NCAA vs the Big 6 conferences - a divide might be coming

[SINKRATZ]

That only gets you 15-16 games a week. so basically you are the NFL now... on Saturdays.... I think you just cut the TV deal in half for those teams....

???? Cut in half? The Pac 12 only has 6 conference games a week and we got $3 Billion. How would a conference with more games and better matchups be worth half?? Imagine you removed WSU, Arizona, and Oregon State from the Pac 12 and replaced them with Ohio State, Michigan, and Notre Dame...how much richer is the media deal under that scenario?

This is what I'm talking about on a smaller scale. Wazzu isn't getting $21million next year because they're worth it, they're getting $21 million because USC, UCLA, and Oregon are probably worth $30 million and are in a revenue sharing arrangement.

 

[Buffnik]

???? Cut in half? The Pac 12 only has 6 conference games a week and we got $3 Billion. How would a conference with more games and better matchups be worth half?? Imagine you removed WSU, Arizona, and Oregon State from the Pac 12 and replaced them with Ohio State, Michigan, and Notre Dame...how much richer is the media deal under that scenario?

This is what I'm talking about on a smaller scale. Wazzu isn't getting $21million next year because they're worth it, they're getting $21 million because USC, UCLA, and Oregon are probably worth $30 million and are in a revenue sharing arrangement.

We're talking about 6 conferences and a couple huge independents, though.

An NFL-style college football league could certainly be successful and draw a ton of interest. But there are drawbacks, as have been posted. It's doubtful that if there was enough extra money that it would outweigh those drawbacks. I really don't see your slippery slope here. At least not in my lifetime.

 

[PhillyBuff]

???? Cut in half? The Pac 12 only has 6 conference games a week and we got $3 Billion. How would a conference with more games and better matchups be worth half?? Imagine you removed WSU, Arizona, and Oregon State from the Pac 12 and replaced them with Ohio State, Michigan, and Notre Dame...how much richer is the media deal under that scenario?

This is what I'm talking about on a smaller scale. Wazzu isn't getting $21million next year because they're worth it, they're getting $21 million because USC, UCLA, and Oregon are probably worth $30 million and are in a revenue sharing arrangement.

Think about what you just lost instead of what you just gained. You just cut a 6 league 12 team conference of 72 down into 30-35 teams..... You are assuming that the followers of the cut teams would follow such a league.... but wouldnt the left out teams have their own to follow now? Thus impeding their viewership of the 35 elite games?

I think you are too small.... Doing the 6 leagues pretty much covers the major football programs....

 

[MtnBuff]

If anyone thinks this has anything to do with how a school does on the field they are kidding themselves are living in a fantasy.

Boise was mentioned earlier as not having a "fair" chance compared to some schools that don't win. The fact is that Boise doesn't generate the revenue like a lot of those other schools. Compare Boise to an Indiana which has sucked on the field as long as we can remember. The fact is that Boise only recently managed to start selling out their roughly 35K seat stadium. For 2009 (most recent figures I easily found) they averaged 32,782 a home game. This is less than half the average attendance of a game in an SEC or Big X stadium and barely over half for the Big XII. Indiana averaged over 42,000, Big XII bottom feeder Iowa State averaged over 45,000, even Baylor averaged over 40,000. All of these schools had substantially higher ticket prices than Boise as well so the total revenue generated was significantly higher. This doesn't even include football based contributions to the schools, tell me that Boise generates more dollars in donations that Baylor or Indiana, I will laugh at you if you try.

Television is the other big issue. There is a reason that Boise is seen on TV on Thursday and Friday nights after midnight Eastern Time. The simple fact is that schools like Boise don't generate viewership, ratings, and that is what TV money is based on.

Bottom line is that this is a simple argument. Should the big revenue schools be forced to subsidize the small revenue schools to a level where the small revenue schools can stay somewhat competitive on the field. A school like CU which is historically in the top 30 in football revenues can very easily argue that they should not be dragged down by schools generating much less revenue and interest. A school like CSU which is much closer to being around the 100 mark on the list will argue that they are a part of the game as well and should recieve a share similar to the higher revenue schools, especially in the realm of TV money and post-season monies.

