Here’s a bombshell | Page 17 | The Boneyard

Here’s a bombshell

HooperScooper said:
Chris Gasper of the Boston Globe is a very good writer. Smart guy. Worth a read.

But it feels like we could be entering the French Revolution “Reign of Terror” phase of the college sports revolution. Too much change, too fast without a coherent vision and planning can descend into chaos. Not everyone is going to survive with their heads.

Now is a good time for the cooler heads among school presidents, athletic directors, conference commissioners, television partners, and what’s left of the toothless NCAA to unite and plot out a long-term vision for college sports.

Even mercenaries will work together if it’s in their best interest.

Right now, everyone involved is just scrambling for the last lifeboat off the Titanic. No one is plotting the big picture.

College football and basketball, American passions, are too big to fail. But if they become too big or too hard to follow with the typical fervor and allegiance, harm could come to the head of the golden goose.

In college sports, too much change is happening too fast​

Expand ...
Too big to fail?

I don't think enough people realize that schools have forecast how much money they're going to take in and they've spent accordingly.

If the golden goose dies, there's going to be implosions everywhere at these universities.

Someone of these schools owe half a billion dollars.

Good luck.
 
Step 1: Find the most prestigious, highest paid president in the BIG
Step 2: Offer to double their salary
Step 3: Stand back and watch

This may sound crazy, but with an athletic budget in the red, the school would be doing itself a favor to throw down some $$$ on a President with some clout. Just my 2 cents
 
upstater said:
Who said anything abut academic prestige?

Cincy and Houston? I mean... no, they are not strong in any sense of the word.
Expand ...
Then what's your argument that the Pac is stronger than the Big 12? Iowa State, K-State, Baylor and Oklahoma State are all better on field/court programs than Arizona, Cal, Stanford and recent vintage Colorado. Arizona has basketball, it's the KU of the Pac while not being quite as good at basketball.

Washington and Oregon are legit top tier athletic performers. Nobody else left in the Pac is (Utah has a very good football team right now, but that's somewhat unusual). Cal is massive and prestigious, and Stanford is prestigious. You'd think they'd have some value.

It's not at all clear how this will play out.
 
On field/on court doesn't matter. It's about the TV value. Iowa State, K-State and Baylor bring little. Baylor also brings a cringe factor for some college presidents given the various scandals. Ultimately the shell that can promise the most money will win out. Oregon/ Washington/ Stanford/ Utah/ Colorado/ Arizona/ Arizona State all have superior tv value to the Big XII teams. Take the first three of those teams away and it becomes dicey, but ultimately it'll come down to which conference shell can get more money on a per team basis. That shell will pick the top teams it wants from the other.
 
ScottVib said:
On field/on court doesn't matter. It's about the TV value. Iowa State, K-State and Baylor bring little. Baylor also brings a cringe factor for some college presidents given the various scandals. Ultimately the shell that can promise the most money will win out. Oregon/ Washington/ Stanford/ Utah/ Colorado/ Arizona/ Arizona State all have superior tv value to the Big XII teams. Take the first three of those teams away and it becomes dicey, but ultimately it'll come down to which conference shell can get more money on a per team basis. That shell will pick the top teams it wants from the other.
Expand ...
But you'd be wrong about which programs do better on TV. Latest data I could find was 2020-21. Oregon and Washington are a given. I'd admit the absolute best conference they can build would leave some of the Pac and some Big 12 teams out. But that seems unlikely unless the ACC raids one of them.


A different list
Which college football programs bring in the most TV viewers?
 
That data is very matchup dependent (and old at this point, as it's actually a survey of data from 2015-19, although a one year view of 2020-21 would be even less valuable as it's even more heavily skewed by the schedule that year). If that was the full measure then you'd argue that Washington State is getting completely hosed, after all they're #39, more valuable than UNC, any school from the 4 corners grouping, multiple SEC teams, etc. Big XII teams in that timeframe are getting boosted by games with Oklahoma & Texas.

The real value of the team comes out what portion of those numbers that team in particular draws. You're nuts if you think Washington State draws the 39th most views, they just happened to have a run of years where they were facing desirable opponents in the weeks where the Pac-12 window was available for them on one of the major networks. Schools like the 4 corners grouping get hurt by the fact that their games in that timeframe corresponded to windows on lessor networks or lessor opponents.

Those are valuations we can guess at though data like this, market size, alumni-base etc, but ultimately are held closely by network and conference partners. Holding that data out as proof is far from definitive.
 
.-.
HuskyHawk said:
Then what's your argument that the Pac is stronger than the Big 12? Iowa State, K-State, Baylor and Oklahoma State are all better on field/court programs than Arizona, Cal, Stanford and recent vintage Colorado. Arizona has basketball, it's the KU of the Pac while not being quite as good at basketball.

Washington and Oregon are legit top tier athletic performers. Nobody else left in the Pac is (Utah has a very good football team right now, but that's somewhat unusual). Cal is massive and prestigious, and Stanford is prestigious. You'd think they'd have some value.

