CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues

[Buffnik]

$175 - $200m/year/school (32 schools?)… double what they get now or half of what the NFL gets. And I think you’d have to consider it, right? Take double what they are currently getting and then they’d just start paying players large, market value contracts.

I don't know how you keep it to 32.

You need to both tap supermetro markets while having the major programs from states that are too small as media markets to attract a pro franchise.

Imagine if NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL tried to make it work with 30/32 while having 2 of their franchises in AL.

The CFB number, I think, is 48 if we're talking max value.

 

[skibum]

The CFB number, I think, is 48 if we're talking max value.

This "feels" about right in terms of maximizing revenue, but I just don't see how you can get there in practical terms. I feel like there's a path to 64, but 48 would leave a lot of somewhat powerful alumni rather pissed off.

64 would piss off fewer and could maybe get done, but to get 48 requires not just knocking out schools like Vandy, Wake Forest and Northwestern, but also taking out most of Washington State, Oregon State, Kansas State, Mississippi State, Iowa State, Indiana, Purdue, Kentucky, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, etc.

There's just no way that happens. You thought Baylor played dirty when they were desperate to be one of SMU, TCU and Baylor that would be allowed in the B12? You plan on taking out 10 of the above list? They'll know where the bodies are, and they'll be exhuming them all over the place.

 

[Buffnik]

This "feels" about right in terms of maximizing revenue, but I just don't see how you can get there in practical terms. I feel like there's a path to 64, but 48 would leave a lot of somewhat powerful alumni rather pissed off.

64 would piss off fewer and could maybe get done, but to get 48 requires not just knocking out schools like Vandy, Wake Forest and Northwestern, but also taking out most of Washington State, Oregon State, Kansas State, Mississippi State, Iowa State, Indiana, Purdue, Kentucky, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, etc.

There's just no way that happens. You thought Baylor played dirty when they were desperate to be one of SMU, TCU and Baylor that would be allowed in the B12? You plan on taking out 10 of the above list? They'll know where the bodies are, and they'll be exhuming them all over the place.

Some of the choices would surprise people if we're talking max revenue.

For example, you might take Clemson and leave South Carolina out. Don't really need both for max revenue. But you might want Boston College and Rutgers for their media markets.

The politics would be brutal, for sure, and there would be teams left out that had a bigger following than some teams that got in.

Some time this offseason I figure I'll go nuts on this thing.

One idea I've been kicking around is that maybe you could make it happen if you followed the state HS model and had a private school league separate from the public schools. Something like a national conference with the following 12 schools: Miami, Duke, Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, Baylor, TCU, BYU and Northwestern.

Maybe you could do 60 teams. If you had 5 groups of 12, each could play the traditional 8-game schedule within its group and then play 1 game against each of the other groups (maybe it's as simple as "if you finished 7th in your group, next year you play the other 7th place finishers").

 

[4BienemyTDs]

They are already in the SEC. What is there to compare?

Same for Maryland and Rutgers for the B1G and if you let them tell it, they will tell you the media market was a massive coup for the B1G network.

I don't follow you, are you saying that because Colorado is a better school than some of the bottom feeder of these conferences that you deserve to be there because they are there. Well, that's not how it works. Oregon and Washington are superior than all of those teams and still aren't getting an invite to either conference.

If there was a merger, like the AFL-NFL was, would Mississippi State get in over Colorado?

Not seeing anyone ever trying to move a team into Mississippi or Alabama. There is a calculation that goes into net value of markets, and while college has a different way of figuring value, that was the past and not the future.

I like the idea of a 48-64 team super league, and I am fine with the teams that win and move up through the CFP to get more money, but I do not think the PAC should add any teams, rather I would prefer that the league essentially plan to merge, and while I agree that conferences are not going to throw people out, that is going to be tested big time.

 

[skibum]

Some of the choices would surprise people if we're talking max revenue.

For example, you might take Clemson and leave South Carolina out. Don't really need both for max revenue. But you might want Boston College and Rutgers for their media markets.

The politics would be brutal, for sure, and there would be teams left out that had a bigger following than some teams that got in.

Some time this offseason I figure I'll go nuts on this thing.

One idea I've been kicking around is that maybe you could make it happen if you followed the state HS model and had a private school league separate from the public schools. Something like a national conference with the following 12 schools: Miami, Duke, Vanderbilt, Syracuse, Boston College, Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, Baylor, TCU, BYU and Northwestern.

Maybe you could do 60 teams. If you had 5 groups of 12, each could play the traditional 8-game schedule within its group and then play 1 game against each of the other groups (maybe it's as simple as "if you finished 7th in your group, next year you play the other 7th place finishers").

TIL Syracuse is a private school.

 

[Denver_sc]

That said, things are quickly changing but if you go back the last 5 seasons, Colorado overall value is 11th of 12.

