Final BE OOC thread 25/26

[nelsonmuntz]

We really need to stop looking at any trend analysis prior to NIL & Portal maturity. I don't get why anyone completely ignores this referring to times prior to. The sport has changed more in the last 3 years than it did in the prior 25.

I agree with this statement, but you are reaching a very wrong conclusion based on this change. You also seem to be deliberately ignoring the financial change of football in the last 3 years.

Football sucks every nickel and more into massive, very expensive rosters. All the TV and athletic department revenue was already accounted for prior to paying players, so paying players is literally $20 million in new spending with no new revenue offset. That is happening at the same time as many of these colleges are walking into major challenges outside of sports. If you think it is easy to make that math work at an athletic department, then you should tell them your secret.

Many of the P4 basketball programs have stopped pretending to try in hoops. The Big East has less revenue, but it also doesn’t have an ungodly massive football overhead at each school pulling millions off the top. The Big East schools are also in major cities with lots of wealth and businesses interested in a new marketing outlet. St. John’s is in New York fudging City, the financial capital of the world. Try raising their NIL in a poor state with few corporations where football has the first, second and third claim on every NIL dollar.

The Big East schools can compete in hoops for now if they want to. We can all doom post about the future, but for now the league is fine.

 

[FightOnCT]

Please stop with Georgetown. Georgetown averages less than 6,000 for home attendance. Just because Georgetown was a national powerhouse 40 years ago means nothing today. Creighton and Marquette have a much better chance to succeed since they actually have fans that care about the program.

They have a composite 5 star, top 20 recruit lined up for next year and had a first round draft pick this past season, talent isn’t an issue. This isn’t a historical analysis, they literally have a path to succeed right now.

 

[KingAG]

We really need to stop looking at any trend analysis prior to NIL & Portal maturity. I don't get why anyone completely ignores this referring to times prior to. The sport has changed more in the last 3 years than it did in the prior 25.

There isn’t any other data or “trends” to look at. According to you NIL settled last season. What tournament “trends” do you have?

 

[RuffRuff]

There isn’t any other data or “trends” to look at. According to you NIL settled last season. What tournament “trends” do you have?

Here is what I think - the most recent and very extreme chalk tourney of last season will be more the trend than prior years. I think in most years we are going to see an elite 8 made up primarily of seeds 1-3.

Top teams will talent load and create super teams that separate using the current system.

They will on average be:

Duke
UNC
Ville
UConn
Purdue
Michigan
MSU
Kansas
Arizona
Houston
Florida
Arkansas
Kentucky
UCLA
Indiana
Gonzaga

These teams will front load.

 

[uconngb]

Here is what I think - the most recent and very extreme chalk tourney of last season will be more the trend than prior years. I think in most years we are going to see an elite 8 made up primary of seeds 1-3.

So because it happened last year it’s going to happen every year going forward. That seems like sound logic. Because that’s exactly how sports works.

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

 

[RuffRuff]

So because it happened last year it’s going to happen every year going forward. That seems like sound logic. Because that’s exactly how sports works.

🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

I just answered above. How is it any different than MLB where franchises with most $ and clout get the best players and win?
There is a consolidation of top talent happening across programs that invest in hoops. There is def more possibilities given 5 man game and some other outliers, but it’s very easy to identify players these days with analytics.

 

[KingAG]

Here is what I think - the most recent and very extreme chalk tourney of last season will be more the trend than prior years. I think in most years we are going to see an elite 8 made up primarily of seeds 1-3.

Top teams will talent load and create super teams that separate using the current system.

They will on average be:

Duke
UNC
Ville
UConn
Purdue
Michigan
MSU
Kansas
Arizona
Houston
Florida
Arkansas
Kentucky
UCLA
Indiana
Gonzaga

These teams will front load.

Okay so this is all just what you “think”. So can you stop appealing to trends and data? Because there are none for the NCAA tournament that yet support what you think will happen.

 

[RuffRuff]

Okay so this is all just what you “think”. So can you stop appealing to trends and data? Because there are none for the NCAA tournament that yet support what you think will happen.

I'm saying old trends/data don't matter, at all. I didn't say there was a lot of trend beyond the most recent season to indicate it's going to happen again. Macro economics would suggest it will lean much harder in that direction - while it won't be that chalk, I'm expecting it to be pretty chalky year over year with much fewer cinderella mid majors. Last year was a REALLY extreme chalk tournament. Those things don't happen without cause.

