The New Overlords of College Football

[FishDuck Article]

Bow down to ESPN and Fox...

 

The New Overlords of College Football

FISHDUCK.COM

---

This will come as no surprise to any of you, but the NCAA is dead. It ceded away its power to the major conferences through its...

 

[Quackanadian]

When college football had the 6 big conferences (I am thinking Big East here), we loved to idea of a playoff so that we could see undefeated mid 90's Nebraska actually play USC - when they were powerful - for once in a bowl game. We all wanted to see Michigan or Ohio State take on Florida State or Texas, or even see Miami play someone other than Nebraska for a competitive bowl game.

 

With "Super Conferences" on the rise, many of these teams in today's landscape will struggle to put a 6 win season together. More conferences equals more 10-0 teams, and more theoretical "who can beat who" beer night philosophical ponderings. Super conferences will leave some classic blue bloods bleeding endlessly.

 

Unless the new model can come up with some sort of draft system, or NIL cap rules, there will forever be zero parity in college football. So, regardless of the teams you swallow into your conference,  you will always have the Bamas, Ohio States, Clemsons and Georgias eating the most at the table. Former super powers will likely get eaten up, and stay middle class. 

 

Cheers. 

[Haywarduck]

What we see in the NFL is the worlds greatest capitalists who realize unfettered capitalism would be complete chaos. What we have in college football is unfettered capitalism and David spelled it out extremely well.  The NCAA is dead, they have little or no control of college football. 

 

What we need is a ruling body, or a commissioner of the new college football. Somebody needs to create rules and have an iron fist or this is going to get ugly.

 

The owners of the NFL know what happening in college football isn't sustainable. They would never tolerate what is going on now.

[1Ducker1]

If this thing continues to get out of hand college football will eventually cannibalize its self. These super conferences will get 3 or 4 teams in the playoffs every year but it will end up being the same teams year after year--which they are now LOL Limits have to be put on the portal and someone has to oversee NIL.

Edited July 5, 2022 by 1Ducker1

[Log Haulin]

I don't see anyone willing to push back against these media giants. They have the deep pockets and control of the narrative. They have the power to destroy the remaining 3 conferences and the NCAA governing body itself. 

 

Go along to get along. That seems to be the mindset of these university presidents. They don't seem to have the will or nerve to fight back. As a result, the student athlete will die off.

 

I think the only ones that have the power to stop this madness are the university presidents. But that requires them to get on the same page with conviction that even a gentleman hand shake is binding. Tried that, Not going to happen again.

[GODUCKS15]

This fiasco may not of happened if the CFP committee had gone to an 8 team playoff format instead of the current 4 team format.

In an 8 team format with the winner from each P5 conference invited plus whoever else as outliers, conference size wouldn't matter as much. 

 

[Pocketchange]

The best thing that ever happened to college football business was the downfall of the NCAA.  Money has always been a part of college sports, the difference now is the players can invest in retirement and transfer away from abusive situations. 
 

Media and boosters has always controlled the collegiate football business .  They have the money, they pull the strings. Oregon should have known the reality and been out ahead of the collapse of the pac 12. It’s fate was written on the wall and the administration chose to ignore it.  
 

 The reason why we are stressed out about the shifting nature of the collegiate sport business is because the people in the pac 12 ran their portion of the business poorly.  Now, Oregon football business isn’t in control of their own fate and quite possibly lose a lot of money.  

[David Marsh]

On 7/5/2022 at 7:13 AM, GODUCKS15 said:

This fiasco may not of happened if the CFP committee had gone to an 8 team playoff format instead of the current 4 team format.

In an 8 team format with the winner from each P5 conference invited plus whoever else as outliers, conference size wouldn't matter as much. 

 

I think this would have delayed the blow of the PAC and big-12, not prevented it. Access to the playoff isn't the driving force here it's the money. Rutgers currently makes more media rights money than USC and UCLA. 

 

Neither LA school has sniffed at the playoff. They joined the B1G for the money, not access to the playoff. 

[Washington Waddler]

     The NFL model of control can only go so far in attempting to regulate the effect that media giants are having on college conferences because athletes aren’t the soul concern of universities. 