Eventually this will all end up in a courtroom then in congress. When it reaches Washington it will come down to votes in the house and the senate. A simple count will tell you that the dominant school in enough states will be a part of the upper class to ensure passage of legislation to permit it to happen if it reaches a question. The entire delegations from the southern states, the midwest, the west coast, will line up behind the big guys. Only states like Nevada, Wyoming, Hawaii will dare stand strongly against it, the New England states that aren't big college football states won't care enough to battle. Eventually the power conferences will get their way.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

No one on the mainland probably cares much, but I really hope Hawaii wouldn't be left out of one of the power conferences if the bigger split happened. If the Mountain West crumbles I don't see any conference other than PAC12 picking them up. Is there ANY chance of that? If they got some extra revenue they could definitely fix their facililty issues (the reason June Jones left) and I think it is a stop most PAC12 schools would enjoy every other year...

 

[somebody]

This is like it's straight out of "Atlas Shrugged". Our enterprise can't compete, so the government needs to step in with regulations and court rulings to artificially prop us up and/or hold others down.

That's pathetic. We're talking about sports leagues. It's entertainment. It's big business (despite being non-profit at the school level). If a program doesn't bring enough to the party to benefit whatever level it's on and doesn't have the resources to compete on that level... it should be on a different level.

...
Eventually this will all end up in a courtroom then in congress. When it reaches Washington it will come down to votes in the house and the senate. A simple count will tell you that the dominant school in enough states will be a part of the upper class to ensure passage of legislation to permit it to happen if it reaches a question. The entire delegations from the southern states, the midwest, the west coast, will line up behind the big guys. Only states like Nevada, Wyoming, Hawaii will dare stand strongly against it, the New England states that aren't big college football states won't care enough to battle. Eventually the power conferences will get their way.

This absolutely would end up being legislated at some point, and it already has a pretty powerful precedent. Think Title IX for the non-Bigs.

 

[CsquaredCC]

That's precisely the direction they're headed.

Which will be the end of college athletics in this region as we know it. The Mountain States simply will not have the population size necessary to consistently compete in a system that values programs in large television markets (aka USC) or with deep and committed fan support (aka Nebraska). Its sad actually. This area will become an amateur athletics wasteland IMO. Fly over country until you get to the large coastal population centers or the south.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Think about what you just lost instead of what you just gained. You just cut a 6 league 12 team conference of 72 down into 30-35 teams..... You are assuming that the followers of the cut teams would follow such a league.... but wouldnt the left out teams have their own to follow now? Thus impeding their viewership of the 35 elite games?

I think you are too small.... Doing the 6 leagues pretty much covers the major football programs....

I hear you, but I'm not suggesting the other 40 teams just disappear, this would be a consolidation of power and money. The 6 conferences compete with eachother for media dollars, a single power conference could essentially write its own deal since there would be no competition. The dollars would be more heavily allocated to the most attractive conference and the other 40 would get what's left.

Viewership would not be an issue at all, if you offer the best product, people will pay for it. The Tulane fan living in New Orleans is still probably going to watch LSU v Florida.

Look, I admit this is unlikely at least in the short term, but if there is more money to be made schools and ADs will find it.

 

[CsquaredCC]

No one on the mainland probably cares much, but I really hope Hawaii wouldn't be left out of one of the power conferences if the bigger split happened. If the Mountain West crumbles I don't see any conference other than PAC12 picking them up. Is there ANY chance of that? If they got some extra revenue they could definitely fix their facililty issues (the reason June Jones left) and I think it is a stop most PAC12 schools would enjoy every other year...

My guess is that Hawaii's program would be in deep trouble unless they could somehow work out a path to independence.

 

[66BUFF]

Which will be the end of college athletics in this region as we know it. The Mountain States simply will not have the population size necessary to consistently compete in a system that values programs in large television markets (aka USC) or with deep and committed fan support (aka Nebraska). Its sad actually. This area will become an amateur athletics wasteland IMO. Fly over country until you get to the large coastal population centers or the south.

Buffs and Utes will rule the mountain region and the rest of the schools will ****ing die off

Sounds good to me!

 

[MtnBuff]

This absolutely would end up being legislated at some point, and it already has a pretty powerful precedent. Think Title IX for the non-Bigs.

Huge difference, Title IX was seen as a womens rights issue. Regardless of the political climate of a state no politician is willing to risk alienating 1/2 of the voters who are women and a big chunk of the other half who have daughters, sisters, and wives.

On the other hand how politically smart would it be for a congressman in Florida, Texas, Indiana, etc. to vote in favor of something seen as harmful to the University of Florida, or Florida State, or the U of Miami, or any of the big Texas Schools, or Notre Dame to the benefit of a school in Boise Idaho or Reno Nevada. The mid-majors have been threatening lawsuits for years as well as congressional hearings etc. They have not followed through because they know that when push comes to shove what they get will likely be way worse for them than what they already have. Lacking constitutional protection this issue if pushed is likely to end up in congress, and if it does the big guys have the juice to make things happen like they want them including anti-trust exemptions, etc.