It's not at all clear how this will play out.
Expand ...
P12 are state schools, much bigger markets, and totally disagree about Iowa St and K State being better on field/court than the P12 schools.
 
There are a lot of articles out there about how “football is dying” in the U.S. and the data is real. Less kids playing youth football, ratings have decreased over the past few years. These colleges hitching their future to college FB tv revenue are playing with fire. It might be a boom for the next 10-15 years, but 30 years out it could be an absolute disaster. That being said, I’d rather be in the BIG long term. There’s going to have to be some NIL changes and caps in place because otherwise all but 30-40 schools are going to be priced out completely.
 
Jbirdp5 said:
March madness is the best tournament in all of sports and a huge money maker, you have to think the powers that be would keep that event the same no?
Expand ...
But who does it make money for?

They don't care about it being "March Madness", they want the money. The NCAA keeps the majority of the hoops tournament money now.

If they create something outside the NCAA, then all the money goes to the conferences, which is exactly what the current College Football Playoff does.

It's a double wammy for the the breakaway conferences. They get to make their own rules and negotiate directly with TV and they cripple the NCAA cash cow which decreases it's already eroding power
 
gsmooth said:
exactly. I just posted a minute ago, as I am originally from NYC, I can certainly attest to the fact that New York City and the metro area fans' attention to Rutgers sports is nil.
Expand ...

How long has it been since you've been back? In North Jersey there are a ton of block red R magnets on cars. Similarly, Seton Hall has a lot of those same magnets on cars as well.

NYC - you're right nobody cares, but to say it's the same in NJ is patently false.
 
bobbyinaz said:
But who does it make money for?

They don't care about it being "March Madness", they want the money. The NCAA keeps the majority of the hoops tournament money now.

If they create something outside the NCAA, then all the money goes to the conferences, which is exactly what the current College Football Playoff does.

It's a double wammy for the the breakaway conferences. They get to make their own rules and negotiate directly with TV and they cripple the NCAA cash cow which decreases it's already eroding power
Expand ...
The money from March Madness goes to the schools.
 
superjohn said:
The money from March Madness goes to the schools.
Expand ...
It also funds the NCAA, almost in its entirety. They may get some money from the football playoff now.
 
.-.
Hurleyman216 said:
There are a lot of articles out there about how “football is dying” in the U.S. and the data is real. Less kids playing youth football, ratings have decreased over the past few years. These colleges hitching their future to college FB tv revenue are playing with fire. It might be a boom for the next 10-15 years, but 30 years out it could be an absolute disaster. That being said, I’d rather be in the BIG long term. There’s going to have to be some NIL changes and caps in place because otherwise all but 30-40 schools are going to be priced out completely.
Expand ...
It's not a highly skilled sport so I don't think it will lose popularity. I know kids play a lot of youth football these days but half of our HS team came in having never played organized ball.

On the other hand, we used to play sandlot football frequently, and I almost never see kids doing that anymore.

I'm only saying that a dropoff in abilities will not have substantial impact.
 
UConnRock said:
Need to go back to that time of having a hybrid Big East with a mix of football and basketball schools. Duke, Louisville, BC, UConn, Wake, Ga Tech, Syracuse, and Va Tech are the football schools that I can think would fit. Then just keep the Catholics for a great basketball conference.

Although my general thought is that Pitt and Louisville will be scooped up by the Big 12
Expand ...
Oh yeah, that’ll fly with the Catholics.
 
upstater said:
It's amazing that you can't understand the history.

Paterno wanted to create a northeastern conference even before the BE started discussions in 78. They negotiated with Penn State and Rutgers, but Paterno made demands that were pissed people off. Only after that was Seton Hall invited.

4 years later PSU came back, and they brought Rutgers, Maryland and West Virginia with tehm.

There appears to be some confusion about the vote since Paterno has said Pitt and Syracuse voted against him, Crouthamel has also let it out that Syracuse voted against them, but Tranghese countered that and said Syracuse voted for them
Expand ...
Penn State was never invited in the formation of the the BE. Didn’t happen and you can’t find one thing that proves it, except whatever you have made up in your head.
 
Last edited:
Hurleyman216 said:
There are a lot of articles out there about how “football is dying” in the U.S. and the data is real. Less kids playing youth football, ratings have decreased over the past few years. These colleges hitching their future to college FB tv revenue are playing with fire. It might be a boom for the next 10-15 years, but 30 years out it could be an absolute disaster. That being said, I’d rather be in the BIG long term. There’s going to have to be some NIL changes and caps in place because otherwise all but 30-40 schools are going to be priced out completely.
Expand ...
Only a matter of time before this bubble bursts.
 
