Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
9 hours ago, bullet said:

Fox 2

FS1 3

ABC 2

ESPN 3

ESPN 2 3

CBS 1

NBC 1

BTN 3

SECN 3

That's at least 21 slots for 42 schools.  And some will be off any given week with 2 byes, so that really gets you to a minimum of 48 schools.  And then there is room for late nights, TH nights, F nights and the ACCN.  Plenty of room for 60-72 schools. 

I really think if you make the top division any smaller than that, you start to weaken ratings.

That's why (well, and of course personal wishcasting) I don't think a Big 10/SEC break off would result in anyone making more money.  If you start marginalizing wide segments of the sport and relegating them to a lower division, those fanbases aren't going to be that interested in watching the higher division.  Right now Big 12 and ACC fans are watching plenty of Big 10 and SEC games, largely because those schools play in the same division and what happens in those leagues can affect your team.  If that goes away, so do those viewers.  And the same thing happens to a lesser extent with Big 10 and SEC fans watching Big 12 and ACC games.  If all of a sudden those schools are all in different divisions where they aren't theoretically playing for the same thing, the amount of viewership outside of one's interest level will go down.  Yeah, the Big 10 and SEC have enough fans to be economically viable without those other fans tuning in, but it's still going to mean lower ratings than what they have today, and there will be no tangible gain as it's not like the Big 10 and SEC are currently sharing anything financially with other leagues.  They're getting a ratings boost from the rest of the country without having to give them really anything in return other than being involved.

On top of all that, these games are going to be on TV.  Even a bottom tier ACC/Big 12 matchup is going to draw more eyeballs than any other programming those networks could put into those slots, and it's cheap to produce.  Why would these networks intentionally devalue their own product to that level?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

All those schools outside the top 50% are contributing views to the top 50%.

If those top 18 were actually sharing money outside their conferences, I'd get it.  They're not.  So what do they gain by refusing to let the others play?  And also, Tony Altimore?  Lulz.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

All those schools outside the top 50% are contributing views to the top 50%.

If those top 18 were actually sharing money outside their conferences, I'd get it.  They're not.  So what do they gain by refusing to let the others play?  And also, Tony Altimore?  Lulz.

What you will see is a 60ish team new league that separates themselves. BIG/SEC will just lead the way for this. They will want to have basketball and baseball as part of it....

Edited by BurntOrange&White
Posted
11 hours ago, bullet said:
Some performance specs, fb & bb: W L % ranked  NCAA  sweet 16
SMU 74                63 54.0%                    2                    2 0
             
Washington St. 74                58 56.1%                    2 1 0
Boise St. 106                36 74.6%                    5 4 0
San Diego St. 86 53 61.9% 1 7 2
Oregon St. 51                79 39.2%                    2 2 1
Fresno St. 64 63 50.4% 1 1 0
Colorado St. 58 71 45.0% 0 3 0
UNLV 49 82 37.4% 1 0 0
             
Memphis 99                43 69.7%                    3 3 0
Connecticut 36 87 29.3% 0 6 2
USF 62                72 46.3% 0 0 0
Temple 62                72 46.3% 2 2 0
East Carolina 54 78 40.9% 0 0 0
Tulane 69 71 49.3% 1 0 0

As my wife would tell our kids when they were young, use your words.  

  • Haha 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, 'stache said:

So is today the day Texas State gets called up?

Apparently the formal invite has been extended and they'll vote it in Monday.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

What you will see is a 60ish team new league that separates themselves. BIG/SEC will just lead the way for this. They will want to have basketball and baseball as part of it....

Yeah, I could see that happening but it still feels totally unnecessary and would create a less entertaining product across the board.

Especially if you have a hoops tournament without mid and low majors.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, I could see that happening but it still feels totally unnecessary and would create a less entertaining product across the board.

Especially if you have a hoops tournament without mid and low majors.

If the scheduling is all done within the 64 teams then it will be more entertaining especially OOC. Nobody enjoys watching FBS teams play FCS, nobody enjoys watching Penn State vs Akron, etc. 

It will mean more money for all the schools IMO.

Posted
8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

If the scheduling is all done within the 64 teams then it will be more entertaining especially OOC. Nobody enjoys watching FBS teams play FCS, nobody enjoys watching Penn State vs Akron, etc. 

It will mean more money for all the schools IMO.

With the G5 getting into the playoffs it makes their conference games more intriguing and there are plenty of entertaining games at the level.

Having Penn State vs Akron in week 3 is worth getting a Boise vs San Diego State Friday night playoff spot on the line banger, IMO.

And you can shore up non-conference schedules without formal relegation or separation.

Posted
39 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Nobody enjoys watching FBS teams play FCS

I disagree. App St vs Michigan was one of the most memorable games in the sport. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Yeah, I could see that happening but it still feels totally unnecessary and would create a less entertaining product across the board.

Especially if you have a hoops tournament without mid and low majors.

a man in a leather jacket is asking is it necessary for me to drink my own urine ?

This stopped being about what was necessary and unnecessary a VERY long time ago.

All about egos and money.  

I agree with Burnt that the ultimate result will end up being 60-64 athletic departments coming together to what is in their own best interest and realistically I recognize the why.

Might not completely agree with it, been through it a couple of times and schools like TCU and ISU are going to have to make some tough choices in the future.  I don't think this will be in the best interest of the professional product either, but these decisions are not going to be made for that purpose.

I will find it funny when a few of the programs that have benefitted for decades as being part of certain conferences get culled and learn what others of us have known for years. 

Posted
36 minutes ago, LTbear said:

I disagree. App St vs Michigan was one of the most memorable games in the sport. 

For that one game you have hundreds upon hundreds of this

 

image.png.0ea6f5818d949287d71076584f86d6c0.png

26 minutes ago, GJ Winne said:

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of this word.