 

     How could you implement NFL strategy in order to level the playing field If it could only lead to ridiculous scenarios such as drafting 4 and 5 star athletes but allowing 2 and 3 star to choose where they went? Students must always be the primary focus in the selection process.

 

     Another problem with the NFL model is how do you financially level the playing field between conferences? All the NFL commissioner has to do is deal with tv contracts and owners. A CFB commissioner would have to contend with university presidents, conference administrators and media corporations all of who have vested interest in maintaining there regional status quo.

 

     The advantage the NFL has over CFB is that it doesn’t have to deal with students, and it has effectively removed the power of regionalism from the decision process by maintaining control from beneath one umbrella. 

 

     Regionalism defines college football, and students must always have the first say. You’ve got to start from there if you’re to ever find an answer.

[Haywarduck]

As much as I hated the NCAA, the end of the NCAA isn't the answer. Much like getting rid of a bad employer, the next one can be just as destructive and seems to be. Having no one really in charge, and everyone going after the almighty dollar isn't the rejoinder. 

 

I look for cannibalism to be the direction until somehow the truly elite decide to agree to some form of oversight. I look for this type of mentality to destroy the Rutgers, types of the Big 10, and then once the musical chairs is over, a much nicer term than cannibalism, there becomes a commissioner of the super conferences. 

 

Right now I have no idea how the unconstrained market will play out, but it will studied by many for years to come. What happens when a controlled market goes unbridled seems to have nothing to compare it too. I can't think of a comparable situation in recent history. Maybe Genghis Khan and the Mongolian Empire would be a comparable time with the SEC and the BIG 10 being Genghis driven by the TV contracts?

 

Agree the NFL model probably won't be the answer. Maybe how European soccer leagues are run, you have to win to stay in the super conferences? Within the super conferences only the truly elite will stay in the league, and the lower tiers will rotate in and out.  Bottomline there will have to be different oversight, as the NCAA seems unable to provide what is needed. Emmert may have been a bigger buffoon than Lavish Larry, if that is possible.

[David Marsh]

The only major thing I find that a pro model helps with is profit sharing. Where you have one entity that distributes media money equally to everyone. 

 

Can't do much about private donations like everything Phil Knight has done. 

 

NIL is really difficult to regulate and the only reason it's not a problem at the pro level is because the players already earn a salary and secondly rookies have really no choice where they are going and then are bound by contracts. Same with players who are traded. 

 

The only players who have any say are free agents and that varies to how much say they have. 

 

The NCAA basically said... "No pay for players" which shut down the conversation from the outset. The solution was NIL. Players were going to get paid regardless at some point. 

 

The NCAA decided not to lead and create rules and regulations ... Which would have been a standardized pay for all players and they would have had to have gotten this money via media rights and the NCAA would have had to manage those from a top down stand point. 

 

Instead with no leadership we got tjr state of affairs we are living with today in college sports land. 

[savagefund]

On 7/5/2022 at 5:06 AM, Quackanadian said:

When college football had the 6 big conferences (I am thinking Big East here), we loved to idea of a playoff so that we could see undefeated mid 90's Nebraska actually play USC - when they were powerful - for once in a bowl game. We all wanted to see Michigan or Ohio State take on Florida State or Texas, or even see Miami play someone other than Nebraska for a competitive bowl game.

 

 

This exactly.   So looked forward to those intersectional games.  This is what I will miss the most.

[David Marsh]

Some other interesting news and rumors out there... there is talk about not wanting to add Oregon and Washington to the B1G as full members because some current members are concerned it would reduce their cut of the media rights. 

 

I think it is interesting because I do think Oregon and Washington would be net positives to the B1G in the long run and there is some dead weight already in the B1G. 

 

Looking at Rutgers, Indiana and Maryland in particular. Those three programs are certainly worth less than Oregon and Washington but I could see the fear that they get less money with the addition of two more programs. 

 

So at what point does the conference or FOX look at booting teams from the conference that are drags on the revenue stream? 

[NJDuck]

If that happens

On 7/5/2022 at 8:43 PM, David Marsh said:

Some other interesting news and rumors out there... there is talk about not wanting to add Oregon and Washington to the B1G as full members because some current members are concerned it would reduce their cut of the media rights. 

 

I think it is interesting because I do think Oregon and Washington would be net positives to the B1G in the long run and there is some dead weight already in the B1G. 

