The Next Shocks | Page 3 | The Boneyard

The Next Shocks

hank970 said:
I know that Kentucky ranks lower than UConn in most undergraduate academic metrics, and I didn't claim otherwise. But kids in Kentucky and other states are still more likely to choose their state flagships and other nearby institutions over higher ranked out-of-state schools, including UConn. In addition, some students are attracted to a school because it excels in a particular discipline -- geology, for example, or environmental science, or physics, or aeronautical engineering, or architecture, or creative writing. In which areas of study is UConn so superior that it would attract students away from their home states?

If you think that UConn is better equipped to weather the coming demographic storm than those other schools because it might rank higher on USN&WR (and it doesn't when compared to many), then you'll have to come up with a more persuasive argument than your feeble ad hominem attacks on my understanding of the situation. I note with considerable interest that UConn's endowment and its research activity don't compare favorably with a lot of seemingly inferior institutions, even with those of UK.
Expand ...
Actuarial Science
 
hank970 said:
I know that Kentucky ranks lower than UConn in most undergraduate academic metrics, and I didn't claim otherwise. But kids in Kentucky and other states are still more likely to choose their state flagships and other nearby institutions over higher ranked out-of-state schools, including UConn. In addition, some students are attracted to a school because it excels in a particular discipline -- geology, for example, or environmental science, or physics, or aeronautical engineering, or architecture, or creative writing. In which areas of study is UConn so superior that it would attract students away from their home states?

If you think that UConn is better equipped to weather the coming demographic storm than those other schools because it might rank higher on USN&WR (and it doesn't when compared to many), then you'll have to come up with a more persuasive argument than your feeble ad hominem attacks on my understanding of the situation. I note with considerable interest that UConn's endowment and its research activity don't compare favorably with a lot of seemingly inferior institutions, even with those of UK.
Expand ...

Because why go to the home state school if another school is just better? It doesn't need to be 100% of the students making this choice. It needs to be maybe 20%, and the school will go into a doom loop. The overhead and infrastructure at many of these schools is so big that unwinding it becomes almost impossible.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Because why go to the home state school if another school is just better? It doesn't need to be 100% of the students making this choice. It needs to be maybe 20%, and the school will go into a doom loop. The overhead and infrastructure at many of these schools is so big that unwinding it becomes almost impossible.
Expand ...
Cost is a huge factor. Many public universities charge less tuition for instate students than out of state. I know Michigan universities do. I don’t know the instate tuition of Kentucky and the out of state tuition of UConn, but that could be a huge deciding factor.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Because why go to the home state school if another school is just better? It doesn't need to be 100% of the students making this choice. It needs to be maybe 20%, and the school will go into a doom loop. The overhead and infrastructure at many of these schools is so big that unwinding it becomes almost impossible.
Expand ...

Because of the basketball and football teams, or because mom and dad or some cousin went there. Is that not a huge part of why all this conference stuff is playing out this way? Bread and circus and branding and all that? Maybe they won’t be pumping out Rhodes scholars but they’ll gladly find room for Eastern Kentucky or Bowling Green’s best prospective students.
 
hank970 said:
I know that Kentucky ranks lower than UConn in most undergraduate academic metrics, and I didn't claim otherwise. But kids in Kentucky and other states are still more likely to choose their state flagships and other nearby institutions over higher ranked out-of-state schools, including UConn. In addition, some students are attracted to a school because it excels in a particular discipline -- geology, for example, or environmental science, or physics, or aeronautical engineering, or architecture, or creative writing. In which areas of study is UConn so superior that it would attract students away from their home states?

If you think that UConn is better equipped to weather the coming demographic storm than those other schools because it might rank higher on USN&WR (and it doesn't when compared to many), then you'll have to come up with a more persuasive argument than your feeble ad hominem attacks on my understanding of the situation. I note with considerable interest that UConn's endowment and its research activity don't compare favorably with a lot of seemingly inferior institutions, even with those of UK.
Expand ...


