The landscape of college athletics has just been changed.

[sackman]

Four conferences will now control the vast majority of college football offerings. The Big 10, the SEC, the ACC and the Pac 12 have some serious television contracts. Everybody else is on the outside looking in.

Soon, only schools in the major conferences will have the ability to field non-revenue sports. Swimming, water polo, skiing, wrestling, track and cross country teams will be too expensive to operate because the cost of fielding those teams will go through the roof.

Schools outside of the big four conferences are going to be scrambling to find funding sources just to try to remain competitive with schools that are in those conferences.

There's soon going to be a major league and a minor league of college athletics. The differences between the two will be stark.

I, for one, am thrilled that CU will be in the majors.

 

[Liver]

i think there will be 4 or 5 16 team superconferences, with a playoff system. and there will be new rules and enforcement, ultimately.

if you aren't one of those teams, you'll not be fielding much in the way of major college sports.

 

[buff4bcs1985]

i think there will be 4 or 5 16 team superconferences, with a playoff system. and there will be new rules and enforcement, ultimately.

if you aren't one of those teams, you'll not be fielding much in the way of major college sports.

basketball is a different story...

 

[Tractor]

Agreed, conferences will be built in two ways:

1. The Big boys, driven by TV. Will take whoever it takes to maximize the # of TV screens.
2. Everybody else, driven by keeping costs down. It will be very tight geographically so teams can bus to all their opponents' sites.

Schools in 2 will try to run lean and clean and will jump at any offer from #1 conferences (TCU to Big East) no matter how ridiculous it may seem.

It'll be interesting to see how the idea of going independent with your own network (BYU) fares. If they succeed, then I bet the big boy conferences will pick these schools up IF they drop their own network. This will keep their monopoly in place. If they fail, I have no idea what a school can do to get recognition from the big conferences. Why do we want to expand any more than we have to?

Edit: Super pumped I can say "we" right there btw

 

[CsquaredCC]

Four conferences will now control the vast majority of college football offerings. The Big 10, the SEC, the ACC and the Pac 12 have some serious television contracts. Everybody else is on the outside looking in.

Soon, only schools in the major conferences will have the ability to field non-revenue sports. Swimming, water polo, skiing, wrestling, track and cross country teams will be too expensive to operate because the cost of fielding those teams will go through the roof.

Schools outside of the big four conferences are going to be scrambling to find funding sources just to try to remain competitive with schools that are in those conferences.

There's soon going to be a major league and a minor league of college athletics. The differences between the two will be stark.

I, for one, am thrilled that CU will be in the majors.

I also think you will see a clear deliniation between the haves and have nots even at the "major league" level. It has already begun even in the BCS ranks. My guess is that just like Texas, programs in major television markets like USC, Florida, Ohio State and others will begin entering regional contracts outside of their current conference deals which will further create a tiered system much like we see in baseball or as we saw in football prior to the institution of free agency.

 

[NashBuff]

CSU fans on RamNation did talk about FCS football...they ain't dumb...they do see the writing on the wall for them.

 

[sackman]

I also think you will see a clear deliniation between the haves and have nots even at the "major league" level. It has already begun even in the BCS ranks. My guess is that just like Texas, programs in major television markets like USC, Florida, Ohio State and others will begin entering regional contracts outside of their current conference deals which will further create a tiered system much like we see in baseball or as we saw in football prior to the institution of free agency.

Texas can get away with that because they are the lords and masters of their little fiefdom formerly known as the Big 12. USC, for instance, would have a much harder time getting away with trying that in a conference that is set up to share revenues evenly. The SEC and Big 10 are the same way. I don't know what the situation is in the ACC, but I assume it's similar.
So while there will be differences between the elites and the rest, the financial differences won't be as dramatic. CU just went from getting somewhere around $7MM/Year to $21MM/Year. CU's athletic budget will not be very much different than USC's, but it will be one helluva lot bigger than CSU's.

 

[sackman]

To follow up on that theme, I know that USC's football program is 100% endowed. They don't *need* to pull in any additional funding to run that program. So any money they do generate (and it's a lot) can be used to finance other programs. That's where I think the real disparity is going to come down amongst the big schools.