 

[77buff]

I don't see a scenario where we're not in the top group. We always have been. We have always won a lot. And 30 super elite programs breaking away wouldn't be able to fill a schedule. I think this is a non-starter as a concern.

Where have you been the last 7 years?

 

[MtnBuff]

Where have you been the last 7 years?

As I stated above winning won't matter when it comes down to it. What will matter is that CU has historically be a top 30 program in football revenue and has been a solid ratings team on TV, even when we are bad. That will get us in.

 

[BlackNGold]

I think we are actually in agreement. The television dollars are only one piece. No one is arguing that the PAC-12 can't negotiate its own deal. Hell go out and get your billions if you can. However, there is no denying that its about access to the BCS games which helps drive the on-the-field product. Hypothetically, if the MWC were a BCS conference, you would have to agree that the product on the field becomes more compelling; correct? This drives the ability to negotiate larger television deals, sponsorships, etc. It also provides much needed access to additional income from the BCS games which filters throughout the conferences, not just one university. This has been and will continue to be about access. Thats it. Then every university has the opportunity to stand on its own merits, conference affiliation, television deals, etc. etc.

Do not agree with your premise at all. Just because the University of New Mexico would be in a BCS conference I think the on field product would remain the same. By your reasoning, Indiana should be as good as Ohio State because they are both in a BCS conference. No the product does not become more compelling just because of the conference affiliation. Vanderbilt versus Kentucky is not a "compelling" football match-up but both are in arguably the best football conference.

 

[sackman]

Which will be the end of college athletics in this region as we know it. The Mountain States simply will not have the population size necessary to consistently compete in a system that values programs in large television markets (aka USC) or with deep and committed fan support (aka Nebraska). Its sad actually. This area will become an amateur athletics wasteland IMO. Fly over country until you get to the large coastal population centers or the south.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. It wouldn't be an amateur athletics wasteland. All that would happen is that CSU would be relegated to D-II status by default. It's not really that far removed from it now. CU, by virtue of the fact that it will be raking in tens of millions of dollars a year, will see it's profile in the state increase dramatically.

It sucks for CSU, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a wasteland.

 

[sackman]

No one on the mainland probably cares much, but I really hope Hawaii wouldn't be left out of one of the power conferences if the bigger split happened. If the Mountain West crumbles I don't see any conference other than PAC12 picking them up. Is there ANY chance of that? If they got some extra revenue they could definitely fix their facililty issues (the reason June Jones left) and I think it is a stop most PAC12 schools would enjoy every other year...

If Hawaii can manage to squeeze another half a million television sets into the islands, they may have what it takes to play in the bigs.

 

[CsquaredCC]

That's a bit of an exaggeration. It wouldn't be an amateur athletics wasteland. All that would happen is that CSU would be relegated to D-II status by default. It's not really that far removed from it now. CU, by virtue of the fact that it will be raking in tens of millions of dollars a year, will see it's profile in the state increase dramatically.

It sucks for CSU, but that doesn't necessarily translate into a wasteland.

Four total BCS programs (Utah, CU, Arizona and ASU) in eight of the Mountain States? How is that anything but a wasteland? Hell the state of Iowa....Iowa mind you, would be sitting on half as many BCS programs as the states of Montana, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico combined. That is not exactly a recipe for generating a lot of passion for college sports in this part of the country at the end of the day IMO.

My guess is pro-sports will see simply increase its hold on this state as opposed to CU seeing a large increase in overall interest in its programs simply due to the fact that it is receiving more money.

 

[MtnBuff]

It is easy to argue that based on attendance and revenues that CSU is closer to UNC and FCS level that CU and BCS level.

I know from experience that CSU has a core of very dedicated and enthusiastic fans. I went they for my masters and work with a number of CSU grads/fanatics. That said you could argue that North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana State, etc. also have a similar dedicated, enthusiastic fan base. The question is how does that fan base translate into seats in the stadium and eyes on TV screens. CSU averaged less than 23k for home games last year, this is less than schools like Toledo, Eastern Michigan and FCS Montana.

Even when CSU was winning and ranked they never averaged over 30k. This is with ticket prices less than 1/2 the normal for most BCS level schools.

You have to respect the individual fans for being dedicated to their teams but an honest look says that most of the schools in the MWC are a huge step down in revenue from almost any of the BCS level schools in terms of fan interest as shown by revenues and TV interest.

