What will the story be 30 years from now?

[whaler11]

You can file this under WHINING.

I understand conference realignment from a financial
perspective, but I can't shake the feeling that it's only beneficial for the schools in the short term.

The NFL and NBA have found great success by marketing their best teams at a national level. It's in stark contrast to MLB and the NHL where interest is still driven at the local level.

The college football playoff goes a clear national direction. It's an attempt to make CFB like the NFL - drive all the interest throughout the season to whomever is good in a given season.

It seems to me that ESPN is attempting to replicate the NBA with their CBB coverage. Cover the hell out of a half dozen top programs in a fashion similar to the top NBA teams which are always broadcast nationally. n

I'm old enough that I might not see how this plays out in the end.... but I don't see how conference realignment ends up a positive.

The ACC was more interesting before the first raid. The Big East was great at 16... but was better at 9. Nebraska gets paid in the Big 10 - but they are more interesting playing Oklahoma and Colorado than they are playing Minnesota and Michigan State.

The BTN rakes in cash today, but in the long term does Maryland really make any sense playing Iowa instead of Virginia.

Does the P5 cash grab work out
in the end if the cable model collapses? Why would Michigan want Rutgers in their league if the Big Ten needs develop a direct to consumer model?

The P5 athletic programs are building out an enormous expense model. Does it collapse under it's own weight if ESPN can't collect $6 a month from 100 million cable/sat homes?

Without the cable money - does anything that has happened in conference realignment make sense?

When I look at college sports - am I wrong in thinking it's long term viability looks more like the MLB/NHL model than the NFL/NBA model? That in the end geography will be most important?

 

[Ha Who]

I agree. It is like the AOL/Fime Warner merger. Bigger is not better

 

[whaler11]

I agree. It is like the AOL/Fime Warner merger. Bigger is not better

It could just be my age and experience leads me to prefer Wake/NCSU or Texas/Texas A&M and in the future people will feel the same way about Utah/Cal and Maryland/Nebraska but I find it hard to believe.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Not only are the geographic differences tough to overcome, but in these larger leagues you barely play the teams in hoop, let alone football.

As much as I loved the 16 team big East, a 9 team all sports league is perfect. Home and home for hoops and a round robin formal schedule with equal home and away games.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

30 years from now Football is about as popular as boxing is today.

 

[whaler11]

Not only are the geographic differences tough to overcome, but in these larger leagues you barely play the teams in hoop, let alone football.

As much as I loved the 16 team big East, a 9 team all sports league is perfect. Home and home for hoops and a round robin formal schedule with equal home and away games.

True you can somewhat overcome geography with familiarity. UConn and Miami played a lot of entertaining games as an example.

 

[whaler11]

30 years from now Football is about as popular as boxing is today.

I left that out that possibility because I didn't want to go full Spackler length.

 

[1999.2004.2011]

I don't know if I'm the only one, but the meteoric rise of college football over the past fifteen years seems eerily similar to the internet bubble in the early 90's. Astronomically large television deals have been granted to this conferences, and will continue to follow that pattern for the next couple of years. On the horizon, you have the settlement of some potentially damaging variables (O'Bannon lawsuit/Autonomy/Medical Issues) that could effectively crash the bubble. Football is still king in this country, evidenced by the fact that the NFL and College Football are the two most popular "sports leagues" in America. I just have my reservations about the demand for college football outside of the South and Midwest.

In 30 years, I expect that the professional sports leagues in the US will be essentially the same except for MLS. If MLS doesn't change it's current model with an extremely low salary cap/designated players, people will tune it out completely in exchange for watching the Premier League, Bundesliga, La Liga, Champions League etc which is clearly a 100x better product. College sports on the other hand could go either way. A cash infused P5 could become even more popular or it could completely crash.

 

[frankthetank]

Every sport - college or pro - is dependent upon cable money. The NFL's two largest sources of income are from ESPN and DirecTV (for Sunday Ticket). The $2 billion price for the Clippers is financially viable because of the NBA's new deal with ESPN and TNT. The YES Network currently has a higher valuation than the New York Yankees franchise itself.

