DawgNBama
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
Posts: 8,375
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 456
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US |
The real future of televising CFB
I had been kind of depressed with all the talk of a college superconference lately until I ran across this gem in a thread I started a while back...
(09-06-2018 09:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (09-06-2018 01:26 PM)JRsec Wrote: (09-06-2018 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote: (09-06-2018 11:00 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: (09-06-2018 08:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote: So what if the A5 left the NCAA and set up their own organization with no G5?
Seems like Wedge is right and you are playing some semantics here. You want a situation where, if Ohio State is participating in a football playoff of some kind, schools like UCF and Troy and North Texas (G5) have to have access to it as well. If they don't like that and try to secede from it, you presumably would want to prevent it. So you are trying to force Ohio State to play in a playoff system.
I don't think that would happen.
I don't think so either, and for the same reason - the A5 likes having the G5 around as cupcakes to pad the win total.
But we were talking hypothetically, as in "what if the G5 made a serious legal or legislative push to compel the A5 to create a playoff with guaranteed access to all Division I schools", also something that isn't going to happen.
IMO, these hypotheticals arise because of forum "cabin fever". E.g., some of these forums are filled with posters who hate the A5, think it is a major crime that UCF didn't make the playoffs, think UCF has every right to claim a national title, and that what happened with UCF last year exposed the fraudulent/farcical nature of the CFP. They think college football is "broken" unless G5 have guaranteed access to the playoffs.
Truth is, that is an echo-chamber effect. In reality, in the broader college football community, the "UCF situation" hasn't had any effect at all. There is essentially zero impetus in the sports media, among fans generally, or among the governing institutions to give the G5 a guaranteed spot in playoffs. The overwhelming mass of the college football community regards the CFP as the determinant of the national champion, and there is zero push there, or in the courts or congress, to open access to the G5. This past weekend, there was all kinds of talk on the various ESPN/CBS/FOX/NBC broadcasts of CFP implications of this game or that, about whether Alabama will repeat as national champs, etc. but zero talk about UCF and whether the playoffs are 'fair' to the G5. Nobody cares.
But if you are immersed in the culture of a forum where everyone is outraged like you are, it's easy to lose sight of that.
What everybody misses Quo, is that breakaway won't be started by the A5. They are the payees. It will be started by the payers. They are the ones who want every time slot to be ideally filled by two brands playing one another because they are the only ones with the myopic goal of maximizing the # of potential viewers. They see LSU/Miami numbers and want that every week for games mid afternoon and prime time at night. They'll put the Auburn/Vandy, Ohio State/Purdue games on the conference networks and do the Minnesota/Wisconsin and Miss State/Kentucky games at noon.
They are the ones who have been paying for consolidation. They are the ones setting up the opening week neutral site games. They are the ones who run the CFP, and they are the ones constantly pushing for more conference games among the A5.
It doesn't take a clairvoyant to see where we are headed. There will be fewer and fewer A5/G5-FCS games. The FCS games are going away. 10 conference games will be eventually here, and then the G5 will have been essentially manipulated out. With at most 1 A5 game on their schedules any formula that includes SOS will place them out of the CFP consideration which quite frankly it already does in practice if not in actual computations.
Who came up with the CFP formula? It sure as hell wasn't the A5! There is tremendous frustration among the fans of the G5 but it is misdirected. The A5 merely dances for the coins the networks toss. They have no agenda against the G5. The entities that have created the massive TV revenue gap between the G5 and A5, and who justify that gap by their metrics (ratings), and who write the checks, and who profit by more brand on brand games, they are the culprits. And when they push for more conference games exclusive to the A5 and use a SOS for CFP inclusion that is based on their SOS formula which is tied to the number of A5 games played, and that formula excludes the G5 based on the paucity of A5 games on their schedules, then you have the party who is truly responsible for the divide between the G5 and A5 within the FBS.
The issue for this board is that posters from the A5 are much easier to reach for the purposes of expressing hostility than are network executives. So just like with a dysfunctional family if the boss gives you a hard time at work, you scream at your spouse, who yells at the kids, who kick the dog. And none of it accomplishes a damned thing. Changing employers, or acknowledging your boss is a jerk and not taking it out on your spouse are your only productive options.
If the G5 want to protest they should boycott ESPN and FOX and ABC and CBS etc.
That is why I have great sympathy for their plight, but little tolerance for their misdirected hostility.
Are you implying the P5 dances when told to?
Well you are right. When the BCS was being put together the bowl directors were fine with the Big East not being a part of it. Television made that call.
Television and the major bowls want nothing to do with the G5 group. It was the AQ who created a a way in. It was the AQ who modified it to make it easier to bust. When the CFP came along the P5 offered a larger share than the G5 had come to the meeting to demand.
The power 5, autonomous 5 or whatever you want to call them understand that "the enterprise" of college athletics needs more than just the 65 highest profile programs to be healthy.
Most aren't located in a large metro where a Thursday night game doesn't have a notable impact on attendance.
The donation revenue is nuts. People don't write $5 million checks to put their name on stuff, even a lower tier FBS like AState has a received more than one $5 million check.