 

[sackman]

Four total BCS programs (Utah, CU, Arizona and ASU) in eight of the Mountain States? How is that anything but a wasteland? Hell the state of Iowa....Iowa mind you, would be sitting on half as many BCS programs as the states of Montana, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico combined. That is not exactly a recipe for generating a lot of passion for college sports in this part of the country at the end of the day IMO.

And the States of Nebraska and Missouri would each have one. Big deal. It's a non-issue.

 

[MtnBuff]

Four total BCS programs (Utah, CU, Arizona and ASU) in eight of the Mountain States? How is that anything but a wasteland? Hell the state of Iowa....Iowa mind you, would be sitting on half as many BCS programs as the states of Montana, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico combined. That is not exactly a recipe for generating a lot of passion for college sports in this part of the country at the end of the day IMO.

The total population of Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and New Mexico combined is under 6,700,000. In perspective this is only slightly more than the population of the Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arlington Metropolitan area. Add Utah and you end up with close to the population of the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville Metropolitan area. Given a choice of having the state of Florida or the state of California avid fans or the Rocky Mountain states and western plains states it is a no brainer. The scenerio you list gives them Colorado with CU, Arizona with ASU and Zona, and fast growing Utah with the Utes and potentially BYU.

You could make the same argument you make about football for airline service. How many international flights origionate in the Rocky Mountain region outside of Denver, SLC, and Phoenix. They might really like passengers from Cheyenne or Casper but not enough to dedicate a plane from there to Frankfurt, Germany.

 

[CsquaredCC]

Even when CSU was winning and ranked they never averaged over 30k. This is with ticket prices less than 1/2 the normal for most BCS level schools.

This is such an inaccurate statement that gets propegated on this board time and time again. CSU has and did average more than 30,000 fans. See this link: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=9284e1804e0ba16dbafefa1ad6fc8b25

And while it is hard to find the statistics online at this point. Attendance was at or around that number for most of the mid to late 90's.

 

[MtnBuff]

This is such an inaccurate statement that gets propegated on this board time and time again. CSU has and did average more than 30,000 fans. See this link: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=9284e1804e0ba16dbafefa1ad6fc8b25

And while it is hard to find the statistics online at this point. Attendance was at or around that number for most of the mid to late 90's.

So you have one year at 600 people over 30K, this with ticket prices at about 1/2 those of BCS schools averageing 60-200% higher. Just demonstrates the point. If CSU was over 30k in the late 90's which I doubt happened often or by much if at all it is still way out of the same league as Tennessee or Michigan averaging over 100k per game.

 

[CsquaredCC]

The total population of Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and New Mexico combined is under 6,700,000. In perspective this is only slightly more than the population of the Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arlington Metropolitan area. Add Utah and you end up with close to the population of the Chicago-Joliet-Naperville Metropolitan area. Given a choice of having the state of Florida or the state of California avid fans or the Rocky Mountain states and western plains states it is a no brainer. The scenerio you list gives them Colorado with CU, Arizona with ASU and Zona, and fast growing Utah with the Utes and potentially BYU.

You could make the same argument you make about football for airline service. How many international flights origionate in the Rocky Mountain region outside of Denver, SLC, and Phoenix. They might really like passengers from Cheyenne or Casper but not enough to dedicate a plane from there to Frankfurt, Germany.

Yes, I am sure those WYO fans will be lining up for their CU season tickets when its program goes under. Or wait, maybe those New Mexico residents will start buying up Arizona tickets when it no longer fields a team. Haha! I can see it now, all those Albuquerque residents will be tuning in their sets for the annual and classic Arizona-Utah matchup with passionate interest!

 

[CsquaredCC]

You do understand that is all the stadium held at that time; right? And who cares what Michigan was averaging by comparison? No school in this region is or ever will be close to that average attendance.

 

[MtnBuff]

Yes, I am sure those WYO fans will be lining up for their CU season tickets when its program goes under. Or wait, maybe those New Mexico residents will start buying up Arizona tickets when it no longer fields a team. Haha! I can see it now. All those Albuquerque residents will be tuning in their sets for the annual and classic Arizona-Utah matchup.

Understand please, it is a matter of diminshing returns, the cost of keeping those Wyo fans exceeds the benefit of keeping the Wyo fans. This is the same reason they don't have direct flights from Cheyenne to Europe. Some passengers move their flights to Denver, some passengers choose not to go to Europe and use their money on something else. Bottom line the cost of putting those passengers into a plane isn't worth the cost. Same applies to mid-major football fans.