FriarJ said:
Penn State was never invited in the formation of the the BE. Didn’t happen and you can’t find one thing that proves it, except whatever you have made up in your head.
Expand ...
This is absolutely no mystery among PSU fans, but I know it from a person who THERE when it happened. And I've know about this since I sat across from this person (not Paterno himself) at a dinner in 1992. Before Gavitt, G'town and Syracuse ever got together, Paterno had already laid the groundwork for an all football conference in 1977. This is totally different than the all sports conference he was trying to organize in 1981. One of the first calls Crouthamel placed was to Paterno and PSU (he actually went to the AD at the time who was not really up on things, and he passed it to the pres.). The whole idea behind bringing PSU in was that Paterno had the head start on creating a conference and they wanted to bring him in. They very well knew he had sway with schools like BC and Rutgers. This isn't even a mystery. And Paterno is on record as saying he screwed this initial attempt up because he didn't read the tea leaves correctly by focusing on a football only conference.
 
upstater said:
This is absolutely no mystery among PSU fans, but I know it from a person who THERE when it happened. And I've know about this since I sat across from this person (not Paterno himself) at a dinner in 1992. Before Gavitt, G'town and Syracuse ever got together, Paterno had already laid the groundwork for an all football conference in 1977. This is totally different than the all sports conference he was trying to organize in 1981. One of the first calls Crouthamel placed was to Paterno and PSU (he actually went to the AD at the time who was not really up on things, and he passed it to the pres.). The whole idea behind bringing PSU in was that Paterno had the head start on creating a conference and they wanted to bring him in. They very well knew he had sway with schools like BC and Rutgers. This isn't even a mystery. And Paterno is on record as saying he screwed this initial attempt up because he didn't read the tea leaves correctly by focusing on a football only conference.
Expand ...
I need to make sure I understand where you are coming from. Are you saying that Gavitt invited PSU initially before the BE was a thing to be part of his basketball conference? That has never been written is a single place anywhere, and Gavitt nor Tranghese ever mentioned it.
 
.-.
ConnHuskBask said:
How long has it been since you've been back? In North Jersey there are a ton of block red R magnets on cars. Similarly, Seton Hall has a lot of those same magnets on cars as well.

NYC - you're right nobody cares, but to say it's the same in NJ is patently false.
Expand ...
Only people that care about RU are graduates. Seeing a block R means nothing except that person went to school there
 
FriarJ said:
I need to make sure I understand where you are coming from. Are you saying that Gavitt invited PSU initially before the BE was a thing to be part of his basketball conference? That has never been written is a single place anywhere, and Gavitt nor Tranghese ever mentioned it.
Expand ...
It has been written about in Pennsylvania newspapers, but I heard it from the President of PSU.

There was never a formal invite, but the 3 of them knew that Paterno was trying to put together an all football conference and he had some of the football schools in his pocket including Maryland and Rutgers. The 3 of them brought Paterno in to discuss PSU joining. I bet it was Crouthamel who understood that PSU was a block to creating the BE and needed to be brought in so that Rutgers and BC could join. In the PA newspapers in which this was recounted, the story was about Paterno regretting that he pushed for all football instead of all sports. Paterno thinks this was his mistake in '77 and '78. He thinks he would have had all these schools in an all sports conference if he had only offered them that with revenue sharing.

This is the backdrop. The key player was Syracuse because Syracuse was more intimately knowledgeable about Rutgers and BC and what they thought of their football programs relative to PSU.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
Well good luck finding one who isn’t.
Expand ...
No need to have a Rutgers fight. I'm also a resident. There are plenty of casual Rutgers fans that aren't alums in my area (north NJ / Taylor Ham). But die hards with a block R are hard to find in my area if they aren't an alum or at least a parent of alums or current students. And we only have a couple of '22 grads going to RU in the fall. I probably know more non-alum Seton Hall fans in town. But I know non-alums that have settled in central NJ (if you believe there is a central NJ) that are big fans because they can get to games so easily. I know at least one even has a Block R on his car!

But isn't that a problem for a lot of Northeast schools? I know plenty of people in Connecticut whose kids went to schools that are no better than UConn because they wanted to get away. Same with people in Mass, Maryland, etc. There's little chance my kids will be going to Rutgers. It's why tv markets are probably going to mean less over time.

Rutgers won the lottery on the timing of its admission. NJ doesn't have a market. Half is part of the NYC market and the other half is Philly. It's also heavily and densely populated. The Big Ten wanted that flag pole regardless of the flag that was flying on it. I got the Big Ten network on my standard cable package whether I wanted it or not. But so did people in Manhattan. But streaming is only going to get more popular. Popular content is going to rule. Your popularity can be due to lots of homestate / alum fans, or from high quality content. Rutgers would probably look different to the Big 10 today, but they're in. All my opinion of course.
 
People that think the B1G and SEC are expanding further, tell me why they would add a school whose TV value is less than the median member of their current conference.

As far as I can tell, that would be just diluting the current per school value. Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA are all in that tier of being more valuable than the bottom half of those top conferences.

But who is left that actually fits that criteria? Notre Dame obviously. And then? Oregon? Clemson & North Carolina probably, but that pesky GOR.

I don't see these super conferences forming. It doesn't serve the interests of the schools that are in there right now from the available options.
 
The guy is verified but he covers swimming…trying not to get my hopes up
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,309
Messages
4,562,611
Members
10,458
Latest member
Richardhurt


Top Bottom