 

[CsquaredCC]

Texas can get away with that because they are the lords and masters of their little fiefdom formerly known as the Big 12. USC, for instance, would have a much harder time getting away with trying that in a conference that is set up to share revenues evenly. The SEC and Big 10 are the same way. I don't know what the situation is in the ACC, but I assume it's similar.
So while there will be differences between the elites and the rest, the financial differences won't be as dramatic. CU just went from getting somewhere around $7MM/Year to $21MM/Year. CU's athletic budget will not be very much different than USC's, but it will be one helluva lot bigger than CSU's.

CSU isn't even in the conversation when it comes to what is happening now at the marco level of college athletics. However, I wouldn't be so dismissive of USC or other major programs following Texas' lead. I have a hard time believing that USC is going to just sit and watch other PAC programs leverage its television market for the benefit of the entire conference, yet not allow itself to leverage that market for its own benefit. Texas has set the precedent and my guess is we will see more of these types of programs follow suit.

 

[CsquaredCC]

To follow up on that theme, I know that USC's football program is 100% endowed. They don't *need* to pull in any additional funding to run that program. So any money they do generate (and it's a lot) can be used to finance other programs. That's where I think the real disparity is going to come down amongst the big schools.

Or the extra cash just sets off another round of the facilities arms race, which will also be where many of these top level programs begin to separate themselves.

 

[Tractor]

CSU isn't even in the conversation when it comes to what is happening now at the marco level of college athletics. However, I wouldn't be so dismissive of USC or other major programs following Texas' lead. I have a hard time believing that USC is going to just sit and watch other PAC programs leverage its television market for the benefit of the entire conference, yet not allow itself to leverage that market for its own benefit as well. Texas has set the precedent and my guess is we will see more of these types of programs follow suit.

I think Texas is an interesting case. For the longest time I've agreed with you. I've been shocked that Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, LSU, and Alabama have been proping up the lower schools in the conference. Like you, I've thought they'd want to try to get that additional advantage. But they haven't.

Texas is on the cutting edge of this strategy. This is another reason why I hope they fall on their faces. I worry that if it does work, there will be yet another split, and the monster programs will all go out on their own. Hopefully there is something in the contracts of these equal revenue conferences that prevent a school from doing that (so we'll be locked in for 12 years) but yeah I've always wondered what Ohio State folk thought about that "Northwestern gets as much from TV as Ohio State" saying, if it made them throw up a little bit.

The conference equal distribution does help hedge you against down years. Michigan was probably loving their split the last 5 years. So it's nice to have in your back pocket, you can have a few down years and the bottom won't fall out on you. But when you're booming (Texas), you're basically carrying the conference on your back, and it's weighing you down.

If Texas still does well with this even if they're not performing well on the field, then things might get....interesting....again.

 

[Jens1893]

Four conferences will now control the vast majority of college football offerings. The Big 10, the SEC, the ACC and the Pac 12 have some serious television contracts. Everybody else is on the outside looking in.

I´d also include aTm, OU and Texas. Their TV share will be right up there. ACC contract isn´t quite up there with the other 3, although I guess VTech, Miami and FSU will remain competitive regardless + Duke and UNC in Hoops.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

It's interesting Sacky. Just think how this might be if CU had jumped to the PAC back in '94.


I had no idea the u$c ran their program from endowments. I wonder how that's holding up with the economy the way it is, and so many things going south in Cali.

 

[CsquaredCC]

I think Texas is an interesting case. For the longest time I've agreed with you. I've been shocked that Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Florida, LSU, and Alabama have been proping up the lower schools in the conference. Like you, I've thought they'd want to try to get that additional advantage. But they haven't.

Texas is on the cutting edge of this strategy. This is another reason why I hope they fall on their faces. I worry that if it does work, there will be yet another split, and the monster programs will all go out on their own. Hopefully there is something in the contracts of these equal revenue conferences that prevent a school from doing that (so we'll be locked in for 12 years) but yeah I've always wondered what Ohio State folk thought about that "Northwestern gets as much from TV as Ohio State" saying, if it made them throw up a little bit.

