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

[PhillyBuff]

This is all temporary.

When a group of big money guys, private equity, hedge fund types get enough money together, they're going to set up a couple of billion dollar enterprise, pick apart the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and whomever else they deem desirable, break away from the NCAA, and form an NFL lite. Everybody else will go back to more normal, regional leagues.

Kinda can't wait for Northwestern, Purdue, Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, even Michigan State and Nebraska to kick and scream and threaten lawsuits only to realize that they were doing the same thing to other conferences this whole time.

There are 31 owners (and 1 "city") of the most marketable product in the US. It is the most elite fraternity that is as unatainable as winning the powerball. Clearly there are very weathly people that want the next best thing- buy a college team. This is exactly what is happening.... unless Congress stops it.

 

[4BienemyTDs]

There are 31 owners (and 1 "city") of the most marketable product in the US. It is the most elite fraternity that is as unatainable as winning the powerball. Clearly there are very weathly people that want the next best thing- buy a college team. This is exactly what is happening.... unless Congress stops it.

I totally agree!
Colorado is in the Top 48 for an NFL Lite College Franchise
The sooner that happens and the playing field is leveled with player pay and other competitive balances, the better.
Prime is essentially changing everything about Colorado into that model, and we must go along with it.
I could see Prime having enough friends to participate in the movement.
It would be better for the 48 Franchises to finance the enterprise collectively than it is for 1 or more Billionaires to create it.

 

[Big Jim]

I guess you don't agree!

Maybe, maybe not. If I understood it then I could make a decision.

 

[Alfred91]

Iowa, MSU and Nebraska will always be included in any NFL-lite league

Absolutely not. Population wise and brand wise it makes no sense. Iowa and MSU particularly. The Nubs maybe. No one is going to double down on the Detroit market, and Iowa is a regional brand in a shrinking region. We would have a better chance and we would have no chance.

I would argue that very few of the traditional Big Ten would be of interest for someone starting a superleague from scratch. Ohio State, Michigan, maybe Minnesota. USC, Washington and Oregon would get in before any other Big Ten school.

Mostly though it would be heavily Southern focused. Every Southern state except for probably Kentucky would have a team, but Auburn, Mississippi State, and South Carolina would be ****ed.

 

[Alfred91]

I totally agree!
Colorado is in the Top 48 for an NFL Lite College Franchise
The sooner that happens and the playing field is leveled with player pay and other competitive balances, the better.
Prime is essentially changing everything about Colorado into that model, and we must go along with it.
I could see Prime having enough friends to participate in the movement.
It would be better for the 48 Franchises to finance the enterprise collectively than it is for 1 or more Billionaires to create it.

CU would never get into a superleague. It makes little economic sense, especially since this kind of behavior makes college football less intriguing, not more. I haven't been here to spread my gloom and doom, but all of these changes have spelled the death for football in the West. College football is just going to become more and more Southern based, with some pockets of the Midwest holding out.

 

[Creebuzz]

Oregon State Pres and AD starting a press conference with Q&A right now. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say.

 

[jaybird]

Oregon State Pres and AD starting a press conference with Q&A right now. It will be interesting to hear what they have to say.

I would rather hear what they actually think than what they say.

I imagine it's something along the lines of...."**** this ****ing **** you bunch of ****ing assholes that left"

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Absolutely not. Population wise and brand wise it makes no sense. Iowa and MSU particularly. The Nubs maybe. No one is going to double down on the Detroit market, and Iowa is a regional brand in a shrinking region. We would have a better chance and we would have no chance.

I would argue that very few of the traditional Big Ten would be of interest for someone starting a superleague from scratch. Ohio State, Michigan, maybe Minnesota. USC, Washington and Oregon would get in before any other Big Ten school.

Mostly though it would be heavily Southern focused. Every Southern except for probably Kentucky would have a team, but Auburn, Mississippi State, and South Carolina would be ****ed.

Respectfully, your logic is all over the place here. Iowa and MSU absolutely won’t be included because of market size, but Ole Miss, Arkansas, Tennessee, Bama, Missouri, aTm, Vandy, etc are all good? Auburn is a marquee brand that isn’t being left out

Market size isn’t going to determine much going forward. It’s going to be all about brand, following and compelling matchups. Both Iowa and MSU have enough of both (along with Penn State, who you also left out) to be included.