So, to the extent the cable model completely collapses, every sports team (college or pro) is screwed. Now, I don't think there will be as large of a shift in the cable model as a lot of people seem to believe. The DISH streaming package for cord cutters is simply the same type of bundling that basic cable uses, except that it's over the Internet. We'll also likely see companies bundle their channels together. Again, the DISH streaming package is essentially a bundle of Disney and Turner-owned channels. No one is misguided enough to think Rutgers fans directly buying the BTN is viable, but Fox bundling the BTN with YES, FX, Fox News, FS1 and other Fox-owned channels is certainly viable (and the likely end game).

I don't see college football getting more regional at all. The ratings from the past season were probably the most meritocratic that we've ever seen - the national ratings were almost completely based on playoff implications (as opposed to just the same brand names). That's an NFL-like trait, where national viewers actually watch the best teams and *aren't* rooting for laundry (unlike MLB, where national ratings tank when Yankees and Red Sox uniforms aren't on the field). The CFP is driving that national interest and an expanded playoff to 8 teams (which seems inevitable) would fuel it even more. College football has clearly become the #2 sport in the country after the NFL by national viewership numbers - it might not be evident in the Northeast, but it's pretty clear in the rest of the country.

The only way college football isn't in that same position in 30 years is if the dire predictions that football will go the way of boxing is correct. I just don't see that happening. Affluent suburban parents in the coastal markets might be discouraging their kids from playing football, but that's not happening in the Southeast and Texas (which are growing much faster).

 

[UConnJim]

I somewhat disagree with Frank. For example in Boston, the Bruins and Red Sox would be fine if the cable model breaks down as NESN would still be a must have for most of New England even at a higher price. End of the day, it comes down to the popularity of the team/school as to who would be hurt by a disruption to the cable model. If the cable model was disrupted, conferences would have to make tough calls on schools as many would not pull their own weight like Wake Forest, ... I am confident that UConn could carry it's own weight and has proven their popularity with the SNY relationship for UConn sports. Heck, if a cable net had all of the UConn sports content on it, it would probably be able to charge $3 to $5/month in Connecticut and a lower rate in the rest of New England and in NYC.

 

[whaler11]

Every sport - college or pro - is dependent upon cable money. The NFL's two largest sources of income are from ESPN and DirecTV (for Sunday Ticket). The $2 billion price for the Clippers is financially viable because of the NBA's new deal with ESPN and TNT. The YES Network currently has a higher valuation than the New York Yankees franchise itself.

So, to the extent the cable model completely collapses, every sports team (college or pro) is screwed. Now, I don't think there will be as large of a shift in the cable model as a lot of people seem to believe. The DISH streaming package for cord cutters is simply the same type of bundling that basic cable uses, except that it's over the Internet. We'll also likely see companies bundle their channels together. Again, the DISH streaming package is essentially a bundle of Disney and Turner-owned channels. No one is misguided enough to think Rutgers fans directly buying the BTN is viable, but Fox bundling the BTN with YES, FX, Fox News, FS1 and other Fox-owned channels is certainly viable (and the likely end game).

I don't see college football getting more regional at all. The ratings from the past season were probably the most meritocratic that we've ever seen - the national ratings were almost completely based on playoff implications (as opposed to just the same brand names). That's an NFL-like trait, where national viewers actually watch the best teams and *aren't* rooting for laundry (unlike MLB, where national ratings tank when Yankees and Red Sox uniforms aren't on the field). The CFP is driving that national interest and an expanded playoff to 8 teams (which seems inevitable) would fuel it even more. College football has clearly become the #2 sport in the country after the NFL by national viewership numbers - it might not be evident in the Northeast, but it's pretty clear in the rest of the country.

The only way college football isn't in that same position in 30 years is if the dire predictions that football will go the way of boxing is correct. I just don't see that happening. Affluent suburban parents in the coastal markets might be discouraging their kids from playing football, but that's not happening in the Southeast and Texas (which are growing much faster).

I agree that the changes in cable will be much slower than some predict. That being said a lot of uninterested people are underwriting pro and college sports largess.

I don't think the potential demise of the game will come a lack of players. It seems more likely to me that rule changes to promote safety could make it less popular. 30 years is a long time - seems impossible now, but if someone told you 30 years ago the World Series would seem a national afterthought at times while it was drawing ratings in the 30s you would have called them crazy.