I also meant to come back to this- I understand that CU has had a rough go the past 5 years on the football field, and I value your opinion as a pretty sober and rational outsider.

That said, I really don't think you can make a case that OSU, WSU, and Cal (at a minimum) delivers any value that CU does not. I think you could make some pretty good arguments against Stanford and Arizona as well.

 

[BerkeleyBuff]

I also meant to come back to this- I understand that CU has had a rough go the past 15 years on the football field, and I value your opinion as a pretty sober and rational outsider.

FIFY

 

[#1 pick]

I also meant to come back to this- I understand that CU has had a rough go the past 5 years on the football field, and I value your opinion as a pretty sober and rational outsider.

That said, I really don't think you can make a case that OSU, WSU, and Cal (at a minimum) delivers any value that CU does not. I think you could make some pretty good arguments against Stanford and Arizona as well.

I didn't come up with that.

I found it here from an expert in media relations in an article about expansion.

Canzano: Oregon and Washington not holding up the Pac-12

Source: "No deal has even been presented for us to sign."

www.johncanzano.com

 

[hokiehead]

A little info on SDSU below. Rhetorical question: Why do you build a new stadium and cap it at 32,500 (+2500 SRO)? Is the low turnout because the school is in the MWC, or because college football is a tough draw in SoCal for anyone not named USC? Or both?

In any event neither SDSU nor Boise State are really big ratings draws although they are clearly the "best" candidates if the PAC 10 wants to expand. But adding any G5 school to the PAC 10 is ultimately like adding hot water to good coffee or cat turds to a peanut butter sandwich. It's just desperation and dilution. Let's get over to the B12 with the other 4 corner schools as soon as possible.

Aztecs AD says inaugural season at Snapdragon Stadium ‘exceeded my expectations’

San Diego State’s first football season at Snapdragon Stadium is in the books.How did it go?It was hot (a school-record 100 degrees at kickoff for the inaugural game against Arizona) and cold…

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

USC can't sell tickets either.

I don't understand the ongoing perception that USC is a blue blood. This debate has been going on at least since I've been on Allbuffs. Posters have said repeatedly that USC fans would support their team when they started winning again.

well, last season, they were winning. they made arguably the biggest coaching hire in CFB. they were in first place all season. they were contending for a CFP spot up until the last weeks. they announced they were heading to one of the two premier conferences in the sport....

...and fans still didn't care enough to show up. USC didn't sell out a single game in their 77k stadium -- not even Notre Dame, which was the only game to crack 70k. Both of the LA NFL teams averaged higher attendance than USC last year.

 

[skibum]

USC can't sell tickets either.

I don't understand the ongoing perception that USC is a blue blood. This debate has been going on at least since I've been on Allbuffs. Posters have said repeatedly that USC fans would support their team when they started winning again.

well, last season, they were winning. they made arguably the biggest coaching hire in CFB. they were in first place all season. they were contending for a CFP spot up until the last weeks. they announced they were heading to one of the two premier conferences in the sport....

...and fans still didn't care enough to show up. USC didn't sell out a single game in their 77k stadium -- not even Notre Dame, which was the only game to crack 70k. Both of the LA NFL teams averaged higher attendance than USC last year.

Selling tickets /= "blue blood;" if that was the criteria, Tennessee (and numerous others) would be considered "blue bloods."

Winning games, trophies, and championships are the defining characteristics, not fan engagement.

 

[hokiehead]

Selling tickets /= "blue blood;" if that was the criteria, Tennessee (and numerous others) would be considered "blue bloods."

Winning games, trophies, and championships are the defining characteristics, not fan engagement.

that's one take. However, I think most people would consider fan engagement to be a criteria for a school being a blue blood.

 

[skibum]

that's one take. However, I think most people would consider fan engagement to be a criteria for a school being a blue blood.

Again, Tennessee is the easy counterpoint (or aTm). No one consider them a blue blood. They regularly sell out some of the largest stadiums in the country.

Exclude schools that no longer play FBS:
Top 10 all time wins, Top 10 national championships, Top 10 all time heisman trophies. Make all three lists, you're a blue blood. Fan engagement, and selling out a big stadium don't mean much when you can't consistently win at the highest levels.

 

[hokiehead]

Again, Tennessee is the easy counterpoint (or aTm). No one consider them a blue blood. They regularly sell out some of the largest stadiums in the country.