You had ONE cinderella MM and an Elite 8 made up of 4 one's and 3 two's.

This year I'd be really suprised if the Elite 8 is not made up of the top 14-15 KP teams. There is a severe drop off.

 

[uconngb]

I just answered above. How is it any different than MLB where franchises with most $ and clout get the best players and win?
There is a consolidation of top talent happening across programs that invest in hoops. There is def more possibilities given 5 man game and some other outliers, but it’s very easy to identify players these days with analytics.

Ok you’re right. So let’s just skip the regular season and the 68 team bracket and go straight to the Sweet 16 with all the blue bloods.

Besides you, I don’t think that would make anyone happy.

And Dodgers and Yankees in the World Series every year. Just like this year….,oh, wait

 

[uconngb]

I'm saying old trends/data don't matter, at all. I didn't say there was a lot of trend beyond the most recent season to indicate it's going to happen again. Macro economics would suggest it will lean much harder in that direction - while it won't be that chalk, I'm expecting it to be pretty chalky year over year with much fewer cinderella mid majors. Last year was a REALLY extreme chalk tournament. Those things don't happen without cause.

You had ONE cinderella MM and an Elite 8 made up of 4 one's and 3 two's.

This year I'd be really suprised if the Elite 8 is not made up of the top 14-15 KP teams. There is a severe drop off.

Yup…,so that’s how it will be EVERY YEAR from now on.

You realize how dumb you sound right?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Here is what I think - the most recent and very extreme chalk tourney of last season will be more the trend than prior years. I think in most years we are going to see an elite 8 made up primarily of seeds 1-3.

Top teams will talent load and create super teams that separate using the current system.

They will on average be:

Duke
UNC
Ville
UConn
Purdue
Michigan
MSU
Kansas
Arizona
Houston
Florida
Arkansas
Kentucky
UCLA
Indiana
Gonzaga

These teams will front load.

There is very little next level below this in the P4. Most of those schools are not even trying.

 

[GlastonTim]

There will still be a Cinderella every couple of years. Get hot and win 3 games. It will happen.

 

[navery12]

Ok you’re right. So let’s just skip the regular season and the 68 team bracket and go straight to the Sweet 16 with all the blue bloods.

Besides you, I don’t think that would make anyone happy.

And Dodgers and Yankees in the World Series every year. Just like this year….,oh, wait

Yeah I laughed at that, the MLB has had 9 winners in the last 12 years, and another 7 that lost in the World Series. Not exactly a lack of parity

 

[uconngb]

Yeah I laughed at that, the MLB has had 9 winners in the last 12 years, and another 7 that lost in the World Series. Not exactly a lack of parity

Stupid facts

 

[RuffRuff]

Yeah I laughed at that, the MLB has had 9 winners in the last 12 years, and another 7 that lost in the World Series. Not exactly a lack of parity

How many small market teams are winning the WS these days? Let's see what happens. The sport, like football, is consolidating talent at the top. It's looking more and more professional in nature.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

How many small market teams are winning the WS these days? Let's see what happens. The sport, like football, is consolidating talent at the top. It's looking more and more professional in nature.

You keep trying to have it both ways in this argument.

On one hand, you argue that basketball power is being consolidated to a handful of schools, but when I pointed out that football power is being consolidated to 5-10 programs, you claimed that every P4 had a shot to compete. Huh?

Football is a sport that has historically been dominated by a small number of programs, even before House, It has always been a very expensive sport to run because of the large number of players and coaches, and the fact that in some parts of the country it is much more popular than basketball, so big programs will pay big money to compete in it. With House, the gap is insane, within the P4. When schools like Alabama, Texas and Ohio State are unloading massive dollars into their programs directly and through NIL, how are schools like Mississippi State and Minnesota supposed to compete? The answer is, they aren’t.

College basketball has always been more fragmented because it doesn’t take as many players to win, among other reasons such as skill is more important than pure physical superiority in basketball so talent evaluation is more difficult among the sub superstar players. Also, basketball has historically been more popular in urban areas. Is it really financially worth it for rural state schools in less economically advantaged states to compete when their own fan bases don’t care and their are more claims on their spending because of House? Can a city school in a place like New York City or even Omaha extend its fan and booster base beyond its alumni? It sure appears so, but we will find out.

One development that is unarguable is that many of the P4 programs appear to be willing to settle for less in both basketball and football, in some cases a lot less.