I think Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois, Maryland, and Rutgers are the primary B1G programs who are in danger in this scenario. From the SEC, I think Vandy, MSU, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and SC are likely left out.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

CU would never get into a superleague. It makes little economic sense, especially since this kind of behavior makes college football less intriguing, not more. I haven't been here to spread my gloom and doom, but all of these changes have spelled the death for football in the West. College football is just going to become more and more Southern based, with some pockets of the Midwest holding out.

A Prime led CU team that consistently wins will absolutely be included.

 

[Duff Man]

Any talk of Auburn being relegated is dumb.

 

[Alfred91]

Respectfully, your logic is all over the place here. Iowa and MSU absolutely won’t be included because of market size, but Ole Miss, Arkansas, Tennessee, Bama, Missouri, aTm, Vandy, etc are all good? Auburn is a marquee brand that isn’t being left out

Market size isn’t going to determine much going forward. It’s going to be all about brand, following and compelling matchups. Both Iowa and MSU have enough of both (along with Penn State, who you also left out) to be included.

I think Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois, Maryland, and Rutgers are the primary B1G programs who are in danger in this scenario. From the SEC, I think Vandy, MSU, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and SC are likely left out.

I think all those teams you mentioned would be ****ed, and of course I just forgot about PSU. My logic is really just based on economics, which breaks down to who would be watching and why. As much as it pains me to say it, the whole SEC means more thing is actually true. College football does mean more down there. Arkansas would bring more eyeballs than Iowa, not just because of Arkansas but because other Southern states will watch them. That's going to be true with Ole Miss and Tennessee, too. I don't count Missouri because they're the Midwest, not the South.

As I said above, college football is all but dead in the West and the Northeast, and all but dead in most of the Midwest. The big brands in those areas will survive because they're national or because they have a large population base (why Minnesota might make it). Otherwise, it's going to become an increasingly Southern thing, and the rest of the country will just switch to solely the NFL.

I believe that anyone investing the billions of dollars in such a huge endeavor would see that, and as such, lean heavily into the South, while choosing only the national brands from everywhere else.

 

[Alfred91]

Any talk of Auburn being relegated is dumb.

I may or may not have been trolling you with that comment.

Still, I think a surprising number of schools would be seen as superfluous.

 

[Duff Man]

I may or may not have been trolling you with that comment.

Still, I think a surprising number of schools would be seen as superfluous.

Maybe. I don't think a super league is a foregone conclusion.

 

[Alfred91]

A Prime led CU team that consistently wins will absolutely be included.

Would you be willing to bet hundreds of millions on CU a) keeping Prime long-term and b) actually sticking true to their current promise to prioritize football? I wouldn't, and I don't think some cold-hearted finance guy on Wall Street would either.

 

[Buffnik]

I may or may not have been trolling you with that comment.

Still, I think a surprising number of schools would be seen as superfluous.

If the CFB league was the size of the NFL. But I'm sure we'd be talking 48-64 teams for a CFB league.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I think all those teams you mentioned would be ****ed, and of course I just forgot about PSU. My logic is really just based on economics, which breaks down to who would be watching and why. As much as it pains me to say it, the whole SEC means more thing is actually true. College football does mean more down there. Arkansas would bring more eyeballs than Iowa, not just because of Arkansas but because other Southern states will watch them. That's going to be true with Ole Miss and Tennessee, too. I don't count Missouri because they're the Midwest, not the South.

As I said above, college football is all but dead in the West and the Northeast, and all but dead in most of the Midwest. The big brands in those areas will survive because they're national or because they have a large population base (why Minnesota might make it). Otherwise, it's going to become an increasingly Southern thing, and the rest of the country will just switch to solely the NFL.

I believe that anyone investing the billions of dollars in such a huge endeavor would see that, and as such, lean heavily into the South, while choosing only the national brands from everywhere else.

There’s a reason Fox, CBS, and NBC added USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon. The networks aren’t going to let the sport become regionalized. They are trying to make it more like the NFL, which is the only true national sport we have, not less.

 

[Alfred91]

Maybe. I don't think a super league is a foregone conclusion.

Possibly not. I just see the combo of greed and desperation among colleges and TV networks, combined with unfettered, unscrupulous action by private equity firms everywhere in this country, and it seems an easy 2+2 equation.

 

[Alfred91]

There’s a reason Fox, CBS, and NBC added USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon. The networks aren’t going to let the sport become regionalized. They are trying to make it more like the NFL, which is the only true national sport we have, not less.