If television distribution doesn't have major changes I agree that the revenues will continue to grow. If there is a shift where networks can't drum up 10 billion dollars a year in affiliate dollars - does the current conference structure make any sense?

 

[frankthetank]

I somewhat disagree with Frank. For example in Boston, the Bruins and Red Sox would be fine if the cable model breaks down as NESN would still be a must have for most of New England even at a higher price. End of the day, it comes down to the popularity of the team/school as to who would be hurt by a disruption to the cable model. If the cable model was disrupted, conferences would have to make tough calls on schools as many would not pull their own weight like Wake Forest, ... I am confident that UConn could carry it's own weight and has proven their popularity with the SNY relationship for UConn sports. Heck, if a cable net had all of the UConn sports content on it, it would probably be able to charge $3 to $5/month in Connecticut and a lower rate in the rest of New England and in NYC.

You'd be correct if you're thinking that we would be purchasing channels one-by-one. However, I don't believe we're heading to that model. Using your NESN example, you could argue that there's a corollary in the NYC market with respect to the Yankees and YES where that channel is effectively a must-have (or at least a must-have for a large enough number of people that it drives subscriptions). Fox, who now owns the majority of YES, knows this, which is why it isn't going to be selling YES on its own in the NYC market. Instead, it's going to package YES with streaming access to Fox network shows, FX, FXX Fox News, FS1... and yes, its majority-owned BTN.

Of course, that's effectively what's happening now with basic cable, so streaming will end up being a "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation once all is said and done. Disney is even better at bundling since its tent pole channels (ESPN for sports and Disney Channel for kids) have even more value and can be leveraged for the lesser-watched channels like the SEC Network. In the case of SNY, it's the fact that it's partly owned by Time Warner Cable and Comcast that's much more critical than the content of the Mets and UConn with respect to its future streaming prospects.

The existence of Wake Forest (which I've noted before seems to be a favorite punching bag for G5 schools that have a claim for P5 membership) is actually much less relevant for the ACC since that league doesn't have a regional sports network. The ACC's fortunes are solely tied with the ESPN (which most of us can agree will survive in one form or another for a long time no matter what the channel distribution model might be going down the road). As ruthless as conferences might be these days, hoping for a P5 conference to actually kick a member *out* is not realistic. Even in the case of the old Big East booting out Temple, it was as an affiliate member where Temple wasn't investing in the single sport (football) that it was brought in to play. That's quite different than kicking out a full member that has been there since the beginning of the league.

 

[Rinaldi]

seems impossible now, but if someone told you 30 years ago the World Series would seem a national afterthought at times while it was drawing ratings in the 30s you would have called them crazy.

I take umbrage at the suggestion the World Series is a national afterthought. It is not. I haven’t any facts to dispute your claim, nor fortify mine. However, my three mates agree with me. Issues regarding sample size notwithstanding, my mates are never wrong – except when they beat the hell out of that sailor in Norfolk because of some perceived insult and too much liquor. They were wrong then. Other than that, 100% four aces every time. Mum’s calling, gotta go…

 

[Adios]

30 years from now Football is about as popular as boxing is today.

Football will not die in popularity any time soon. Past Super Bowl viewership, as well as CFP viewership, is showing otherwise.

 

[frankthetank]

I agree that the changes in cable will be much slower than some predict. That being said a lot of uninterested people are underwriting pro and college sports largess.

I don't think the potential demise of the game will come a lack of players. It seems more likely to me that rule changes to promote safety could make it less popular. 30 years is a long time - seems impossible now, but if someone told you 30 years ago the World Series would seem a national afterthought at times while it was drawing ratings in the 30s you would have called them crazy.

If television distribution doesn't have major changes I agree that the revenues will continue to grow. If there is a shift where networks can't drum up 10 billion dollars a year in affiliate dollars - does the current conference structure make any sense?