The conference equal distribution does help hedge you against down years. Michigan was probably loving their split the last 5 years. So it's nice to have in your back pocket, you can have a few down years and the bottom won't fall out on you. But when you're booming (Texas), you're basically carrying the conference on your back, and it's weighing you down.

If Texas still does well with this even if they're not performing well on the field, then things might get....interesting....again.

I think Texas has set the bar and other programs of that caliber, as you mentioned, will take notice and demand the same for themselves. Given that type of path, what you will be left with is a tiered system of college athletics driven by relative market share and television sets. Forget the Mountain West or other non-bcs institutions, top level programs will now begin pinching the mid-market teams in BCS conferences so they can gain advantage and gain even better access to the large BCS payouts. The Mountain West is only a symptom of what is coming in my view. It is a monopolistic type system that is in place right now. The power will only continue to consolidate if it is left unchecked.

 

[Darth Snow]

I think Texas has set the bar and other programs of that caliber, as you mentioned, will take notice and demand the same for themselves. Given that type of path, what you will be left with is a tiered system of college athletics driven by relative market share and television sets. Forget the Mountain West or other non-bcs institutions, top level programs will now begin pinching the mid-market teams in BCS conferences so they can gain advantage and gain even better access to the large BCS payouts. The Mountain West is only a symptom of what is coming in my view. It is a monopolistic type system that is in place right now. The power will only continue to consolidate if it is left unchecked.

Disagree. Tradition alone will keep some schools from leaving a conference. OSU leaving the big 10? HAHA! Yeah right. also, they know that a strong conference helps them in many ways beyond bringing in tv $

 

[Unleash Hell]

I think Oregon is in position to go on a long run of being an elite team. The 21 million per year plus the money they get from sugar daddy Phil!:wow:

 

[Maxer]

CSU isn't even in the conversation when it comes to what is happening now at the marco level of college athletics. However, I wouldn't be so dismissive of USC or other major programs following Texas' lead. I have a hard time believing that USC is going to just sit and watch other PAC programs leverage its television market for the benefit of the entire conference, yet not allow itself to leverage that market for its own benefit. Texas has set the precedent and my guess is we will see more of these types of programs follow suit.

USC would have go completely independent for this to happen, since the Pac owns the right to negotiate the media rights for their football games (which is how the PAC-12 network is going to come to pass). I can't imagine the serious SC boosters would let them go independent, since it would lead to the rest of the PAC not scheduling them and the traditional games with UCLA, Cal, and Stanford are a BIG DEAL to them.

If USC went independent their schedule would have Notre Dame and BYU on it every year, maybe one marquee BCS team, and then a BUNCH of games against WAC teams... and worse.

 

[Maxer]

I had no idea the u$c ran their program from endowments. I wonder how that's holding up with the economy the way it is, and so many things going south in Cali.

Well, SC is a private school (so the state's budget troubles don't affect them), and as much as I detest them, their serious donors have the kind of money that is pretty much immune to ups and downs in the economy. So I would imagine fine.

 

[supahphish]

CSU isn't even in the conversation when it comes to what is happening now at the marco level of college athletics. However, I wouldn't be so dismissive of USC or other major programs following Texas' lead. I have a hard time believing that USC is going to just sit and watch other PAC programs leverage its television market for the benefit of the entire conference, yet not allow itself to leverage that market for its own benefit. Texas has set the precedent and my guess is we will see more of these types of programs follow suit.

I can believe it. USC has name recognition and truckloads of money, but they do NOT have the same rabid, hard-core fan base that other historic top-15 programs do.

"But, that said, the Trojans don’t fill the LA Coliseum. True, the Coliseum is massive and seats 93,607 but the fact that USC averaged only 79,907 fans at home games in 2010 is shocking.

Was it an off year? Definitely. But, the same could be said of Michigan who averaged over 111,000 fans at home games last season (in a stadium that holds 106,000) and Tennessee who averaged over 99,000 at home (in a venue that has a capacity of 102,000)."