Kentucky will be fine. If anything, students in the past that could not get into Kentucky and went to Western Kentucky, Eastern Kentucky, etc. will go to Kentucky in the future. It will be the non-flagships that suffer the most. They might have to make some budget cuts at some point, and maybe they decrease total student enrollment, but they will exist and they will be a basketball school. Just like UConn.
 
.-.
I think some modest revenue sharing among a large number of programs is not out of the question. The Big 10 and SEC are smart enough to know that no one will care about a "championship" of just two leagues that have less than a total of 40 schools between them.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
6.A) Prestige Universities - One area that is worth addressing is that there are several schools who do not get as much out of affiliating with what is becoming a minor league as other schools do. While I am sure they like the checks, Northwestern and Vanderbilt derive very little value in terms of student interest from their athletic programs getting stomped by pro teams. They did not try to compete in the pre-NIL/Transfer Portal world, and they certainly are not going to bid up to bring in the caliber of free agents necessary to win against Michigan or Alabama. These schools can afford to compete, they just don't want to because that is not how they generate their real money, which is alumni donations.

I was surprised that Cal and Stanford did not take the lead on this, but we may need one or two of the other shocks to the system to happen first before the prestige universities break off to form their own league. I think Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, Cal, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Stanford, Miami, Rice, Tulane, Boston College and maybe some wildcard like the University of Chicago could form a league of likeminded schools. It would still be possible to compete nationally in basketball out of a league like that, but those teams wouldn't have to take the poundings in football, and their alumni would LOVE it. Notre Dame would commit felonies to get its hoop programs and Olympic sports into that league. I think this league would probably turn away 20+ applicants. I am a little surprised it has not happened yet.

This is related to #6 above in that these schools spend millions on branding themselves as exclusive, premier educational institutions, and playing Mississippi State or even Florida State on Saturdays does not help with that branding at all.
Expand ...

 
nelsonmuntz said:
2) The final death throes of the bundled cable model - Iger, who is one of the Top 10 CEOS of the 21st century so far, has gotten DIS way up since the beginning of the year, in part because the market thinks ESPN's DTC Streaming model is going to be a hit. It might be, or it might not, but no matter how successful it is, it will be a very different product than ESPN's linear business. A DTC Streaming business needs a broad spectrum of content. Alabama/LSU will still get good numbers, but nothing like it used to without the best time slots on cable, and one game does not drive the number of subscriptions that ESPN needs to get to make a DTC model work. We already have a lot of data on this through the existing content streamers, where content has fragmented to viewer tastes. This changes what streamers are willing to pay for, and how much they will pay for it.

2.A) I don't see how ESPN does not migrate to a performance-based payment model eventually, where schools are paid based on subscriptions they bring, not based on their conference affiliation. The Apple offer to the Pac 12 is what TV deals are going to look like in the future. This will have an impact on conference composition.

2.B) Games are the Product, not the Teams - I think there will be a major re-evaluation of the Frankenconferences that have been formed with unrelated, far flung teams that casual fans do not care about. I would not be surprised if the conferences re-evaluated scheduling to focus on getting games fans want rather than random games in the name of "competition". 90% of the teams in the major conferences are not playing for a national championship, so getting games fans of those teams want is a priority to keep them engaged.
Expand ...



I will put this story here, because it is a sign of how rapidly the linear cable model, on which the entire conference structure of college sports is based, is declining. WBD is cutting loose all its cable channels into what is likely to be a company in a death spiral. The cable channels are essentially worthless in a streaming world. HBO, which is the crown jewel, will probably get scooped up by Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or maybe one of the traditional media companies.
 
nelsonmuntz said:

I will put this story here, because it is a sign of how rapidly the linear cable model, on which the entire conference structure of college sports is based, is declining. WBD is cutting loose all its cable channels into what is likely to be a company in a death spiral. The cable channels are essentially worthless in a streaming world. HBO, which is the crown jewel, will probably get scooped up by Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or maybe one of the traditional media companies.
Expand ...

HBO isn't part of the spin off global networks company:

The streaming and studios company will include HBO and HBO Max, along with Warner Bros. Television and Motion Picture Group, DC Studios, Warner Bros. Games, and other related assets.