Oh, I agree that we can't just assume linear growth in TV revenue. I just don't think that it's a one-to-one relationship in arguing whether the current conference structure "makes any sense". At least in the case of the Big Ten, the pre-expansion footprint has been in slow-growth mode for the last couple of decades (particularly its very largest states of Illinois, Ohio and Michigan) and that was unlikely going to change. Adding New Jersey and Maryland went beyond just TV dollars (albeit it was the immediate driving factor) - the state of New Jersey and the DC market happen to be top targets for Big Ten schools for recruiting students overall (whether they're athletes or tens of thousands of prized "normal" undergraduates that can afford to pay higher out-of-state tuition rates). Breaking the Big Ten out of the image that it's a "Midwest conference" is a branding initiative that is athletics-based in the short-term but (at least in theory) will pay off even further academically in the long-term.

Now, not every conference has the same holistic approach to expansion as the Big Ten. Even then, though, I don't see much downside to the P5 moves overall. The SEC moving into the state of Texas is massive regardless of cable TV implications. The ACC enhanced its reach into the populous Northeast in the same manner as the Big Ten. The Pac-12 getting into the Rocky Mountain region was a natural extension (as California residents have been moving heavily to the Interior West over the past decade in the same way that Northerners have been moving to the Sun Belt). You can take cable TV out of the equation for all of those expansion moves and I still think they were good ones overall. The Big 12 is the only one that doesn't look long for this world, but that's more due to its dysfunctional internal politics (which are rooted back in the SWC days) than any expansion decision.

 

[Ha Who]

Football will not die in popularity any time soon. Past Super Bowl viewership, as well as CFP viewership, is showing otherwise.

When watching Ali/Frazier/Foreman who would have thought 30-40 years later boxing would lose the popularity (ratings). It was the greedy promoters (see P5 commissioners) that destroyed the sport

 

[whaler11]

I take umbrage at the suggestion the World Series is a national afterthought. It is not. I haven’t any facts to dispute your claim, nor fortify mine. However, my three mates agree with me. Issues regarding sample size notwithstanding, my mates are never wrong – except when they beat the hell out of that sailor in Norfolk because of some perceived insult and too much liquor. They were wrong then. Other than that, 100% four aces every time. Mum’s calling, gotta go…

Strange post, but I said at times.... every year is seemingly a record low in one way or another. Relative to the 70's and early 80's it's lost a lot of ground.

 

[whaler11]

Oh, I agree that we can't just assume linear growth in TV revenue. I just don't think that it's a one-to-one relationship in arguing whether the current conference structure "makes any sense". At least in the case of the Big Ten, the pre-expansion footprint has been in slow-growth mode for the last couple of decades (particularly its very largest states of Illinois, Ohio and Michigan) and that was unlikely going to change. Adding New Jersey and Maryland went beyond just TV dollars (albeit it was the immediate driving factor) - the state of New Jersey and the DC market happen to be top targets for Big Ten schools for recruiting students overall (whether they're athletes or tens of thousands of prized "normal" undergraduates that can afford to pay higher out-of-state tuition rates). Breaking the Big Ten out of the image that it's a "Midwest conference" is a branding initiative that is athletics-based in the short-term but (at least in theory) will pay off even further academically in the long-term.

Now, not every conference has the same holistic approach to expansion as the Big Ten. Even then, though, I don't see much downside to the P5 moves overall. The SEC moving into the state of Texas is massive regardless of cable TV implications. The ACC enhanced its reach into the populous Northeast in the same manner as the Big Ten. The Pac-12 getting into the Rocky Mountain region was a natural extension (as California residents have been moving heavily to the Interior West over the past decade in the same way that Northerners have been moving to the Sun Belt). You can take cable TV out of the equation for all of those expansion moves and I still think they were good ones overall. The Big 12 is the only one that doesn't look long for this world, but that's more due to its dysfunctional internal politics (which are rooted back in the SWC days) than any expansion decision.

If the model moves to active subscriptions from the mostly passive model of today...

Would Ohio State want to share so nicely with Rutgers for example? Rutgers is super attractive when you ding cable bills for $12 a year. When they have 1/10th the subscribers as Michigan or Ohio State if the model changes to direct.. not so attractive.

I'm not making any prediction and if UConn was in a league I wouldn't waste any time thinking about it.