In their 2003 MNC season their average home attendance was 77,804. USC is not the same as Texas where people will gladly pay $10/month or whatever it is for 24/7 Longhorns sports programming.

 

[Denver_sc]

Soon, only schools in the major conferences will have the ability to field non-revenue sports. Swimming, water polo, skiing, wrestling, track and cross country teams will be too expensive to operate because the cost of fielding those teams will go through the roof.

Please explain.

CSU fans on RamNation did talk about FCS football...they ain't dumb...they do see the writing on the wall for them.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not give them too much credit here; they did go to a cow college.

 

[Darian3Hagan]

 

[CsquaredCC]

I think Oregon is in position to go on a long run of being an elite team. The 21 million per year plus the money they get from sugar daddy Phil!:wow:

The facilities race in the PAC is just getting started. Didn't Washington just announce some ridiculious expansion/renovation project as well? I also have attended numerous games in Eugene. Autzen stadium and the other facilities on Oregon's campus are arguably the best in the entire country.

 

[sackman]

The facilities race in the PAC is just getting started. Didn't Washington just announce some ridiculious expansion/renovation project as well?

The difference is that now, we should be able to compete in the facilities arms race. Remember, CU doesn't need the best facilities, we just need facilities that are respectable. We'll never have OSU, UO, or UT type facilities, but we don't need them to attract recruits, either. What we need is to have facilities that recruits come in and say "That's not as good as what they have at Oregon, but it's still pretty good".

 

[CsquaredCC]

The difference is that now, we should be able to compete in the facilities arms race. Remember, CU doesn't need the best facilities, we just need facilities that are respectable. We'll never have OSU, UO, or UT type facilities, but we don't need them to attract recruits, either. What we need is to have facilities that recruits come in and say "That's not as good as what they have at Oregon, but it's still pretty good".

I agree to a point. Its all relative in the end. Every other team in the PAC will also be enjoying an additional $21 Million in revenue on top of the money the athletic departments bring in. CU will have a lot of work to do to get caught up and keep up in terms of facilities. Also, I heard this morning that the CU athletic department is roughly $13 Million in the hole. Which means the launch of any major facility upgrades are probably 2-4 years out.

Look I am not trying to downplay the money. CU fans should be excited. I just think its a short sighted notion by some to think that because CU "got theirs" - everything is fine. Honest question. All of us clearly love college athletics. I grew up in Iowa where the passion for Iowa and Iowa State was great to be around and existed statewide. Doesn't it concern you at all that if things play out the way they could and the Mountain West states are left with only 4 BCS programs (Arizona, ASU, Utah and CU), that this area basically becomes a college athletics deadzone? There are no real established regional or geographical rivalries outside of ASU and UA. Maybe those develop in time, but you have to win at high levels to get those types of things going. How do you sell top level athletes on a region where athletics are clearly not as important or valued as highly as other areas of the country? If New Mexico, CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, Nevada, etc. are forced to drop to lower levels, does that really help develop a passionate regional fan base capable of supporting programs and keeping the attention of the national media in this area? I just don't see how that is good for anyone. CU included.

 

[FlatironsBuff]

I hope we can get some facility upgrades immediatly, then pay off the debt. The one way is finacially responsible for a home, but this is business and new facilities bring the recruits, which help wins, which creates more tickets sales and income. Wait to pay off the chickens for a couple years. Buy some new eggs first.

If in five years you would like to pay off the debt then build a facility, build the facility first, then pay off the debt. You want a gap between the first and second facility you build anyway, so get one done ASAP.

 

[NWD Buff]

I agree to a point. Its all relative in the end. Every other team in the PAC will also be enjoying an additional $21 Million in revenue on top of the money the athletic departments bring in. CU will have a lot of work to do to get caught up and keep up in terms of facilities. Also, I heard this morning that the CU athletic department is roughly $13 Million in the hole. Which means the launch of any major facility upgrades are probably 2-4 years out.

