College Football as a 64-Team League

[BerkeleyBuff]

Fair. I’m making an assumption option that the addition of additional games, more content, better matchups, and a compelling playoff will increase payouts. Berkeley is assuming the opposite.

We actually don't entirely disagree here. I agree with you that more content will generate more money. BUT, the additional money then has to be divided by more schools. So where we disagree is that I think the additional revenue brought in by Syracuse vs Georgia Tech games or Boise State vs Texas playoff games is not enough to be divided amongst all the extra teams and still keep the per team payouts as high for the big dogs as they would be if more games (and more playoff games) were exclusively made of mega fan base vs mega fan base matchups (Texas vs Michigan, Ohio State vs Alabama, etc.)

Anyways, we can't do anything about it. Just a long for the **** show of a ride that is current college football. I'll keep watching regardless.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Fair. I’m making an assumption option that the addition of additional games, more content, better matchups, and a compelling playoff will increase payouts. Berkeley is assuming the opposite.

I tend to agree but the networks don’t want the inevitable Indiana vs Purdue or Arizona State vs Texas Tech content. In order to get the networks and streamers to agree to pay up for a full league media rights, the blue bloods basically have to ban together and force them into it. Their motivation for doing that would be to keep the cannon fodder programs in the mix so they aren’t in danger of going 9-3/8-4 most seasons in a league that is only 32 of the top programs.

 

[Not Sure]

I tend to agree but the networks don’t want the inevitable Indiana vs Purdue or Arizona State vs Texas Tech content. In order to get the networks and streamers to agree to pay up for a full league media rights, the blue bloods basically have to ban together and force them into it. Their motivation for doing that would be to keep the cannon fodder programs in the mix so they aren’t in danger of going 9-3/8-4 most seasons in a league that is only 32 of the top programs.

And this is why I’m of the opinion that ND has to lead the effort. If ND leads this, and schools like UT, Alabama, Michigan and OSU all jump on board, they have the leverage with the networks, not the other way around.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I'm not saying I know what the cutoff is, I'm just saying that the idea that a league which includes Northwestern, Syracuse, Boston College, Wake Forest, UCF, WSU, etc can generate as much money per team as a league made more predominantly of Texas, Ohio State, Alabama and the like is failing to grasp basic economic reality.

Looked at a different way, those proposing 64 teams are already admitting there's a cutoff point, because they're not including all the FBS teams currently in a "G5" league. You only see proposals for 64 teams on the message boards of teams who aren't for sure in the top 24 - 48. And that's because it's an attempt to grasp at a number that makes that person's chosen team "safe" while justifying it via some pleasing numerical balance (as id that matters). Meanwhile, the top brands have message boards (and big donors) who think 48 is too big.

And yes, the "everyone will just fall in line behind Notre Dame" thing is beyond ridiculous.

I think the big donors are going to get tired of their programs going 9-3 in a good year because they play a schedule of only other great programs. We also see more money in every sport when post season and number of games expand.

I just don’t think we can make conclusions about how the environment will be ten years from now while viewing it through today’s lenses.

 

[Alfred91]

TL : DR - The P2 schools know that a 64 team league wouldn't be accretive and won't share their pieces of pie with that many. Maybe we get a 32 team league - maybe - the only way we get in is if Prime leads us back to preeminence.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Fair. I’m making an assumption option that the addition of additional games, more content, better matchups, and a compelling playoff will increase payouts. Berkeley is assuming the opposite.

The people who write the checks are interested not in more content but instead want the most marquee high quality high ratings events they can get per team they pay.

So paying Ohio State gives them a few of those. As does Michigan, Georgia, Texas, and handful of others. Stanford will not give them any. Nor will Kansas, NcSt, Louisville, SDSU, BYU, and several others on this 64 team list. So this idea crashes like the Hindenberg because the marquee programs like Notre Dame are not signing up for less money.

Now maybe guaranteed money for the big boys and small money for the rest would work. Maybe you include an escalator that pays more when ratings are high and normal for when they are low. That makes a Prime like hire a richer man.

Back to my first graph, TV could agree to pay more than they are paying now to have just M, tOSU, UGA, Bama, Texas, PSU, FSU, LSU, Oregon, UW, UW, MSU, OU, CU, Auburn, ND (they never join). And just have them play only each other. You'd have a pretty damn good ratings party right there.

 

[Bison]

I think the big donors are going to get tired of their programs going 9-3 in a good year because they play a schedule of only other great programs. We also see more money in every sport when post season and number of games expand.

I just don’t think we can make conclusions about how the environment will be ten years from now while viewing it through today’s lenses.

And some of the other great program fans will lose their collective minds when their great program has a losing season. Oklahoma fans are too used to winning conference championships in the Big 12 and they will go crazy when their team is not in contention for the conference title.

