams with a chance to win the title every year and everyone else is just fighting for scraps. I mean, I love going/watching GT football games, but if there is no chance at all of winning a title each year, the pull just isnt the same. I dont know if creating a semi pro league out of the top tier team fixes that issue either, but I honestly dont know the solution. I miss the 90s.

realistically we have been competitive nationally twice in the last 20 years as far as potential title runs and even then i’m not too sure we could hang with the likes of a bama/ohio state (the two teams who won those years). we already had an uphill battle with academics and now the NIL/portal has come in and completely changed the idea of that ever happening. what’s worse is even though we weren’t nationally competitive, we could at least pull upsets off. i feel like the chances of uga/bama/ohio state/oklahoma getting upset are next to zero now. the gap is just widening too far

 

[JacketFan137]

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

 

[CEB]

I am in favor of the big programs with essentially unlimited funds breaking off and form their own semi pro league, NFL Lite. Then the rest of us can resume actual college football

You are not alone... I think a lot of people feel this way, including me. My concern is what “the rest of college football” looks like and how long it really has some appeal and viability.

 

[CEB]

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

Truth here. I don’t think we’re making these investments with plans for decreased revenue. I find that encouraging in a way... I guess.

 

[gt13]

We would be the first tier of college football. The factories would be the second tier of NFL

 

[BuzzDraft]

I don't see any unwillingness to try to "fix" this...

I see any potential leaders trying to think of all possible proposed fixes, and realizing that none of them would stand up in court.

Everyone sincerely seeking an equitable solution's hands are tied by the inevital legal challenges. College football is now an openly professional sport, but without the NFL's tight franchise/union partnership that provides competitive balance like controlled free agency and salary caps. The court cases have stripped all the rules, starting with the Okie/Dwags suing for their own TV money rights. It's a free-for-all period for all the Haves to race to grab all they can, and is not sustainable. It will have to crash and burn before it can be brought back out of the ashes. This is the epitome of "Killing the Golden Goose" because the factories didn't want to share any of their largess for the good of the sport. They will break off into their own training league for the NFL, and I won't be sad to see them go.

The Ivy League has a pretty satisfying model for college football. Their "Super Bowl" is their regular season conference championship after a full round-robin schedule with no artificial championship game, and they don't give a crap about the money or bowl games or FBS playoff. Conferences used to be like this in my lifetime. The people I know from there, who also care a lot about their school's participation in athletic competition despite people here thinking they're all "nerds" or "foreigners", take just as much satisfaction and pride in bragging rights among their like minded universities as the factories and factory-wannabes do in FBS, and probably more because they did it right.

 

[forensicbuzz]

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.

 

[WreckinGT]

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.

If things break up and we somehow end up in the super league, how long do you expect those sports to stay competitive? Things aren't just going to change in revenue sports, it is going to trickle down to non revenue sports as well. Eventually we will have trouble competing in anything because we simply wouldn't be able to spend at nearly the same level as the super revenue teams. If this is the best path we can take, it is a pretty sad one. Eventually we are going to have to group entire athletic programs together in terms of their spending ability.