Look I am not trying to downplay the money. CU fans should be excited. I just think its a short sighted notion by some to think that because CU "got theirs" - everything is fine. Honest question. All of us clearly love college athletics. I grew up in Iowa where the passion for Iowa and Iowa State was great to be around and existed statewide. Doesn't it concern you at all that if things play out the way they could and the Mountain West states are left with only 4 BCS programs (Arizona, ASU, Utah and CU), that this area basically becomes a college athletics deadzone? There are no real established regional or geographical rivalries outside of ASU and UA. Maybe those develop in time, but you have to win at high levels to get those types of things going. How do you sell top level athletes on a region where athletics are clearly not as important or valued as highly as other areas of the country? If New Mexico, CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, Nevada, etc. are forced to drop to lower levels, does that really help develop a passionate regional fan base capable of supporting programs and keeping the attention of the national media in this area? I just don't see how that is good for anyone. CU included.

This is going to sound snarkier than I mean it, but the CU-CSU rivalry has never done anything for the national profile of CU, and fans of the programs you mention will never contribute to building a "regional fan base" that will be of any benefit to CU. The national media will talk about CU when they are beating top tier opponents, regardless of where they are from geographically. As for selling the program to high school athletes, CU is much better served by having exposure in areas where we can actually recruit more than a handful of Division 1 caliber players.

 

[NashBuff]

I agree to a point. Its all relative in the end. Every other team in the PAC will also be enjoying an additional $21 Million in revenue on top of the money the athletic departments bring in. CU will have a lot of work to do to get caught up and keep up in terms of facilities. Also, I heard this morning that the CU athletic department is roughly $13 Million in the hole. Which means the launch of any major facility upgrades are probably 2-4 years out.

Look I am not trying to downplay the money. CU fans should be excited. I just think its a short sighted notion by some to think that because CU "got theirs" - everything is fine. Honest question. All of us clearly love college athletics. I grew up in Iowa where the passion for Iowa and Iowa State was great to be around and existed statewide. Doesn't it concern you at all that if things play out the way they could and the Mountain West states are left with only 4 BCS programs (Arizona, ASU, Utah and CU), that this area basically becomes a college athletics deadzone? There are no real established regional or geographical rivalries outside of ASU and UA. Maybe those develop in time, but you have to win at high levels to get those types of things going. How do you sell top level athletes on a region where athletics are clearly not as important or valued as highly as other areas of the country? If New Mexico, CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, Nevada, etc. are forced to drop to lower levels, does that really help develop a passionate regional fan base capable of supporting programs and keeping the attention of the national media in this area? I just don't see how that is good for anyone. CU included.

What's the point of having regional rivalries when the non-BCS teams can't fill their own home stadiums? CSU fans for one haven't done their part in going to Hughes Stadium. Wyoming has just one major college in the state so they should be okay. UNLV and Nevada fans haven't filled their stadiums that well in the past. If CSU fans were truly serious about their sports, they might be considered one of the next few schools to make the jump to a BCS conference but now are left wondering if a move down to FCS ball could be in their future. Given that CU still filled up most of Folsom Field during the Hawkins years, CSU fans have nobody but themselves to blame for where CSU is at when it comes to the pecking order of college sports. There might be time left for CSU to make an impression before the age of 16 team super conferences comes into being but CSU's time is very, very short!

CU has long been the lone BCS school in the Mountain time zone (when the Arizona schools are in PT) and with Utah becoming that second team, BCS ball might finally take off in the Four Corners states for a change given that three of the four states are in the same BCS conference and the fourth (New Mexico) could join that conference down the road. That is where the true rivalries might develop and the CSU-CU and BYU-Utah rivalries start to take a backseat to those new rivalries. Utah fans are already talking about having a rivalry with Arizona State since there are a lot of Ute fans in the Phoenix area in addition to CU fans that are there as well. I believe that ASU will be the school that is depised by the three other mountain schools. There is no dobut something will develop between CU and Utah. The only question that remains is CU-UA and Utah-UA but I'm sure that will develop as well.