The global networks company will house CNN, TNT Sports, Discovery, Discovery+, Bleacher Report, and a portfolio of free-to-air and digital channels across more than 200 countries and territories.
 
nelsonmuntz said:

I will put this story here, because it is a sign of how rapidly the linear cable model, on which the entire conference structure of college sports is based, is declining. WBD is cutting loose all its cable channels into what is likely to be a company in a death spiral. The cable channels are essentially worthless in a streaming world. HBO, which is the crown jewel, will probably get scooped up by Amazon, Apple, Netflix, or maybe one of the traditional media companies.
Expand ...
Comcast (NBC) announced the same a while ago. Comcast is keeping NBC and Bravo along with the Universal theme parks and studios. USA, Oxygen, E!, Syfy, MSNBC, CNBC, Golf Channel and probably others are being spun off into a new public company some time in 2025.

Disney's move would be the most interesting for sports. You have to imagine they're on the clock.
 
Rufus said:
HBO isn't part of the spin off global networks company:

The streaming and studios company will include HBO and HBO Max, along with Warner Bros. Television and Motion Picture Group, DC Studios, Warner Bros. Games, and other related assets.

The global networks company will house CNN, TNT Sports, Discovery, Discovery+, Bleacher Report, and a portfolio of free-to-air and digital channels across more than 200 countries and territories.
Expand ...

No spit. That is why I broke out HBO separately. Global Networks is a bunch of useless cable assets with the exception of CNN, which may end up as a trophy purchase for some billionaire.
 
.-.
Chuck said:
Comcast (NBC) announced the same a while ago. Comcast is keeping NBC and Bravo along with the Universal theme parks and studios. USA, Oxygen, E!, Syfy, MSNBC, CNBC, Golf Channel and probably others are being spun off into a new public company some time in 2025.

Disney's move would be the most interesting for sports. You have to imagine they're on the clock.
Expand ...

I get the value of news and sports in a streaming world. News obviously has live value, and specialized news channels like CNBC will always have value, and may even have more value in streaming. I often have a business news channel up on one of my screens while I am working.

I have no idea what USA, Oxygen or Syfy do. USA's model of broadcasting syndicated reruns made sense on linear cable, but anyone who has Peacock, Paramount and Hulu can watch most shows they want anytime they want. Why would they watch reruns with advertisements at a scheduled time?

I get the value of sports, although I expect the content providers to ultimately control the streaming of their own content without the intermediary taking much out of the value chain. Sports will obviously retain value because watching them live is important, but the value some teams had in linear, i.e. the ability to draw viewers to big names, has declined when fans can watch exactly the team they want to watch. As I have said earlier in this thread and in other threads, channel dial real estate is worthless in streaming. The ESPN 3:30 game or Fox 8 pm slot does not hold as much sway as it did just a few years ago. Casual viewers can watch exactly what they want, they don't have to accept whatever game they are being force fed by ESPN or Fox.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I have no idea what USA, Oxygen or Syfy do.
Expand ...
There is no value. That's why they are being dumped. I think Bravo is the only one with profitable content and NBC kept it with the Network and theme parks.

I'm assuming the only reason the network part of the companies are more profitable is that they own the IP. They'll keep the new stuff for themselves and hope to get the occasional hit. But the shows that can be streamed on Hulu, Netflix, etc. are also still the network's property (unless already sold, like Seinfeld) and they get paid well by the streaming services. That could explain why NBC kept Bravo. You can't sell reruns of CNBC/MSNBC, but they can sell the Bravo content.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Everyone is focused on TV contracts and the consolidation of the P2 over time. I expect one or more of these things to happen in the next 5 years:

1) Gambling scandal - This is almost certainly going to happen. It is too easy to get to the players and gamblers are all over sports for it not to happen, and when it happens, it will be in big games because those games have enough action to hide suspicious betting. There were already some odd looking NCAA Tournament games, and football is easier to fix than basketball because there are less scoring events. A safety "missing" one assignment late in the 4th quarter that results in a touchdown would make a big difference in a 24-20 game where one team is a 6 point favorite. That a scandal will occur is easy to predict. College sports' reaction is much more difficult.