By the way even when the stadium was smaller it wasn't as if they had people camping out for tickets. They had lots of games that weren't sellouts.

You are now arguing the the extent that CSU is irrelevant without dealing with the issue at hand. CSU is still closer to a FCS program than a BCS program. Move attendance to 35k at current ticket prices and this still holds true, not by as much but still true.

 

[CsquaredCC]

Understand please, it is a matter of diminshing returns, the cost of keeping those Wyo fans exceeds the benefit of keeping the Wyo fans. This is the same reason they don't have direct flights from Cheyenne to Europe. Some passengers move their flights to Denver, some passengers choose not to go to Europe and use their money on something else. Bottom line the cost of putting those passengers into a plane isn't worth the cost. Same applies to mid-major football fans.

By the way even when the stadium was smaller it wasn't as if they had people camping out for tickets. They had lots of games that weren't sellouts.

You are now arguing the the extent that CSU is irrelevant without dealing with the issue at hand. CSU is still closer to a FCS program than a BCS program. Move attendance to 35k at current ticket prices and this still holds true, not by as much but still true.

It goes to a regional culture which is my broader point. Killing off the "diminishing returns" will simply lead to less overall interest in college athletics in the Mountain states. I don't care how much additional money Arizona or CU recieve its not going to somehow lead New Mexico residents to tune in to Colorado games. I've said it before, but if CSU were to drop a division, I would basically stop following college football and I know many that feel the same way. I'd just move my time and cash over to the Broncos and pro-sports.

Which leads to the question, how do you sell a top level kid recruits on regional rivalries consisting of four mid-level BCS programs and stadiums averaging attendance around the 50,000 range in a good year? You simply don't.

 

[MtnBuff]

It goes to a regional culture which is my broader point. Killing off the "diminishing returns" will simply lead to less overall interest in college athletics in the Mountain states. I don't care how much additional money Arizona or CU recieve its not going to somehow lead New Mexico residents to tune in to Colorado games. I've said it before, but if CSU were to drop a division, I would basically stop following college football and I know many that feel the same way. I'd just move my time and cash over to the Broncos and pro-sports.

Which leads to the question, how do you sell a top level kid recruits on regional rivalries consisting of four mid-level BCS programs and stadiums averaging attendance around the 50,000 range in a good year? You simply don't.

They would lose some fans, they understand that, you might be one of them. Using your same logic Major League Baseball should have teams in SLC and Albequerque, and Las Vegas and a number of other regional cities. There are fans there that would be quality major league baseball fans who don't go out now or pay much attention to the minor league teams that are already in those places. When Denver went from 3A to MLB attendance went from 8-10k per game to over 40k. Does this mean that MLB should go into those cities, no. They understand the loss in diminishing the product exceeds the benefit of picking up those extra fans.

Unfortunately for the hardcore CSU fans, as well as those of Wyo, UNM, etc. the benefit of having those teams in the top tier of teams is outweighed by the cost, end result is that unless something changes in a huge manner for those schools they will be left behind. You as a hardcore fan will then be faced with a choice. Support your team being much more competitive budgetwise on a lower level or putting your energies and money someplace else. You may not like it but for those who have the power the decision is one they are willing to force on you.

 

[sackman]

Who said anything about turning Wyoming or UNM fans into CU fans? I think you're grasping at straws here. CU will benefit greatly, probably at the expense of CSU. But so long as CU is filling it's stadium and bringing in gobs of cash, the situation at the other area schools, while unfortunate, isn't really our problem. Our fortunes are not tied to those of CSU, WYO, UNM, etc. in any way.

 

[ScottyBuff]

I don't see the "rift" as an added division in the NCAA for just football, rather it seems that there would be an entirely new governing body that this group would form.

"Major University Athletic Association" type thing, with the NCAA and NAIA as "competitors".

The MUAA would then be made up solely of the biggest university athletic programs and would probably review everything that has "pissed off" the group over the years.

No more "BCS Bowl" revenue sharing. 85 scholarship limit? maybe it goes back to 100?
Cost of living stipend? approved
Lower level NCAA schools wanting a piece of the pie? none

 

[77buff]

As I stated above winning won't matter when it comes down to it. What will matter is that CU has historically be a top 30 program in football revenue and has been a solid ratings team on TV, even when we are bad. That will get us in.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2947981
Actually we were # 49 in football overall rankings in 2007 - Right behind Colorado State.