Meh - USC's a national brand. Oregon's a national brand. They were allowed to drag a little brother with them. If it was about a national presence, the Bay Area wouldn't been left out. The Phoenix market wouldn't have been left out.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Would you be willing to bet hundreds of millions on CU a) keeping Prime long-term and b) actually sticking true to their current promise to prioritize football? I wouldn't, and I don't think some cold-hearted finance guy on Wall Street would either.

I don’t know what a cold hearted finance guy on Wall Street has to do with any of this? We’re talking about the Networks and streaming services.

CU has always had a fanbase and brand that will show out and support the program when it’s winning and the networks have shown the propensity to include CU in the national TV spots when it’s winning (see 2016). Prime has obviously added to that in ways that another coach couldn’t have, but in a world where CP wins consistently for even 4-5 years, the program will have become a national brand again and the networks will want CU included.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Meh - USC's a national brand. Oregon's a national brand. They were allowed to drag a little brother with them. If it was about a national presence, the Bay Area wouldn't been left out. The Phoenix market wouldn't have been left out.

The Bay Area isn’t being left out. In fact, they ESPN is going out of its way to include them in an exclusively East coast conference. Oregon was a **** brand until like 15 years ago.

The West Coast has never had the number of high caliber of programs that the midwest and Southeast have had, so naturally there aren’t going to as many included, but the MTZ and PTZ aren’t being left out.

 

[Creebuzz]

I would rather hear what they actually think than what they say.

I imagine it's something along the lines of...."**** this ****ing **** you bunch of ****ing assholes that left"

Well, you don’t have to worry. The Oregon State chiefs said nothing during the press conference, evaded questions, and spoke in platitudes. They did say they will have to learn to live with lower revenue. Not a good situation.

 

[MtnBuff]

There’s a reason Fox, CBS, and NBC added USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon. The networks aren’t going to let the sport become regionalized. They are trying to make it more like the NFL, which is the only true national sport we have, not less.

If the CFB league was the size of the NFL. But I'm sure we'd be talking 48-64 teams for a CFB league.

I have been saying all along that eventually we see a complete re-organization of college football and it is going to be driven by the entities paying for the broadcast rights.

The major TV networks are struggling to keep viewers and the cable broadcast model is collapsing in front of our eyes. The idea that the money train is going to keep rolling and getting bigger is not sustainable.

Eventually be it with streaming on carriers like Prime, YouTube, fubo, etc. or it goes to an ala carte subscription system the number of schools who are going to be able to participate in the big money distribution has to go down for it to work.

Did Oregon State and Washington State get kicked aside because they aren't good at football? Absolutely not, it was because they don't bring viewers. I was somewhat shocked that the ACC as desperate as they are took Cal (even with Stanford pulling for them) because they don't drive numbers.

In the end it won't be a mini NFL with 32 teams, the final number will be more like 45-60 and yes CU will be a part of it because historically CU has drawn good to decent TV numbers and it brings a top 20 market that advertisers want.

To do this the B1G, SEC, and the other conferences will be dissolved. This is the only way that they can cut the dead weight from the bottom of each.

The broadcasters want to be able to generate interest nationwide but the core will still be in the south and midwest so the concentration of teams will be bigger in those areas.

 

[Alfred91]

I don’t know what a cold hearted finance guy on Wall Street has to do with any of this? We’re talking about the Networks and streaming services.

CU has always had a fanbase and brand that will show out and support the program when it’s winning and the networks have shown the propensity to include CU in the national TV spots when it’s winning (see 2016). Prime has obviously added to that in ways that another coach couldn’t have, but in a world where CP wins consistently for even 4-5 years, the program will have become a national brand again and the networks will want CU included.

I see what the difference is - I'm talking about what would trigger such a coalescing to occur. My thought is that it would take a big money group outside of the networks to make this happen. I posited private equity firms, because I think that would be the most likely place it would come from.

That would create an entirely new paradigm, much more like the NFL, where the new league would call the shots and hold the cards, not the networks. At this point, the networks have no financial reason to change anything. This works for them, or at least the best it can, considering they do have negotiate with individual conferences and institutions.

As I said, the trigger point would have to come from outside the current paradigm, which I see is entirely possible, if not inevitable.

 

[MtnBuff]

Meh - USC's a national brand. Oregon's a national brand. They were allowed to drag a little brother with them. If it was about a national presence, the Bay Area wouldn't been left out. The Phoenix market wouldn't have been left out.