College sports might take off in the Four Corners region but it might happen without the non-BCS schools from those states.

 

[azbuff]

I agree to a point. Its all relative in the end. Every other team in the PAC will also be enjoying an additional $21 Million in revenue on top of the money the athletic departments bring in. CU will have a lot of work to do to get caught up and keep up in terms of facilities. Also, I heard this morning that the CU athletic department is roughly $13 Million in the hole. Which means the launch of any major facility upgrades are probably 2-4 years out.

Look I am not trying to downplay the money. CU fans should be excited. I just think its a short sighted notion by some to think that because CU "got theirs" - everything is fine. Honest question. All of us clearly love college athletics. I grew up in Iowa where the passion for Iowa and Iowa State was great to be around and existed statewide. Doesn't it concern you at all that if things play out the way they could and the Mountain West states are left with only 4 BCS programs (Arizona, ASU, Utah and CU), that this area basically becomes a college athletics deadzone? There are no real established regional or geographical rivalries outside of ASU and UA. Maybe those develop in time, but you have to win at high levels to get those types of things going. How do you sell top level athletes on a region where athletics are clearly not as important or valued as highly as other areas of the country? If New Mexico, CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, Nevada, etc. are forced to drop to lower levels, does that really help develop a passionate regional fan base capable of supporting programs and keeping the attention of the national media in this area? I just don't see how that is good for anyone. CU included.

I honestly share these concerns. While I'm glad we're now assured of being one of the "haves," I am concerned for CSU and Air Force. It is better for CU when CSU, and to a lesser extent, Air Force, field good teams. And the CSU rivalry used to mean something. It wasn't that long ago (2004) when the Best Damn Sports Show broadcast live from Farrand Field in anticipation of the "Rocky Mountain Showdown." College Game Day it wasn't, but Carmelo and Champ Bailey were there. Sidenote: highlight of that day was some kid yelling out "hey 'melo, show us your bronze medal!" after Anthony was introduced.

 

[CsquaredCC]

I honestly share these concerns. While I'm glad we're now assured of being one of the "haves," I am concerned for CSU and Air Force. It is better for CU when CSU, and to a lesser extent, Air Force, field good teams. And the CSU rivalry used to mean something. It wasn't that long ago (2004) when the Best Damn Sports Show broadcast live from Farrand Field in anticipation of the "Rocky Mountain Showdown." College Game Day it wasn't, but Carmelo and Champ Bailey were there. Sidenote: highlight of that day was some kid yelling out "hey 'melo, show us your bronze medal!" after Anthony was introduced.

I just wish many of us who follow college athletics out here could get on the same page and do what we can to get this state and region going. Coming from Big Ten country, this area just does not support college athletics in the way they need to be supported. I have watched Arizona and Arizona State basically rot away in the PAC Ten Conference in football. I think in 30 years of membership the two of them combined have won a total of 3 conference titles. How is that possible?

Maybe pairing CU and Utah with those schools in the same conference will help regionally, but I guess I am not as optimistic. To me its a larger issue centered on a culture. Between CU, AU, Utah and ASU - Arizona is the only program in 2010 to average more than 50,000 per game last season. On a national scale, that seems extremely problematic.

 

[Dark Bohner]

I honestly share these concerns. While I'm glad we're now assured of being one of the "haves," I am concerned for CSU and Air Force. It is better for CU when CSU, and to a lesser extent, Air Force, field good teams. And the CSU rivalry used to mean something. It wasn't that long ago (2004) when the Best Damn Sports Show broadcast live from Farrand Field in anticipation of the "Rocky Mountain Showdown." College Game Day it wasn't, but Carmelo and Champ Bailey were there. Sidenote: highlight of that day was some kid yelling out "hey 'melo, show us your bronze medal!" after Anthony was introduced.

I'm not concerned. Colorado has succeeded historically regardless of regional support. Take care of business and it will take care of you. In reference to the RMS, woopdy doo, we had what 3 maybe 4 years of interest? That is a blip on the radar, a mouse fart in the big scheme of Colorado and college football history. Who cares?