Yet your argument seems to be that Big East bad, literally everyone else good. None of the big trends seem to matter, just conference affiliation.

 

[RuffRuff]

You keep trying to have it both ways in this argument.

On one hand, you argue that basketball power is being consolidated to a handful of schools, but when I pointed out that football power is being consolidated to 5-10 programs, you claimed that every P4 had a shot to compete. Huh?

Football is a sport that has historically been dominated by a small number of programs, even before House, It has always been a very expensive sport to run because of the large number of players and coaches, and the fact that in some parts of the country it is much more popular than basketball, so big programs will pay big money to compete in it. With House, the gap is insane, within the P4. When schools like Alabama, Texas and Ohio State are unloading massive dollars into their programs directly and through NIL, how are schools like Mississippi State and Minnesota supposed to compete? The answer is, they aren’t.

College basketball has always been more fragmented because it doesn’t take as many players to win, among other reasons such as skill is more important than pure physical superiority in basketball so talent evaluation is more difficult among the sub superstar players. Also, basketball has historically been more popular in urban areas. Is it really financially worth it for rural state schools in less economically advantaged states to compete when their own fan bases don’t care and their are more claims on their spending because of House? Can a city school in a place like New York City or even Omaha extend its fan and booster base beyond its alumni? It sure appears so, but we will find out.

One development that is unarguable is that many of the P4 programs appear to be willing to settle for less in both basketball and football, in some cases a lot less.

Yet your argument seems to be that Big East bad, literally everyone else good. None of the big trends seem to matter, just conference affiliation.

I thought when you said compete you meant only the new super conference setup. I’d agree with you there. In fact I’d say that it may be less that that. I get what you’re saying.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I give college sports less than a 50% chance to survive as a major sport/entertainment choice 10 years from now, for the reasons discussed in this thread.

My advice is to enjoy the present and not worry too much about the future.

 

[RuffRuff]

I give college sports less than a 50% chance to survive as a major sport/entertainment choice 10 years from now, for the reasons discussed in this thread.

My advice is to enjoy the present and not worry too much about the future.

Doubt it - football will be bigger than ever simply consolidated into areas/cultures that it thrives in, while the rest of the country watches.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Doubt it - football will be bigger than ever simply consolidated into areas/cultures that it thrives in, while the rest of the country watches.

Show me a sport that massively contracted franchises without destroying the sport. Are you going to transfer your allegiance to Alabama or Ohio State? Buy gear of those schools? Pay for a streaming subscription to watch their games?

Maybe you know more than every professional sports league, because they are always looking for ways to expand their fan bases, not contract them.

 

[RuffRuff]

Show me a sport that massively contracted franchises without destroying the sport. Are you going to transfer your allegiance to Alabama or Ohio State? Buy gear of those schools? Pay for a streaming subscription to watch their games?

Maybe you know more than every professional sports league, because they are always looking for ways to expand their fan bases, not contract them.

No, but I don’t have a college football team anyway. This isn’t the core region for it. You go middle America and things shift fast.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

No, but I don’t have a college football team anyway. This isn’t the core region for it. You go middle America and things shift fast.

The surest way to get Michigan and Ohio State football fans to stop caring about the sport is to get everyone else to stop caring about the sport. They aren’t playing for a national championship if the nation doesn’t care who wins.

The NFL and NBA figured this out. We will see if college athletics does.

 

[RuffRuff]

The surest way to get Michigan and Ohio State football fans to stop caring about the sport is to get everyone else to stop caring about the sport. They aren’t playing for a national championship if the nation doesn’t care who wins.

The NFL and NBA figured this out. We will see if college athletics does.

These ratings go up year over year - I highly doubt we see a juncture where that fanbase just drops off dude to a consolidation. The powers that be are not that dumb.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

These ratings go up year over year - I highly doubt we see a juncture where that fanbase just drops off dude to a consolidation. The powers that be are not that dumb.

Either the leadership of the SEC and Big 10 are right, or the NFL and NBA are right. Both groups can’t be right.

 

[RuffRuff]

Either the leadership of the SEC and Big 10 are right, or the NFL and NBA are right. Both groups can’t be right.

The way I see it, the top 10-15 brands in college FB have already dominated the scene for years, not sure if a squeeze would deter interest.

It's basically the top half of the SEC, Michigan/OSU/Oregon & USC, and Clemson.