Expansion is alway an avenue for moving up, just as it's been with the conference model. Just as pro leagues grow as markets develop.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
Texas State is potentially being courted by three conferences including the MWC. They have leverage.
None of these schools bring media value, you are just cutting even smaller slices of an already small pie.
Also, why would relegation never work here? It works all over Europe and has for decades. It would take getting used to, but I think a relegation type system is the only real way to deal with 130+ FBS schools.
Also, why would relegation never work here? It works all over Europe and has for decades. It would take getting used to, but I think a relegation type system is the only real way to deal with 130+ FBS schools.
By 2013 we would have been NAIA.Hell yes on a promotion/relegation model.
Yeah accountability sucks
Well, it’s not intramurals, brother.
How old is that man now, has to be an old GEEzer by now? Surprised he is still working so hard.
After all these rounds of consolidation, no way the top 20 schools allow the peasants equal footing to dilute their revenue again. Only 25 schools/media markets provide enough value to be included, and they need about 15 schools to beat up on. So the number should be 35/40.
These schools will take what the networks tell them they’ll take. You can’t have a 35-40 team league. You need bottom feeders so the top teams don’t end up the season with four losses. 64 feels like the right number to me, 8 divisions of 8 teams each with a 14 game regular season and 16-team playoff. Each division winner gets into the playoff followed by the next eight highest ranked teams. First round of playoffs on campus, neutral site/bowl game venues after that. The money would be ridiculous, so there wouldn’t be any complaints from the blue bloods.
This is kind of taking on a "won't someone please join our conference?" look for the Pac.
Honestly, outside of promotion/relegation, I don't mind this. I only don't like promotion/relegation because I don't trust CU to stay up and a slate of UNM/CSU/NMSU/Texas State/UTEP/USA, and Wyoming preemptively bores the **** out of me.
Honestly depending on how the playoffs would work for P12, there are a number of SEC/B1G schools who would have cakewalks most years to a division championship (Penn State, Notre Dame, OSU, LSU)
GRM
I'm a ****ty troll
That is a good point. Also, I'm not sure whether academy players can even touch outside NIL, since they are really US Gov't property of sorts. I have not seen an article addressing this.
Best guess is that they can’t. My only evidence for this is that I know that parents of academy students are told that once their child enters the Academy, he/she is a full time employee of the Federal Government as far as the IRS is concerned. That means parents can no longer list their child as a dependent. So while that doesn’t directly address your question, it’s speaks to the rules around being a student at one of the Academies.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
Well, the networks aren't likely to argue for 64, and maybe not even for 48. There is enormous dropoff in average viewership from the top 10 programs to #40, and the networks just care about viewership. Massive numbers of people still watch Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Penn State, Notre Dame, Texas, etc. even when they have four losses, and you get mega-rating games more frequently by making the big brands meet up more frequently. When you get to teams like Virginia, Maryland, TCU, Syracuse, Cincinnati... ya the networks won't see those as necessary. Very little bang for your buck.
There are only so many games that can be played between the top teams. You’re lucky to get 4-5 really top matchups on any given Saturday. Gotta have some inventory. Plus, Cinderella stories get a lot of viewers. 64 is a solid number, IMO. Gets in all the big names and allows for smaller programs to punch above their weight class. Add in the potential relegation/promotion angle and then the games between Rutgers and Vanderbilt start to mean something.
The networks probably won't see beyond short term profits, but alienating 40% of the current P4 and 70% of total FBS programs will have a negative effect on those ratings long term. If CU wasn't included in a 40 team super league, I likely wouldn't watch much of it. College football works because it's nationwide and everybody feels a sense of membership in the sport, even if G5 programs and middle to bottom P4 programs aren't really competing for the same thing.
The average NFL regular season game essentially gets the same amount of viewers as Ohio State vs Michigan. Fantasy football has a lot to do with that, but NFL fans are tuning into watch random games, even if they don't have a dog in the fight, because they have a team that's part of the same league and they are all competing for the same thing.
Agreed. I absolutely wouldn't watch if CU wasn't included.
Your pay rate is an E-5 (if I remember correctly). So, yea, you’re actually collecting money. A lot of it went to cover uniforms, etc., so it’s not like you’re swimming in money … not NIL money
College Football is not a national sport. Very rarely does a college football program garner a wide national interest (see: us). Typically fan support is hyper regionalized because they are alumni.
The TV networks are going to realize very quickly that a smaller inventory made up of programs in large TV markets will not have nearly the same draw.
The TV networks are going to realize very quickly that a smaller inventory made up of programs in large TV markets will not have nearly the same draw.
That CSFL division would be a killer for everyone in it, unless we were all guaranteed games in TX, CA, or FL annually. The Big 8 worked because it was a recognized enough conference to get kids from TX and to a lesser extent CA and FL to come play for Big 8 teams. Plus homegrown talent helped the Nubs and OU round out their teams.
A division of KU, KSU, Mizzou, OU, OSU, and CU that was just another in a set of 12 divisions is a tough ask unless a kid is guaranteed a trip home every year.
A division of KU, KSU, Mizzou, OU, OSU, and CU that was just another in a set of 12 divisions is a tough ask unless a kid is guaranteed a trip home every year.
Exactly, the B1G and SEC aren't even picking up the phone on this discussion.
And relegation isn't happening either.
BerkeleyBuff
Well-Known Member
I mean at a personal level, yes, I like 64. Not to mention all of us do here because we subconsciously know if it's 24 or 30 CU isn't likely to make it. I just don't think the networks do. Yes, they need inventory, but when games are three hour windows there's only so many that are needed, and the more those games are brand vs brand, the better.
Best option imo
Also might be the only realistic option remaining.
I’m sure the B1G couldn’t care less about James Franklin’s gripe here, but it’s pretty funny listening to the complaints everybody knew would come when four west coast schools joined a Midwest and Eastern conference.