whaler11
Head Happy Hour Coach
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,364
- Reaction Score
- 68,239
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?
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?