 

[frankthetank]

When watching Ali/Frazier/Foreman who would have thought 30-40 years later boxing would lose the popularity (ratings). It was the greedy promoters (see P5 commissioners) that destroyed the sport

I see the boxing comparison a lot in predicting the supposed downfall of football, but there are a lot of important distinctions. Individual fighters inherently have limited shelf lives as careers, whereas football popularity is based upon multi-generational fan bases that cheer for certain brands in the NFL and college. Now, that might dissipate over time (in the way that MLB audiences have dissipated), but it's a whole different scenario in comparing the lack of interest in boxing after people like Ali or Tyson leave the scene versus thinking that people will suddenly stop following the Dallas Cowboys or Ohio State. There is also an overall football culture from the youth level through high school and beyond in large populous regions of the country that never existed for boxing even at the very height of its popularity. Once again, that could very well dissipate over time like the popularity of baseball, but it's very different than boxing. I think the decline of the dominating popularity of baseball is a much more instructive for the *possible* future of football (where baseball is still very popular, but no longer the #1 sport).

 

[frankthetank]

If the model moves to active subscriptions from the mostly passive model of today...

Would Ohio State want to share so nicely with Rutgers for example? Rutgers is super attractive when you ding cable bills for $12 a year. When they have 1/10th the subscribers as Michigan or Ohio State if the model changes to direct.. not so attractive.

I'm not making any prediction and if UConn was in a league I wouldn't waste any time thinking about it.

Maybe it's because I'm a Big Ten lifer, but I'm always perplexed when people suggest that this will be the case in the future (and I'm as much of a free marketer as you'll find). The Big Ten has been an equal sharing league for a loooooooooooooong time... long before the existence of the BTN or even the rise of ESPN. When the Big Ten picks its leaders, it's the antithesis of how, say, the Big 12 does things (who needs to cowtow to Texas). The Big Ten leadership has the power to put Ohio State and Michigan in line. In turn, schools like Ohio State and Michigan know where the future lies with respect to their own demographics - they NEED that access to NYC, Chicago and DC in order to continue to be relevant in the future. Schools like Rutgers, Maryland, Illinois, and Indiana matter quite a bit to OSU and Michigan because those schools can't rely upon their own states any longer for students. The distribution of power of much more even within the Big Ten. It's a very different dynamic compared to the Big 12 (where the league's top academic school, biggest national brand name, largest TV market, and best recruiting ground is wrapped up in the single school of the University of Texas) or even the Pac-12 (which still has to rely a lot on the state of California). I understand G5 schools looking (hoping?) for any angle for the P5 schools to start turning against each other, but I don't find that realistic.

 

[Ha Who]

I see the boxing comparison a lot in predicting the supposed downfall of football, but there are a lot of important distinctions. Individual fighters inherently have limited shelf lives as careers, whereas football popularity is based upon multi-generational fan bases that cheer for certain brands in the NFL and college. Now, that might dissipate over time (in the way that MLB audiences have dissipated), but it's a whole different scenario in comparing the lack of interest in boxing after people like Ali or Tyson leave the scene versus thinking that people will suddenly stop following the Dallas Cowboys or Ohio State. There is also an overall football culture from the youth level through high school and beyond in large populous regions of the country that never existed for boxing even at the very height of its popularity. Once again, that could very well dissipate over time like the popularity of baseball, but it's very different than boxing. I think the decline of the dominating popularity of baseball is a much more instructive for the *possible* future of football (where baseball is still very popular, but no longer the #1 sport).

I don't believe football will die, however look at AOL/Time Warner. Bigger is not better. The same greed that brought us King/Arum, brought us Swofford et al. Look at the phone monopoly or big banks. They eventually fail. This experiment will fail.

 

[Rinaldi]

Oh, I agree that we can't just assume linear growth in TV revenue. I just don't think that it's a one-to-one relationship in arguing whether the current conference structure "makes any sense". At least in the case of the Big Ten, the pre-expansion footprint has been in slow-growth mode for the last couple of decades (particularly its very largest states of Illinois, Ohio and Michigan) and that was unlikely going to change. Adding New Jersey and Maryland went beyond just TV dollars (albeit it was the immediate driving factor) - the state of New Jersey and the DC market happen to be top targets for Big Ten schools for recruiting students overall (whether they're athletes or tens of thousands of prized "normal" undergraduates that can afford to pay higher out-of-state tuition rates). Breaking the Big Ten out of the image that it's a "Midwest conference" is a branding initiative that is athletics-based in the short-term but (at least in theory) will pay off even further academically in the long-term.