Oh you think I give a fuck about Ohio? They won't be in this so they won't be getting all the money all the schools in the new league structure will get.

Posted
50 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

For that one game you have hundreds upon hundreds of this

 

image.png.0ea6f5818d949287d71076584f86d6c0.png

 

I mean, no shit Sherlock. By definition, generational upsets are rare. But I'd rather have them than not, because they're a fuckload of fun. 

1 hour ago, Lou_Sassle said:

And App st vs aggy.

Wasn't quite the same since they were at least FBS by then, but still a ton of fun of course. 

Posted

The FCS games are for early season warmups or for SEC a November rest week. There are other matchups every week for TV purposes. The networks know the ratings will be low for those games, they would be the ones pressing to stop them if it was a problem. 

Posted
1 hour ago, PGFrog said:

a man in a leather jacket is asking is it necessary for me to drink my own urine ?

This stopped being about what was necessary and unnecessary a VERY long time ago.

All about egos and money.  

I agree with Burnt that the ultimate result will end up being 60-64 athletic departments coming together to what is in their own best interest and realistically I recognize the why.

Might not completely agree with it, been through it a couple of times and schools like TCU and ISU are going to have to make some tough choices in the future.  I don't think this will be in the best interest of the professional product either, but these decisions are not going to be made for that purpose.

I will find it funny when a few of the programs that have benefitted for decades as being part of certain conferences get culled and learn what others of us have known for years. 

It definitely started with money, but I'm starting to wonder if ego is driving the bus.  There are definitely folks who just like the idea of relegation simply out of malevolence.  They want these institutions to suffer.

Posted
20 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It definitely started with money, but I'm starting to wonder if ego is driving the bus.  There are definitely folks who just like the idea of relegation simply out of malevolence.  They want these institutions to suffer.

I think that's just message board stuff. The administrators making the decisions are just looking at the money. If they can make more by excluding others they'll go that direction. If not, they'll be fine with the status quo.

Posted
5 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

50% of all college football viewership comes from only 18 schools,  including FSU : r/fsusports

 

4 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

Fake news. Fake poll. aggy intentionally left out by the BOMC.  Stupid sips.

Right I seem to be missing a "big brand" in college athletics here...

Posted

I've pointed out there are 20 schools who have dominated the top of the rankings going all the way back to 1960.  Of those 18 with 50% of the viewers, only Wisconsin isn't among those top 20.  And the 3 who aren't have been in a slump.  Nebraska and Miami, obviously, were well down most of that period.  Also Colorado, who was 20th of the 20, was really, really down.  Although coach Prime has gotten CU some attention, at least for a while.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, PGFrog said:

As my wife would tell our kids when they were young, use your words.  

Formatting doing odd things yesterday.  I didn't know how to do subscripts and did them without trying!!!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I think that's just message board stuff. The administrators making the decisions are just looking at the money. If they can make more by excluding others they'll go that direction. If not, they'll be fine with the status quo.

Ego to me has been what has prevented the colleges from making effective decisions about the direction of college athletics and what has made them easy prey for the networks.  

The entire joke that college athletics is an amateur sport has been a joke for years and trying to force that idea of the schools, conferences, NCAA, and athletes is largely why we find ourselves where we are right now and not the money.

Money has definitely played a part, but when ATM made Jackie the first $1M head coach that wasn't because that is what it cost for a quality hire no more than Jimbo's contract or than Bama is paying Kalen DeBoer $10M+.  

You have kids in college who come back to their schools and talk about how their facilities in the NFL are less than their college and they don't have all the other little things.  Those aren't truly needed in college, that is all about perception and bravado and hype.

Ego is also getting in the way of schools trying to compete. Perfect example,  there is a debate among the TCU community/alums that in order for TCU to have any chance of getting an invite we have to expand (or actually build one in some people's opinion) the research side of TCU because that is a factor that will academically appeal to the decision makers on TCU's behalf.

All bullshit in my mind. If TCU wants to grow research more power to those who are behind the growth and fund the growth.  However, does any truly believe that if somehow magically TCU became a leader in whatever area of academic research that we are going to be included in whatever this future conglomeration is going to be regardless of the number of eyeballs we bring to the equation? NO!!!! 

So why the push?  In large part because the academics and alums behind the push want to be known as a school about research and academics and not athletics. Worrying what people think of you is nothing more than ego.   

Posted
4 hours ago, GJ Winne said:

Apparently the formal invite has been extended and they'll vote it in Monday.

 

I wish they would just change the name of the conference.  For this shit product to carry the great name of the PAC 8/10/12 is a travesty.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

I wish they would just change the name of the conference.  For this shit product to carry the great name of the PAC 8/10/12 is a travesty.

Less of a travesty than 83% of the membership bailing.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

I wish they would just change the name of the conference.  For this shit product to carry the great name of the PAC 8/10/12 is a travesty.

I mean you and your condom buddies are the ones who destroyed the conference, kind of disingenuous to be bitching about what happens to what you left behind. (no criticism of the decision, money is money).

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, Sbbruin said:

I wish they would just change the name of the conference.  For this shit product to carry the great name of the PAC 8/10/12 is a travesty.

Gonna be a fine product, and if UCLA fans don't like that the PAC lives on maybe they shouldn't have left...

I Lived Text Meme - I lived Text Selfie - Discover & Share GIFs

Posted
1 minute ago, 'stache said:

I mean you and your condom buddies are the ones who destroyed the conference, kind of disingenuous to be bitching about what happens to what you left behind. (no criticism of the decision, money is money).

I know.  I REALLY wish everything had gone down differently.  But Kliavkoff botched the TV deal so badly, after Larry Scott had botched it horrifically the first time, that the conference was doomed.  Or would've been relegated to also ran status.  

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...