 

Looking at Rutgers, Indiana and Maryland in particular. Those three programs are certainly worth less than Oregon and Washington but I could see the fear that they get less money with the addition of two more programs. 

 

So at what point does the conference or FOX look at booting teams from the conference that are drags on the revenue stream?

If that happens, at what point should Oregon and Washington push to be given full members payment?  Not right to put that on Oregon and Washington when, what you said, certain members of the BIG 10 are a drain.   Oregon and Washington makes money for the BIG while other members don't.  I can see where they would want to drop the dead weight.  Nasty business.

 

Maybe BIG 10 and FOX looks to bring in more streaming partners to rake in more money.

Edited July 6, 2022 by NJDuck

[OregonDucks]

On 7/5/2022 at 5:56 PM, NJDuck said:

If that happens, at what point should Oregon and Washington push to be given full members payment?  Not right to put that on Oregon and Washington when, what you said, certain members of the BIG 10 are a drain.  

 

Other than joining the SEC, Oregon would be better off taking 50-75% of the B1G television share for a period of time.  No other conference television deal comes close to the $50-75M that the B1G could offer, even at a fraction of the overall share.  Oregon boosters could easily make up the difference. 

 

What would Oregon make in its other options $30-40M?

Edited July 6, 2022 by OregonDucks

[David Marsh]

By the sound of it to it would only be for one media cycle. 

 

Not the best deal but would still be better than the alternatives. 

[nw777b]

I think there might be a different reason for the UCLA/USC move other than being driven by Fox.

 

This article indicates those schools initiated the move due to underwhelming revenue. Of all the schools in the Pac-12, those schools were almost always guaranteed national network TV time every week.  But, most of the other schools struggled to compete with the Shark vacuum for TV time.

 

Revenue sharing wasn't working for the P12 premadonnas.  Ironically,  the poor performance of both those schools in football didn't help the conference, either.

 

What may have been the tipping point was 2020. While other teams were playing, the P12 watched their revenue stream trickle.

 

If it is true that Fox is the cause of this change, it seems like a gray racketeering area...albeit light gray. 

 

At the very least, Larry Scott, a New York, NY native tennis player, should never had the opportunity to mismanage the Pac-12. And for that and this decision, I blame the school chancellors.

 

Wherever they land, Go Ducks!

 

 

 

 

[David Marsh]

On 7/5/2022 at 6:37 PM, nw777b said:

I think there might be a different reason for the UCLA/USC move other than being driven by Fox.

 

This article indicates those schools initiated the move due to underwhelming revenue. Of all the schools in the Pac-12, those schools were almost always guaranteed national network TV time every week.  But, most of the other schools struggled to compete with the Shark vacuum for TV time.

 

Revenue sharing wasn't working for the P12 premadonnas.  Ironically,  the poor performance of both those schools in football didn't help the conference, either.

 

What may have been the tipping point was 2020. While other teams were playing, the P12 watched their revenue stream trickle.

 

If it is true that Fox is the cause of this change, it seems like a gray racketeering area...albeit light gray. 

 

At the very least, Larry Scott, a New York, NY native tennis player, should never had the opportunity to mismanage the Pac-12. And for that and this decision, I blame the school chancellors.

 

Wherever they land, Go Ducks!

 

 

 

 

That is certain a factor. 

 

On top of it all I think ib the last three years Oregon has only had maybe 2-3 games on the pac-12 network. 

 

I know last year it was only Stoneybrook that was religated to the pac-12 network where every other game was on national television whether it was ABC, ESPN, or FOX. 

 

That should give Oregon a boost but it all depends on whether viewership numbers matter to potential additions. You would think they would. 

 

If that is the case Oregon is better than half of the B1G and should get a full membership. 

[OregonDucks]

On 7/5/2022 at 7:17 PM, David Marsh said:

If that is the case Oregon is better than half of the B1G and should get a full membership. 

While that is certainly true, Oregon is currently on the outside of the club looking in. Those “lessor schools” or free riders are the members who can block UO’s admittance. Why would they take less annual TV revenue to admit a couple additional West coast schools?

 

Someday, there will be a reversal of fortunes and those programs not adding value will be shown the door. Until then, Oregon has to continue to position itself as one of the top brands in college football.