Exclude schools that no longer play FBS:
Top 10 all time wins, Top 10 national championships, Top 10 all time heisman trophies. Make all three lists, you're a blue blood. Fan engagement, and selling out a big stadium don't mean much when you can't consistently win at the highest levels.

this is a somewhat subjective discussion and clearly we're not going to move each other. that's fine.

a few points to consider that we're apparently not communicating well on:

1. I never suggested attendance or fan engagement is the only criteria or even the top criteria. I said it's "a criteria". No dispute that championships and a winning history are also criteria in the blue blood discussion.
2. USC doesn't have a large stadium by standards of blue bloods. it's currently 77k. it used to be 93k, but they renovated it five years ago and reduced the size. Unless you're arguing that attendance is not a criteria at all, reducing seating capacity by 25% and still not coming close to selling out any game is a bad look for a team trying to claim blue blood status.
3. For recent memory up until the 2022 season, Tennessee wasn't regularly selling out any stadium, including their own (I just looked, they only sold out one home game and one road game each in 2021). Their fans did jump back on the bandwagon in 2022 though (unlike USC fans). No disagreement that UT is not a blue blood.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

that's one take. However, I think most people would consider fan engagement to be a criteria for a school being a blue blood.

Wisconsin routinely packs Camp Randall and has some of the best support in CFB. Same with Iowa, Penn State, Ole Miss, Tennessee, etc. None are blue bloods. Fan engagement is typically high for blue bloods, but it's not a requirement to be classified as one.

Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, USC, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma and Clemson as of late/FSU and Miami if you are taking a historical view, are the "blue bloods"

 

[hokiehead]

Wisconsin routinely packs Camp Randall and has some of the best support in CFB....

no, they don't. Wisconsin hasn't sold out Camp Randall once since 2018, and just reduced capacity this past season.

 

[Not Sure]

Again, Tennessee is the easy counterpoint (or aTm). No one consider them a blue blood. They regularly sell out some of the largest stadiums in the country.

Exclude schools that no longer play FBS:
Top 10 all time wins, Top 10 national championships, Top 10 all time heisman trophies. Make all three lists, you're a blue blood. Fan engagement, and selling out a big stadium don't mean much when you can't consistently win at the highest levels.

I’d say the most obvious example of a school with great fan engagement who is far from blue blood status is Nebraska.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

no, they don't. Wisconsin hasn't sold out Camp Randall once since 2018, and just reduced capacity this past season.

You are hung up on "selling out" and have been for years during this debate. Live sporting event attendance has mostly been decreasing for years, so not selling out has nothing to do with being a blue blood or not, and attendance as a percentage of capacity is irrelevant as well, when you consider most stadiums were built a long time ago, before the TV product became what it is today. Large capacity stadiums are reducing capacity to make room for higher price seating and fan engagement attractions like beer gardens and other restaurants/bars in order to keep fans coming instead of on their couch.

Wisconsin was 17th in the country with almost 75k average game attendance in 2022 and that was almost a 1% increase from 2021

USC averaged 65k in 2022 which was nearly a 15% increase YOY, so the numbers show that USC fans did show out more with Riley and a better season, and I would venture to guess that with their Heisman winning QB back, year two of Riley and probably being a preseason favorite to make the CFP, that number will increase in 2023.

Penn State, Tennessee, Nebraska and aTm are all in the top 15 of average attendance, but would you consider them blue bloods?

 

[hokiehead]

You are hung up on "selling out" and have been for years during this debate. Live sporting event attendance has mostly been decreasing for years, so not selling out has nothing to do with being a blue blood or not, and attendance as a percentage of capacity is irrelevant as well, when you consider most stadiums were built a long time ago, before the TV product became what it is today. Large capacity stadiums are reducing capacity to make room for higher price seating and fan engagement attractions like beer gardens and other restaurants/bars in order to keep fans coming instead of on their couch.

Wisconsin was 17th in the country with almost 75k average game attendance in 2022 and that was almost a 1% increase from 2021

USC averaged 65k in 2022 which was nearly a 15% increase YOY, so the numbers show that USC fans did show out more with Riley and a better season, and I would venture to guess that with their Heisman winning QB back, year two of Riley and probably being a preseason favorite to make the CFP, that number will increase in 2023.

Penn State, Tennessee, Nebraska and aTm are all in the top 15 of average attendance, but would you consider them blue bloods?

no. I've been clear that attendance is one criteria, but not the only one. Of those schools, only Penn State has won even a single conference championship in the last ten years. None of them are blue bloods. They arguably were bb's in the past, but I don't see any compelling argument for suggesting they are today.

to state my position more clearly, I believe that failing to average 70k attendance in a season where you're in first place disqualifies a school from being a blue blood. I do not think averaging 100k home attendance over a season is sufficient to consider a school to be a blue blood.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

to state my position more clearly, I believe that failing to average 70k attendance in a season where you're in first place disqualifies a school from being a blue blood. I do not think averaging 100k home attendance over a season is sufficient to consider a school to be a blue blood.

So you are actually saying that attendance, or lack thereof, is actually a disqualifier? You're the only person in the country who believes USC is not a blue blood CFB program.

 

[hokiehead]

So you are actually saying that attendance, or lack thereof, is actually a disqualifier? You're the only person in the country who believes USC is not a blue blood CFB program.

yes.

maybe, but I don't think so.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

yes.

maybe, but I don't think so.