Now, not every conference has the same holistic approach to expansion as the Big Ten. Even then, though, I don't see much downside to the P5 moves overall. The SEC moving into the state of Texas is massive regardless of cable TV implications. The ACC enhanced its reach into the populous Northeast in the same manner as the Big Ten. The Pac-12 getting into the Rocky Mountain region was a natural extension (as California residents have been moving heavily to the Interior West over the past decade in the same way that Northerners have been moving to the Sun Belt). You can take cable TV out of the equation for all of those expansion moves and I still think they were good ones overall. The Big 12 is the only one that doesn't look long for this world, but that's more due to its dysfunctional internal politics (which are rooted back in the SWC days) than any expansion decision.

Do you think the P5 will become the P4? If so, when? If so, which of the P5 will cease to exist? Or, will two P5 merge and, by default, make P4? Best guess is all I would hope for. Thank you very much.

 

[whaler11]

Maybe it's because I'm a Big Ten lifer, but I'm always perplexed when people suggest that this will be the case in the future (and I'm as much of a free marketer as you'll find). The Big Ten has been an equal sharing league for a loooooooooooooong time... long before the existence of the BTN or even the rise of ESPN. When the Big Ten picks its leaders, it's the antithesis of how, say, the Big 12 does things (who needs to cowtow to Texas). The Big Ten leadership has the power to put Ohio State and Michigan in line. In turn, schools like Ohio State and Michigan know where the future lies with respect to their own demographics - they NEED that access to NYC, Chicago and DC in order to continue to be relevant in the future. Schools like Rutgers, Maryland, Illinois, and Indiana matter quite a bit to OSU and Michigan because those schools can't rely upon their own states any longer for students. The distribution of power of much more even within the Big Ten. It's a very different dynamic compared to the Big 12 (where the league's top academic school, biggest national brand name, largest TV market, and best recruiting ground is wrapped up in the single school of the University of Texas) or even the Pac-12 (which still has to rely a lot on the state of California). I understand G5 schools looking (hoping?) for any angle for the P5 schools to start turning against each other, but I don't find that realistic.

I understand the history. If the dollars dry up a bit and the expense structure is constant - it may become more cannabalistic.

Not only does Rutgers litter their schedule taking away more meaningful games... they have to feee them as well.

 

[frankthetank]

I don't believe football will die, however look at AOL/Time Warner. Bigger is not better. The same greed that brought us King/Arum, brought us Swofford et al. Look at the phone monopoly or big banks. They eventually fail. This experiment will fail.

I don't know if it's an experiment any more than pro sports expansion is/was an "experiment". Some pro sports expansions have been very successful (the NFL is better off having added the AFL teams and the NBA is better off having added the ABA teams, both of which were much more drastic changes compared to what the college conferences have done), while others haven't been as successful (i.e. the Jacksonville Jaguars). The addition of the Jaguars certainly isn't causing the NFL to fail overall even if the league might wish that it had pushed for a new LA stadium harder back in the 1990s. Even if additions like Rutgers, Louisville, et. al turn out to be weak for their conferences in the long-term, that doesn't mean that the impact will cause the overall structure to fail. At worst, they'll be the college equivalents of the Jaguars - sure, the NFL might wish to change that team's situation instantly, but the weakness of that particular franchise isn't dragging down the entire league. I think that there's MUCH more risk in the Big 12's tact of thinking that they can just hold onto larger pieces of a smaller pie (by not expanding) than the actions of the other conferences that are looking to make their respective pies much larger overall.

 

[Kolumbo]

Hasn't boxing more or less evolved into MMA right now? Very popular.
Perhaps the concussions and injuries will have football continue on the path towards making the game safer. The advantage will go to teams with smaller and faster players. And the playing field will start to level off between the Alabama's and the UAB's.....or the other G5 guys.
And just wait until Hurling catches on in the USA.