Last year over one fourth of the P5 attained a .500 or better record for the season and had a losing record vs P5 schools. Keeping a stable of schools to bolster the brands of the power five is just good business. In the CFP the entire group of five has been priced at 88% of the value of a single P5 league.
TV does what TV does but ticket sales, donations, and sponsorships are still a bigger revenue source compared to TV and as those of us in the G5 know all too well, as non-standard playing dates increase you imperil ticket revenue and the donations that are often tied to the right to purchase those seats and if attendance becomes an issue you risk the value of those video board ads and sponsor signs around the stadium.
Now do I think playing four non-P5 games is going to be the norm? No. I think we will see more trending to only playing two but that won't be an easy transition because it means more home/home because I think opening week showed we are pushing to edge of viability for the big neutral sites games.
If you read this, and combine it with this:
(09-06-2018 11:25 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (09-06-2018 10:16 PM)JRsec Wrote: (09-06-2018 09:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote: (09-06-2018 01:26 PM)JRsec Wrote: (09-06-2018 11:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote: I don't think so either, and for the same reason - the A5 likes having the G5 around as cupcakes to pad the win total.
But we were talking hypothetically, as in "what if the G5 made a serious legal or legislative push to compel the A5 to create a playoff with guaranteed access to all Division I schools", also something that isn't going to happen.
IMO, these hypotheticals arise because of forum "cabin fever". E.g., some of these forums are filled with posters who hate the A5, think it is a major crime that UCF didn't make the playoffs, think UCF has every right to claim a national title, and that what happened with UCF last year exposed the fraudulent/farcical nature of the CFP. They think college football is "broken" unless G5 have guaranteed access to the playoffs.
Truth is, that is an echo-chamber effect. In reality, in the broader college football community, the "UCF situation" hasn't had any effect at all. There is essentially zero impetus in the sports media, among fans generally, or among the governing institutions to give the G5 a guaranteed spot in playoffs. The overwhelming mass of the college football community regards the CFP as the determinant of the national champion, and there is zero push there, or in the courts or congress, to open access to the G5. This past weekend, there was all kinds of talk on the various ESPN/CBS/FOX/NBC broadcasts of CFP implications of this game or that, about whether Alabama will repeat as national champs, etc. but zero talk about UCF and whether the playoffs are 'fair' to the G5. Nobody cares.
But if you are immersed in the culture of a forum where everyone is outraged like you are, it's easy to lose sight of that.
What everybody misses Quo, is that breakaway won't be started by the A5. They are the payees. It will be started by the payers. They are the ones who want every time slot to be ideally filled by two brands playing one another because they are the only ones with the myopic goal of maximizing the # of potential viewers. They see LSU/Miami numbers and want that every week for games mid afternoon and prime time at night. They'll put the Auburn/Vandy, Ohio State/Purdue games on the conference networks and do the Minnesota/Wisconsin and Miss State/Kentucky games at noon.
They are the ones who have been paying for consolidation. They are the ones setting up the opening week neutral site games. They are the ones who run the CFP, and they are the ones constantly pushing for more conference games among the A5.
It doesn't take a clairvoyant to see where we are headed. There will be fewer and fewer A5/G5-FCS games. The FCS games are going away. 10 conference games will be eventually here, and then the G5 will have been essentially manipulated out. With at most 1 A5 game on their schedules any formula that includes SOS will place them out of the CFP consideration which quite frankly it already does in practice if not in actual computations.
Who came up with the CFP formula? It sure as hell wasn't the A5! There is tremendous frustration among the fans of the G5 but it is misdirected. The A5 merely dances for the coins the networks toss. They have no agenda against the G5. The entities that have created the massive TV revenue gap between the G5 and A5, and who justify that gap by their metrics (ratings), and who write the checks, and who profit by more brand on brand games, they are the culprits. And when they push for more conference games exclusive to the A5 and use a SOS for CFP inclusion that is based on their SOS formula which is tied to the number of A5 games played, and that formula excludes the G5 based on the paucity of A5 games on their schedules, then you have the party who is truly responsible for the divide between the G5 and A5 within the FBS.
The issue for this board is that posters from the A5 are much easier to reach for the purposes of expressing hostility than are network executives. So just like with a dysfunctional family if the boss gives you a hard time at work, you scream at your spouse, who yells at the kids, who kick the dog. And none of it accomplishes a damned thing. Changing employers, or acknowledging your boss is a jerk and not taking it out on your spouse are your only productive options.
If the G5 want to protest they should boycott ESPN and FOX and ABC and CBS etc.
That is why I have great sympathy for their plight, but little tolerance for their misdirected hostility.
Are you implying the P5 dances when told to?
Well you are right. When the BCS was being put together the bowl directors were fine with the Big East not being a part of it. Television made that call.
Television and the major bowls want nothing to do with the G5 group. It was the AQ who created a a way in. It was the AQ who modified it to make it easier to bust. When the CFP came along the P5 offered a larger share than the G5 had come to the meeting to demand.