Ok, then. Agree to disagree about what makes a program a blue blood.

 

[Buffnik]

USC has the hardware and the resources to not just make them among a handful of hyper elite programs, but there's a strong case that it's the #1 football program in the history of college football.

 

[skibum]

USC has the hardware and the resources to not just make them among a handful of hyper elite programs, but there's a strong case that it's the #1 football program in the history of college football.

I think if you look at totality of college football history, it's them or Notre Dame.

Back when Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Army were football powers, USC and ND were right there with them, and those two are still right there.

I'm pretty sure that those two have been in the elite in every era, and that they're the only two who can claim that.

 

[Not Sure]

I’d add Michigan to that list. The winningest program of all time and all that.

 

[Alfred91]

I think we need to start by defining a) what a blue blood is and b) how many there truly are.

First off, blue bloods need to be a relatively static position because the number thing about it is being consistently good over a very long period of time. Having said that, I think you have to also admit that sometimes teams can slide in or out. For example, Army, Navy, and even the Nubs could have been considered blue bloods once, but they are absolutely not now. I think you can include Miami, Florida St, and Florida as schools that once were but are not now blue bloods. TBH, you can argue that USC has flirted with falling out of that group for a while. You also have to consider teams that might be good for a while but have not necessarily good enough or for long enough. Is Oregon a blue blood? I don't think so.

Secondly, you have to have a national brand, which excludes a ton of schools that have been good in the past or are good once in a while. A lot of SEC schools might think they're blue bloods, but they're really not. Tennessee isn't a blue blood. Florida isn't (anymore). Auburn isn't.

Thirdly, and this might flow from the other two, you have to have cash. It might seem unfair, but the other two both generate and are created by cash. CU actually flirts with a national brand from time to time. It's easy for us to be a national brand when we're good. People seem to like our colors, Ralphie, etc. Prime has us on a national brand trajectory right now. And we might start winning a lot because of it. But we have rarely had cash. Whether it be from large numbers of wealthy alumni/boosters like a lot of blue bloods or a patron like Uncle Phil, we don't have it. Oddly, other schools have plenty of cash - like the Nubs, A&M, Stanford, but do not have the winning tradition to be blue bloods.

But taking all of that into account - winning tradition, national brand, heaps of cash - how many blue bloods are there really?

My argument is - not many. Notre Dame is the ultimate blue blood. Maybe they haven't won a natty in a while, but they were in the playoffs not too terribly long ago, and they're Notre Dame. They've won more nattys than anyone else, they're still consistently ranked, everyone knows who they are, and they have boatloads of cash. I hate them. Michigan and Ohio State have been blue bloods forever and probably will be forever. Always in the top ten, multiple playoff appearances, everyone knows who they are, again, mountains of cash. Alabama, Georgia and LSU are self-explanatory. Oklahoma, despite repeated sodomizings in the playoff, are definite blue bloods, and Texas I think has won just enough in the last 20 years to retain their status. College football is going to be completely different in 20 years anyway, but it'll be interesting what happens with those two after they're in the SEC for a while. I guess Clemson is a blue blood? They win, and they go a long time without winning, then they win again, now we'll see. I'm not sure Clemson is the household name the others are. Finally out West there's USC and only USC. Oregon is still nouveau riche and haven't actually won that much. Washington is another might have had the chance at one point but definitely not now.

Am I missing anyone? I've named 9.

TL : DR - let's stop talking about blue bloods, there's only a few of them and we won't ever be one.

 

[Alfred91]

USC has the hardware and the resources to not just make them among a handful of hyper elite programs, but there's a strong case that it's the #1 football program in the history of college football.

Uh, no.

Notre Dame is probably far and away the number one program. They've fallen on hard times (for them), but USC hasn't exactly been great over that time either.

I would put Ohio State and Michigan ahead of USC. They been just as good for just as long and the 21st century has been much kinder to them. Plus, #1 in wins all time (Michigan) and #3 (Ohio State). USC isn't even in the top 10.

Alabama is definitely ahead of USC. 18 nattys to 11, and they've been as consistently good as USC, too.

 

[Alfred91]

Funny fact that I just read on winsipedia.

Number one team all time in conference championships - OU.
Number two team - NU.

Number 12 - CU with 26(!).

Thank God for the old Skyline Conference!

 

[hokiehead]

Funny fact that I just read on winsipedia.

Number one team all time in conference championships - OU.
Number two team - NU.

Number 12 - CU with 26(!).

Thank God for the old Skyline Conference!

how does Notre Dame rank in that category?

 

[#1 pick]

how does Notre Dame rank in that category?

They never in a conference,

 

[hokiehead]

They never in a conference,

'never' is not quite accurate, they were in 2020. Notre Dame is winless all time wrt playing for a conference championship.