2) The final death throes of the bundled cable model - Iger, who is one of the Top 10 CEOS of the 21st century so far, has gotten DIS way up since the beginning of the year, in part because the market thinks ESPN's DTC Streaming model is going to be a hit. It might be, or it might not, but no matter how successful it is, it will be a very different product than ESPN's linear business. A DTC Streaming business needs a broad spectrum of content. Alabama/LSU will still get good numbers, but nothing like it used to without the best time slots on cable, and one game does not drive the number of subscriptions that ESPN needs to get to make a DTC model work. We already have a lot of data on this through the existing content streamers, where content has fragmented to viewer tastes. This changes what streamers are willing to pay for, and how much they will pay for it.

2.A) I don't see how ESPN does not migrate to a performance-based payment model eventually, where schools are paid based on subscriptions they bring, not based on their conference affiliation. The Apple offer to the Pac 12 is what TV deals are going to look like in the future. This will have an impact on conference composition.

2.B) Games are the Product, not the Teams - I think there will be a major re-evaluation of the Frankenconferences that have been formed with unrelated, far flung teams that casual fans do not care about. I would not be surprised if the conferences re-evaluated scheduling to focus on getting games fans want rather than random games in the name of "competition". 90% of the teams in the major conferences are not playing for a national championship, so getting games fans of those teams want is a priority to keep them engaged.

3) Litigation - this is a catch all, but historically litigation has driven most major changes in college athletics, most recently the Alston case. The problem for college sports is that the plaintiff almost always wins. I can not think of the last serious anti-trust lawsuit against college sports that was not successful. The FSU/Clemson cases are the next canaries in the coal mine, but there will be more. Until now, schools were reluctant to sue each other. The Big East lawsuit from 2002 did garner negative publicity for the plaintiffs, even if it was successful in keeping the Big East's BCS bid for 10 more years. Now, schools are hurling lawsuits at each other as if the publicity doesn't matter, because it doesn't.

This increased willingness to sue by schools is bad news for the P2 and good news for everyone else. I think we are within 5 years of the first anti-trust lawsuit where one or more G5 or left-behind P5 schools sue the P-Whatever for anti-trust violations, and the plaintiffs are almost certainly going to win. The only way I see this not happening is the P2 paying more money to and sharing more access with the other D1 schools.

3.A) Not so much litigation, as college sports needs some kind of legal framework to operate, because right now it has none, and is a lawsuit away from players being able to switch teams at halftime. College sports is pleading for Congress to step in, and I don't see another way to fix this problem. This issue is too big and amorphous to predict exactly how it will work, so let's just assume it will work itself out somehow.

4) The P2 Breaks Away - Despite the fact that it will almost certainly lose an anti-trust case if it does this, it is possible that the P2 still breaks away because large incumbents blowing up a good thing by making reckless cash grabs has happened in business since the Phoenicians.

5) FSU/Clemson - This could break up the ACC, and whatever happens is certain to generate more litigation, including (ironically) a tortious interference lawsuit by the ACC against whatever league FSU and Clemson try to join. The weird thing about this lawsuit is that it feels like the parties are fighting over FSU's and Clemson's desire for a bigger share of the linear cable revenue stream that is ending soon anyway. I also feel like the existing ACC contract could look pretty good in 5 years. This is one of the weirder litigations I have ever paid attention to.

6) Demographic Cliff and College Attendance - Higher education is in the first inning of a seismic change that could wipe out 20-30% or more of universities in the next decade or two. This is a huge issue and is happening a lot faster than most educational experts expected. This issue is so massive and complex that it is hard to address on a sports message board, and some posters make it political and I don't want to get this thread locked. Let's just put a pin in this and say it is a massive issue.

6.A) Prestige Universities - One area that is worth addressing is that there are several schools who do not get as much out of affiliating with what is becoming a minor league as other schools do. While I am sure they like the checks, Northwestern and Vanderbilt derive very little value in terms of student interest from their athletic programs getting stomped by pro teams. They did not try to compete in the pre-NIL/Transfer Portal world, and they certainly are not going to bid up to bring in the caliber of free agents necessary to win against Michigan or Alabama. These schools can afford to compete, they just don't want to because that is not how they generate their real money, which is alumni donations.