 

[Buffnik]

TL : DR - The P2 schools know that a 64 team league wouldn't be accretive and won't share their pieces of pie with that many. Maybe we get a 32 team league - maybe - the only way we get in is if Prime leads us back to preeminence.

If it's a zero-based decision of optimizing the 32 teams for markets, historical brand, program commitment/ resources, and ratings/ engagements/ Q Score... then CU is in a very favorable position. More than 32 and we're easily getting into "stone cold lock" territory.

If it's that the B1G and SEC, respectively 18 and 16 teams, will be the AFC/NFC in the way this shakes out and only 6 -14 teams get added, then this gets anxiety-inducing as a CU fan.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

I tend to agree but the networks don’t want the inevitable Indiana vs Purdue or Arizona State vs Texas Tech content. In order to get the networks and streamers to agree to pay up for a full league media rights, the blue bloods basically have to ban together and force them into it. Their motivation for doing that would be to keep the cannon fodder programs in the mix so they aren’t in danger of going 9-3/8-4 most seasons in a league that is only 32 of the top programs.

This

As cable slowly dies and streaming takes over were back to something more like the broadcast model. Its getting back to being more about getting people to tune in because its a compelling event to watch.

TV networks like ESPN no longer need to buy content to fill 24hrs on 5 cable channel in exchange for $5 for that guy that picks up a remote and channel surfs for something to watch. They dont need all that content anymore.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

This

As cable slowly dies and streaming takes over were back to something more like the broadcast model. Its getting back to being more about getting people to tune in because its a compelling event to watch.

TV networks like ESPN no longer need to buy content to fill 24hrs on 5 cable channel in exchange for $5 for that guy that picks up a remote and channel surfs for something to watch. They dont need all that content anymore.

Live sports is still the highest rated content for almost all networks. They definitely need all the content, but right now, they are pulling the strings and they only want the high value content. The key for any of this would be for the leagues and universities to get the power back and dictate how they want CFB to look and then let the networks fight over their rights.

 

[GRM]

Watched a show on Sling last night about the state of baseball. It plays in this college football discussion.

They talked about revenue sharing (the TV revenue is the shared part) and then what was good, bad and great about the system. If push came to shove, and the B1G/SEC stranglehold was broken with a 48-64 premier league that is where the sharing occurs. Teams make additional monies with their own sponsors, local TV sponsors (part of the TV deal), merchandise, concessions an seats sold.

Scott Boros was a loud-mouth for the players, massive contracts and the need for guaranteed money... Boros would be saying NIL, NIL, NIL.... + guaranteed money. Tony Larussa (not my favorite manager) made a great point about these $180M, 10-12 year contracts and how an organization can be completely hamstrung by a bloated veteran carrying a massive contract but over the hill production wise (Kris Bryant?). Same could hold true from a compete college FB bust that receives guaranteed NIL but just does not pan out. A team blows most all their their NIL wad on 10 prospects/transfers, and only 4-6 end up playing due to different circumstances. If it is a non-blue blood team, they are probably screwed--perhaps for 2-3 seasons, which means a coaching change too.

Larussa must have been on a good drug or well prepared, but spoke cogently of the impacts of that guaranteed contract hangover hamstringing things all way down through the entire organization--reserve players, an extra pitcher or catcher, A ball, AA ball, AAA ball, free agent tryouts, draft, scouts, coaches, etc... Some teams (i.e. NYY, Bos) could pay their way out, must most of the others were really screwed. Some had to let decent young/prime players go because they did not have the salary budget to really make a decent offer. For other teams they would tighten the belts requiring cuts other places--that is proably what the front office and Buddy Black are Monforts guys, as they play for peanuts.

I can see something similar with CFP. I think breaking the B1G/SEC and the super-league is the way to go with TV revenue sharing. I do see disparity occurring with NIL, and some programs that can buy themseleves out... Could you imagaine if Caden Proctor stayed at Iowa commanded top gauranteed NIL, then tore up a knee... Iowa would be up a creek. Bama, Clemson or a few others would plug in another player.

Sorry if you guys don't like the baseball analogies, but I see some crossover into this new college era. How will Florida recover with the Rashada lawsuit? Also we all know the Monforts are bums, and for a good laugh look at their 2024 payroll: https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/payroll/rockies?season=2024

Out of the top-8 guys-- Tovar is playing the best, making a meager 1.9M this year. Ryan McMahon is carrying hid weight. Bryant, Blackmon, Freeland, Sensatela, Bard, Marquez all on/been on the IR. Chuck Gnasty is your lead off DH with a .2 War, but he can't play day games and is no longer a + defensive player? Plus, The Rox still diligently pay St. Louis $15M over 3 years to eat the Arenado trade.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

I think the big donors are going to get tired of their programs going 9-3 in a good year

But by and large, the fans will keep watching when it's a brand vs brand matchup, and that means it's valuable to TV, and unfortunately that's all that matters. Auburn, Tennessee, Penn State, etc - all have great ratings even when they're 9-3, or 8-4, etc.