Does the Bay Area get left out? Do they watch college football? The rating numbers for Cal as well as stadium attendance would say no.

You have to look past raw population figures and even past desirable demographics into the psychographics. Do these people watch the programming and do they care if it is the local team.

State of Alabama has a much smaller population and much less affluence than even parts of San Diego but they have not one but two top level teams both in performance but also in revenue potential (viewership) in Bama and Auburn

 

[MtnBuff]

I see what the difference is - I'm talking about what would trigger such a coalescing to occur. My thought is that it would take a big money group outside of the networks to make this happen. I posited private equity firms, because I think that would be the most likely place it would come from.

That would create an entirely new paradigm, much more like the NFL, where the new league would call the shots and hold the cards, not the networks. At this point, the networks have no financial reason to change anything. This works for them, or at least the best it can, considering they do have negotiate with individual conferences and institutions.

As I said, the trigger point would have to come from outside the current paradigm, which I see is entirely possible, if not inevitable.

Networks have a big reason to change things, the current TV model is falling apart as people cut the cord and move to streamed content.

 

[Alfred91]

Does the Bay Area get left out? Do they watch college football? The rating numbers for Cal as well as stadium attendance would say no.

You have to look past raw population figures and even past desirable demographics into the psychographics. Do these people watch the programming and do they care if it is the local team.

State of Alabama has a much smaller population and much less affluence than even parts of San Diego but they have not one but two top level teams both in performance but also in revenue potential (viewership) in Bama and Auburn

That was my point. Leaning into who actually watches college football and whom they actually watch shifts everything eastwards and southwards.

I do like Sheckler's point about Oregon being **** (although that was like 20 years ago now - we're getting old), and it would be amazing if they regressed that way again, but I'm guessing that the Big Ten wouldn't have taken a smallish school from a smallish state with an old asf sugar daddy on a reduced share if they hadn't been reassured that said sugar daddy was going to bequeath an absurd amount of money to their athletics program.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I'm guessing that the Big Ten wouldn't have taken a smallish school from a smallish state with an old asf sugar daddy on a reduced share if they hadn't been reassured that said sugar daddy was going to bequeath an absurd amount of money to their athletics program.

See, I don't think that matters as much as you think. The networks (or PE like you're talking about) aren't looking at Alabama or Georgia as attractive because of Saban and Kirby, or USC because of Lincoln Riley. Yes, those guys are the reason for those programs' resurgence, but all three will remain blue bloods after those three men are gone. Chip Kelly built the Oregon brand based on his revolutionizing the offensive game in college. Sure, PK and Nike helped that brand building with the uniforms, and what do you think is happening in Boulder right now?

If Prime gets CU to consistently winning 9-10 games/year over the next 5 years, CU will have entered that "tier two" of CFB brands, which is a step below the top 10-12 blue bloods. Just like Chip Kelly leaving Oregon didn't bring down their brand, CP leaving CU after a run of success isn't going to just have CU revert back to irrelevancy.

 

[PhillyBuff]

I think what is NOT being mentioned here is what the actual product IS and what it produces. It produces players that play in the NFL. You can not and WONT have just a super league of 24 teams to be the majority producer of players to 32 NFL teams. The NFL won't allow their pool of players to be that small. There will be atleast 48 teams and most likely MORE because it is the minor leagues for the NFL. There is absolutely a market to keep at least 48 teams going in the "minor leagues."

Do you think that the 31 (plus 1 city owned team) richest teams in the US will allow their feeder league to shrink?

If Colorado remains committed to fielding a football team, they will never be left out. They may not be in the top 24 league, but they for sure will be the secondary league (if that is what they consolidate to).

 

[Bison]

There’s a reason Fox, CBS, and NBC added USC, UCLA, UW and Oregon. The networks aren’t going to let the sport become regionalized. They are trying to make it more like the NFL, which is the only true national sport we have, not less.

I'm more in favor of the move towards national conferences since that could slow or even reverse the regionalization of college football. If you want more regionalized football conferences, drop down to the G5 ranks.

 

[patebuff]

Oregon State just financed a bond for over $160M in football stadium improvements. Got to think that mobilization of that assumed Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA visiting. Math might change a bit with swapping that for the likes of Wyoming and New Mexico.

OSU and WSU AD's have massive debt in the near future. They are beyond screwed and I wouldn't be surprised if WSU ends up having to close down their athletic department at some point in the next 10 years. There is no way out for them.