I was surprised that Cal and Stanford did not take the lead on this, but we may need one or two of the other shocks to the system to happen first before the prestige universities break off to form their own league. I think Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, Cal, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Stanford, Miami, Rice, Tulane, Boston College and maybe some wildcard like the University of Chicago could form a league of likeminded schools. It would still be possible to compete nationally in basketball out of a league like that, but those teams wouldn't have to take the poundings in football, and their alumni would LOVE it. Notre Dame would commit felonies to get its hoop programs and Olympic sports into that league. I think this league would probably turn away 20+ applicants. I am a little surprised it has not happened yet.

This is related to #6 above in that these schools spend millions on branding themselves as exclusive, premier educational institutions, and playing Mississippi State or even Florida State on Saturdays does not help with that branding at all.
Expand ...
No doubt you are an intelligent fellow but I do not think some of your assertions about an alliance of "like minded schools" would ever originate. I went to HS in Georgia and we always knew back then anyway that Georgia Tech and Emory University were the two best schools in the state. Georgia Tech has been the 3rd best engineering school in the nation after MIT and Caltech and the only one of those that has a very significant athletic program especially in football. They have had a lot of historic success and are not a Johnny come lately like Florida State which rode in on the coattails of one great coach, Bobby Bowden. They also have a significant amount of debt like a number of the schools in the Big 10 among others. They will be content to take $45 million + per year for as long as that is coming. Ironically, after Clemson and Florida State clamored for more $$$ due to name brand recognition, I understand that Georgia Tech football garnered the most TV eyeballs in 2024 due to their week 1 victory over number 10 Florida State in Ireland and their week 12 eight overtime loss to then number 7 UGA. Talk about "the law of unintended consequences"!
 
Last edited:
nelsonmuntz said:
6.A) Prestige Universities - One area that is worth addressing is that there are several schools who do not get as much out of affiliating with what is becoming a minor league as other schools do. While I am sure they like the checks, Northwestern and Vanderbilt derive very little value in terms of student interest from their athletic programs getting stomped by pro teams. They did not try to compete in the pre-NIL/Transfer Portal world, and they certainly are not going to bid up to bring in the caliber of free agents necessary to win against Michigan or Alabama. These schools can afford to compete, they just don't want to because that is not how they generate their real money, which is alumni donations.

I was surprised that Cal and Stanford did not take the lead on this, but we may need one or two of the other shocks to the system to happen first before the prestige universities break off to form their own league. I think Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, Cal, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, Stanford, Miami, Rice, Tulane, Boston College and maybe some wildcard like the University of Chicago could form a league of likeminded schools. It would still be possible to compete nationally in basketball out of a league like that, but those teams wouldn't have to take the poundings in football, and their alumni would LOVE it. Notre Dame would commit felonies to get its hoop programs and Olympic sports into that league. I think this league would probably turn away 20+ applicants. I am a little surprised it has not happened yet.

This is related to #6 above in that these schools spend millions on branding themselves as exclusive, premier educational institutions, and playing Mississippi State or even Florida State on Saturdays does not help with that branding at all.
Expand ...

Why would Vandy want out of the SEC?

They are competitive in most sports. (Baseball was #1 before gagging in the tourney.)
Their FB team gets marquee opponents and occasionally a bowl bid.
Their sporting events are on national TV that everyone can see.
And they get a boatload of money.

If you want to go to a great academic school and watch A-level college sports, there's few better options than Vandy, which surely helps applications.
 
The Yakk said:
Expensive private schools that offer educations no better than one could get at a state school are the most vulnerable.
Expand ...

For years I've been saying I dont know how mediocre expensive small schools survive. Not only do they not offer something unique, but they don't have the scale to manage costs.
 
Vowelguy said:
For years I've been saying I dont know how mediocre expensive small schools survive. Not only do they not offer something unique, but they don't have the scale to manage costs.
Expand ...
I guess it depends on what "mediocre" is and if you are comparing to in-state or out-of-state costs. My kid is at a private school and it's costing us a chunk ($28k) more than UConn would've been for him out-of-state (he was never going to go to our state school). Is it mediocre? Depends on the definition. But we saved enough that it's really not hurting our lifestyle. Many private schools with good endowments also give out a lot of merit money to even the cost to an out of state public school.