 

[MtnBuff]

The NFL teams don't mind having records that merge towards. 500 in exchange for making tens of millions more. Big time college programs aren't going to give up in excess of $10-15 million a year so they can have a couple cupcakes on the schedule.

CU historically has drawn solid TV ratings nationally. As long as the administration doesn't do stupid things CU will be in a 48, likely in a 32, with or without Prime. Prime solidifies that position.

 

[SuperD]

64 is only the right number if you convince the biggest brands to make less money per school than they could be otherwise. Truth is there likely won't even be 48 in that upper tier.

Wasn’t the AD of Illinois making noises about a week ago about being concerned that lesser brands in the P2 eventually being dropped at some point?

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

Wasn’t the AD of Illinois making noises about a week ago about being concerned that lesser brands in the P2 eventually being dropped at some point?

He has every right to be concerned. Big donors at many blue blood schools are already having that convo. I think when/ if it happens, it won't necessarily be that they're dropped/ voted out, but that the big brands of the P2 will simply leave to form their own new thing. The lesser brands will just get left behind, like WSU/ OSU were.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

He has every right to be concerned. Big donors at many blue blood schools are already having that convo. I think when/ if it happens, it won't necessarily be that they're dropped/ voted out, but that the big brands of the P2 will simply leave to form their own new thing. The lesser brands will just get left behind, like WSU/ OSU were.

Or they will be offered an opportunity to accept a life of lessor pay in order to remain. And they’ll take it.

 

[hawg1]

You might want to check multi quote again. They’d make more, not less.

Nevermind.

 

[hawg1]

Fair. I’m making an assumption option that the addition of additional games, more content, better matchups, and a compelling playoff will increase payouts. Berkeley is assuming the opposite.

If this were true, marginal teams such as those in the B12, would have already been gobbled up by the P2. They haven’t. Why? They assuredly make the pie bigger, but the slices are smaller.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

This is just not true.

In the current environment, where the networks are wagging the dog, I agree. This idea is based on one league that takes the leverage back from the networks and puts its entire media rights up for bid. In that scenario, it’s plausible that there’s a lot more money to be had per school, even in a 48+ school league

 

[hawg1]

Or they will be offered an opportunity to accept a life of lessor pay in order to remain. And they’ll take it.

This is one way it could work.

I’d like to see 48 teams with equal shares, however, to at least create a more competitive field. These accepting less will fall further and further behind in my way of thinking.

 

[LesGrossman]

Talking Out of Asses 2: Electric Boogaloo

 

[hawg1]

In the current environment, where the networks are wagging the dog, I agree. This idea is based on one league that takes the leverage back from the networks and puts its entire media rights up for bid. In that scenario, it’s plausible that there’s a lot more money to be had per school, even in a 48+ school league

I hear ya. I see it the other way. But I respect your argument.

That would be a 5-7B media rights deal the way I do the math. I just don’t think CFB has that kind of viewership.

I’ll now argue your side. With all teams getting equal shares and a competitive, well -marketed new league emerging, more eyes may become available, making 5-7B more realistic.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I hear ya. I see it the other way. But I respect your argument.

That would be a 5-7B media rights deal the way I do the math. I just don’t think CFB has that kind of viewership.

I’ll now argue your side. With all teams getting equal shares and a competitive, well -marketed new league emerging, more eyes may become available, making 5-7B more realistic.

IMO, some money has been left on the table in the current setting due to the SEC and B1G basically only opening negotiations deals with two networks (acknowledging the B1G has CBS and NBC packages as well).

Turner, Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, Hulu, etc will want in on the next round. A hodgepodge of deals isn’t going to maximize revenue, but one league entity putting all of the rights up for bidding among 8-10 networks/platforms would.

 

[MtnBuff]

In the current environment, where the networks are wagging the dog, I agree. This idea is based on one league that takes the leverage back from the networks and puts its entire media rights up for bid. In that scenario, it’s plausible that there’s a lot more money to be had per school, even in a 48+ school league

The NFL works because you have 32 ownership groups who are willing to work together to make everybody rich.

CFB has never had even a touch of that. Schools like Texas, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc. never have and never will be satisfied being "equal" with others.

Even if including others makes the pie bigger these schools will still insist that they are the valuable product, and honestly they are right. The casual fan will watch an NFL game regardless of who is in it, they won't do the same for Illinois - UNLV.

 

[hokiehead]

The NFL works because you have 32 ownership groups who are willing to work together to make everybody rich.