The power 5, autonomous 5 or whatever you want to call them understand that "the enterprise" of college athletics needs more than just the 65 highest profile programs to be healthy.
Most aren't located in a large metro where a Thursday night game doesn't have a notable impact on attendance.
The donation revenue is nuts. People don't write $5 million checks to put their name on stuff, even a lower tier FBS like AState has a received more than one $5 million check.
Last year over one fourth of the P5 attained a .500 or better record for the season and had a losing record vs P5 schools. Keeping a stable of schools to bolster the brands of the power five is just good business. In the CFP the entire group of five has been priced at 88% of the value of a single P5 league.
TV does what TV does but ticket sales, donations, and sponsorships are still a bigger revenue source compared to TV and as those of us in the G5 know all too well, as non-standard playing dates increase you imperil ticket revenue and the donations that are often tied to the right to purchase those seats and if attendance becomes an issue you risk the value of those video board ads and sponsor signs around the stadium.
Now do I think playing four non-P5 games is going to be the norm? No. I think we will see more trending to only playing two but that won't be an easy transition because it means more home/home because I think opening week showed we are pushing to edge of viability for the big neutral sites games.
In the end it will be 1 game against a non A5, or A4 by then. The G5 game will likely be a pre season game and the A5 schedules will likely consist of 10 conference games and 2 OOC games against other A5 schools. How soon? By the end of the next TV contracts, so probably past my time. Expect an added conference game and a shrinkage of non A5 games to 3 by 2025. Then another goes by the wayside with a consolidation into an A4 which could also occur by 2025, but possibly as late as 2034.
Shrinking state revenue will take a toll over the next couple of decades and the larger enrollments that most A5 schools are presently building to support will take another bite out of state revenues for smaller schools.
Toss in a shrinking market for college football and it is not inconceivable that 12 A5 games and one preseason to make for that 7th home game in the ticket books is upon us.
And neither the NCAA nor the A5 will have taken a hand in this. More revenue offered by the corporate overlords who have manipulated all of this will be the impetus for this.
College football in 1992 was a sleepy cottage industry rife only with tradition before it was hostilely taken over, reshaped for market, not fan, appeal, and now trimmed down with further trimming to come to make it fit the time slots with games mathematically selected to maximize advertising revenue.
And I never suggest. But I do soft sell things people don't want to hear.
Could the colleges cave and create a super league? Sure things happen.
But consider soccer in Europe. The English Premier League makes more per team than any sports league other than the NFL despite the entire UK having roughly 20% of the population of the US. The German and Spanish leagues generate more per team than the NHL or Formula One.
For a number of years television has pushed for the elite teams of the UK and Europe to create a mega league eliminating the dregs at the bottom of the leagues. Depending on the estimate you like the mega league could be worth 110% to 150% of the NFL per team value. With the stroke a pen the owners of the teams could see their annual revenue rise anywhere from 38% to 88% and reduce their labor costs by cutting out the lesser teams currently sharing revenue reducing the number of teams able to afford to compete for talent. They would eliminate the relegation risk as well.
All in all they could follow the pied piper of television and overnight greatly increase their profitability yet they continually rebuff those overtures.
Television is just a piece of the pie.
We are due a shake out because the higher ed market is changing. We've seen it before. We had schools shut down football after they ran out of post-war GI bill students and again when the boomer peak left college age and the draft deferral system changed. We saw colleges close. In Arkansas we had three go bust in short-order that were saved by being folded into the UA system.
In the university system, shared governance complicates matters and until we reach a point where more schools are pouring athletic money over into academics a pure dollar driven system is going to be problematic and frankly there just ain't much to gain for TV or the schools to pare it all down. Television pays G5 primarily to fill slots that the power programs don't want, either because of non-standard start times or because of the reach of the outlet.
,
it's actually quite interesting. I do believe JR is indeed correct that ESPN does indeed want a superconference in the NCAA. There's too much evidence that points directly to that. The real question is can ESPN actually pull it off??
Good example of Disney's aims and what they had to settle for:
Disney wanted to buy out Fox and get their regional sports stations. What actually happened?? Disney wound up with Fox Studios, some stakes in some overseas tv networks, and that's about it, because they have been forced to sell the regional networks by decree of the FCC.
I see Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, etc. starting to put some pressure on ESPN a little at a time. They'll probably first go for the pro leagues, and then they'll start looking at the NCAA. I can see Fox selling out to one of Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, and I can see the Pac 12 and even the Big 12 going to the losers of the Fox sale. That is going to make ESPN re-evaluate its position, IMO. Cord-cutting is going to have an effect on the NCAA and the pro leagues, but I don't believe it's going to anything like it's been predicted to be. TV and cable are here to stay, IMO, because people are familiar with it and they like it. But people like alternatives also, and I see cord-cutting presenting folks with options.
I believe eventually all of the G5 is going to have multiple tv/streaming contracts so that their games are shown nationwide, but at the same time, it won't have too much of a negative impact on their gameday attendance and their donor base. Right now, we're not at the point, IMO, but soon we will be.
(This post was last modified: 11-01-2018 02:33 AM by DawgNBama.)
|
|
/
The real future of televising CFB