I do agree that there are private schools that seem to be hanging on by a thread without good student support or post-grad results. The kid would probably be better off at a non-flagship in-state U that costs the same or less. Even some schools we've heard of seem to be entering troubled waters and it could be hard to come back.

I'd recommend people look at funding/debt/endowment information about private schools. For example Forbes puts out a list of grades for private schools. Schools above a C+ are most likely fine (some moved into the Bs because of debt for projects), but if your school is in the C- / D range (no school got an F), I'd be wary. It may not be around for long, or services will probably take a hit for existing students.
 
.-.
Chuck said:
I guess it depends on what "mediocre" is and if you are comparing to in-state or out-of-state costs. My kid is at a private school and it's costing us a chunk ($28k) more than UConn would've been for him out-of-state (he was never going to go to our state school). Is it mediocre? Depends on the definition. But we saved enough that it's really not hurting our lifestyle. Many private schools with good endowments also give out a lot of merit money to even the cost to an out of state public school.

I do agree that there are private schools that seem to be hanging on by a thread without good student support or post-grad results. The kid would probably be better off at a non-flagship in-state U that costs the same or less. Even some schools we've heard of seem to be entering troubled waters and it could be hard to come back.

I'd recommend people look at funding/debt/endowment information about private schools. For example Forbes puts out a list of grades for private schools. Schools above a C+ are most likely fine (some moved into the Bs because of debt for projects), but if your school is in the C- / D range (no school got an F), I'd be wary. It may not be around for long, or services will probably take a hit for existing students.
Expand ...

For me,
Expensive woud be >$50k
Mediocre would be there are available public schools with the same quality and amenities.

Bennington in Vermont would prob be a decent example. It used to be the most expensive school in the country and it's nothing special. It still is $65k.
 
Vowelguy said:
For me,
Expensive woud be >$50k
Mediocre would be there are available public schools with the same quality and amenities.

Bennington in Vermont would prob be a decent example. It used to be the most expensive school in the country and it's nothing special. It still is $65k.
Expand ...
Good example. Bennington is always one semester and one benefactor away from closing. Gets a D on that Forbes list.

EDIT: I just learned that Peter Dinklage is a 91 grad to Bennington. Doesn't change the health of the school, but it gives it some street cred.
 
Last edited:
Chuck said:
I guess it depends on what "mediocre" is and if you are comparing to in-state or out-of-state costs. My kid is at a private school and it's costing us a chunk ($28k) more than UConn would've been for him out-of-state (he was never going to go to our state school). Is it mediocre? Depends on the definition. But we saved enough that it's really not hurting our lifestyle. Many private schools with good endowments also give out a lot of merit money to even the cost to an out of state public school.

I do agree that there are private schools that seem to be hanging on by a thread without good student support or post-grad results. The kid would probably be better off at a non-flagship in-state U that costs the same or less. Even some schools we've heard of seem to be entering troubled waters and it could be hard to come back.

I'd recommend people look at funding/debt/endowment information about private schools. For example Forbes puts out a list of grades for private schools. Schools above a C+ are most likely fine (some moved into the Bs because of debt for projects), but if your school is in the C- / D range (no school got an F), I'd be wary. It may not be around for long, or services will probably take a hit for existing students.
Expand ...
I specifically looked at the endowment per student ratio as one criteria when my kids were narrowing their choices. Obviously different between public and private, but still provides a good benchmark. My kids ended up undergrad/grad at Reed/Duke and Hamilton/Northwestern.
 
Chuck said:
Good example. Bennington is always one semester and one benefactor away from closing. Gets a D on that Forbes list.

EDIT: I just learned that Peter Dinklage is a 91 grad to Bennington. Doesn't change the health of the school, but it gives it some street cred.
Expand ...

Justin Theroux too
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,617
Messages
4,530,117
Members
10,404
Latest member
RussellHall


Top Bottom