CFB has never had even a touch of that. Schools like Texas, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc. never have and never will be satisfied being "equal" with others.

Even if including others makes the pie bigger these schools will still insist that they are the valuable product, and honestly they are right. The casual fan will watch an NFL game regardless of who is in it, they won't do the same for Illinois - UNLV.

I have to make a distinction wrt the bolded.

at the conference level, there was more than a touch of that. look at how the conferences share media revenue, split ticket sales for home/away teams, share revenue from bowl payouts and NCAA tourney games, etc...

the distinction is that CFB grew organically not as one entity, but as a set of individual conferences. if you compare the B1G to the NFL, the parallels are more prominent than comparing "CFB" to the NFL.

the primary thing impacting college football's ability to cooperate a.la. the NFL is the lack of a governing body for CFB that has the power to negotiate finances.

 

[MtnBuff]

I have to make a distinction wrt the bolded.

at the conference level, there was more than a touch of that. look at how the conferences share media revenue, split ticket sales for home/away teams, share revenue from bowl payouts and NCAA tourney games, etc...

the distinction is that CFB grew organically not as one entity, but as a set of individual conferences. if you compare the B1G to the NFL, the parallels are more prominent than comparing "CFB" to the NFL.

the primary thing impacting college football's ability to cooperate a.la. the NFL is the lack of a governing body for CFB that has the power to negotiate finances.

Look at what Texas has done to multiple conferences, look at Notre Dame refusing to join a conference, look at what is happening right now.

I don't doubt that a single entity can and will form to control media rights. I also have no doubt that "traditional" allegiances will mean nothing when it comes to sharing money with those who take a bigger piece of the pie than they contribute.

Washington State and Oregon State can go spend their tradition and history while Washington and Oregon are busy flying to the money.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The NFL works because you have 32 ownership groups who are willing to work together to make everybody rich.

CFB has never had even a touch of that. Schools like Texas, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc. never have and never will be satisfied being "equal" with others.

Even if including others makes the pie bigger these schools will still insist that they are the valuable product, and honestly they are right. The casual fan will watch an NFL game regardless of who is in it, they won't do the same for Illinois - UNLV.

Casual NFL fans do not watch Jacksonville vs New York Jets or Seattle vs Washington. Those fanbases do and maybe some of the fans of teams in their divisions, but the NFL is very much a brand and star league where KC vs Buffalo or SF vs Philly, etc dominate ratings.

Fantasy football and the Redzone channel has given more exposure to the bad NFL teams than they otherwise would get, but there's a reason why some teams get 4-5 prime time games/year and others only get the minimum of 1 and it's usually a Thursday night game. There are also rich teams in the NFL and poor teams in the NFL. Some owners have unlimited cash on hand to build world class facilities, hire great chefs for their cafeteria, build new stadiums, and structure contracts in a way that requires more cash on hand, while other owners don't have that ability and are at a severe disadvantage.

CFB needs to organize in the same spirit of the NFL in that the blue bloods need to get on board with all the other programs making as much money as they do from a TV rights standpoint in order to create a product that appeals to the entire country. Notre Dame, Texas, Ohio State, Bama, UGA, etc will all still get the lion's share of the ratings, best recruits, postseason revenue and will still do most of the winning.

 

[MtnBuff]

Casual NFL fans do not watch Jacksonville vs New York Jets or Seattle vs Washington. Those fanbases do and maybe some of the fans of teams in their divisions, but the NFL is very much a brand and star league where KC vs Buffalo or SF vs Philly, etc dominate ratings.

Fantasy football and the Redzone channel has given more exposure to the bad NFL teams than they otherwise would get, but there's a reason why some teams get 4-5 prime time games/year and others only get the minimum of 1 and it's usually a Thursday night game. There are also rich teams in the NFL and poor teams in the NFL. Some owners have unlimited cash on hand to build world class facilities, hire great chefs for their cafeteria, build new stadiums, and structure contracts in a way that requires more cash on hand, while other owners don't have that ability and are at a severe disadvantage.

CFB needs to organize in the same spirit of the NFL in that the blue bloods need to get on board with all the other programs making as much money as they do from a TV rights standpoint in order to create a product that appeals to the entire country. Notre Dame, Texas, Ohio State, Bama, UGA, etc will all still get the lion's share of the ratings, best recruits, postseason revenue and will still do most of the winning.

Those bluebloods have never shown a drop of interest in having the same spirit as the NFL owners. They don't want parity on the field or in the bank.

 

[Not Sure]

In the current environment, where the networks are wagging the dog, I agree. This idea is based on one league that takes the leverage back from the networks and puts its entire media rights up for bid. In that scenario, it’s plausible that there’s a lot more money to be had per school, even in a 48+ school league

This.
The entire concept is dependent upon college football controlling the inventory and setting the market.