Thoughts on the Portal, NIL and expanded CFP world | The Boneyard

Thoughts on the Portal, NIL and expanded CFP world

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,220
Reaction Score
33,097
The transfer thread was turning into a discussion of how the transfer portal and NIL were going to impact college football. I think that is a very interesting discussion. Here are a few things I think are going to happen:

1) All of these things will feed off each other. Expanded access to the CFP will lead to more NIL for second and third tier programs and make more programs viable for top players out of the transfer portal. This is already happening in basketball.

2) Talent is going to get dispersed. Players will need to get on the field to really get paid, and they will be less willing to sit out their careers on the bench at Clemson or Alabama. UConn may not get players from Alabama and Clemson, but Florida and South Carolina and Tennessee will, and probably Pitt and Virginia too, and then we will get some of the players that would have gone to Pitt and Virginia. Because who wants to sit on the bench? I think this will be less pronounced in basketball since basketball players are smarter about finding playing time in the recruiting process than football players are.

3) People need to stop conflating TV money with a local corporate and alumni base's willingness to provide NIL. There may be a correlation, but those two things are not a cause and effect. I think urban schools are going to have a big advantage in the NIL world, even if they do not have a massive TV contract at this particular moment.

4) The SEC was the best conference in college football for the last 10+ years because its schools were willing to cheat at a level that other schools were not. That era is over because paying players is not cheating anymore. Throw in the transfer portal, and expanded access to the CFP absolutely balancing the playing field among at least the P5 schools, and that will eventually filter down to TV contracts. Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC and USC and UCLA to the Big 10 will look like bad, reactive decisions, within 5 years.

5) A streaming world will reward programs for playing interesting games that fans care about, not filling their schedule with a bunch of random "conference" partners that fans will be indifferent to. I do not think USC and UCLA will be in the same conference with all of Rutgers, Iowa, Minnesota and Indiana in 10 or 15 years. Something will happen to shake that up. Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC and USC and UCLA to the Big 10 will not age well. In a streaming world, people do not even know what channel they are watching, and they are not stuck watching whatever game ESPN or CBS put on the TV. They are looking for specific games.

6) I don't know what Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt and Stanford will do. They have massive endowments and all the resources they need to compete with any program, but they think of their competition as Ivy League, New York University, University of Chicago and Rice, not Mississippi State, Minnesota and Arizona State. If I had to bet, I think the super-elite academic D1 programs will drop down a level or reorganize into a league with each other at some point.

7) Some winners and losers:

Losers: The era of Alabama and Clemson dominance is over, and a school like Auburn is probably never returning to being a perennial Top 10 program and will be lucky to occasionally pop into the Top 20. I think the Mississippis, LSU, Oklahoma State and Arkansas will have problems. Rural state schools in poor states are not going to be great destinations in a world where every school can pay players, get on TV, and compete for a national championship.

On the other hand, Texas will become a dominant program in the new environment unless its athletic program is run by idiots. It is in a wealthy city, the school has a huge alumni base and lots of corporate support, and it is Texas. Florida could be one too. Georgia, Michigan and Ohio State should do very well in both major sports.

Pitt, TCU, Minnesota, BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, Arizona State, Washington, Virginia and North Carolina are all positioned to do very well. They are all in or near big or mid-sized cities with lots of wealthy people and corporations. In several cases there is not a full complement of pro teams in those cities so the college program will become the de facto pro team. I think all the Big East schools will do well in the NIL world, as will UConn.
 

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
11,996
Reaction Score
18,536
The transfer thread was turning into a discussion of how the transfer portal and NIL were going to impact college football. I think that is a very interesting discussion. Here are a few things I think are going to happen:

1) All of these things will feed off each other. Expanded access to the CFP will lead to more NIL for second and third tier programs and make more programs viable for top players out of the transfer portal. This is already happening in basketball.

2) Talent is going to get dispersed. Players will need to get on the field to really get paid, and they will be less willing to sit out their careers on the bench at Clemson or Alabama. UConn may not get players from Alabama and Clemson, but Florida and South Carolina and Tennessee will, and probably Pitt and Virginia too, and then we will get some of the players that would have gone to Pitt and Virginia. Because who wants to sit on the bench? I think this will be less pronounced in basketball since basketball players are smarter about finding playing time in the recruiting process than football players are.

3) People need to stop conflating TV money with a local corporate and alumni base's willingness to provide NIL. There may be a correlation, but those two things are not a cause and effect. I think urban schools are going to have a big advantage in the NIL world, even if they do not have a massive TV contract at this particular moment.

4) The SEC was the best conference in college football for the last 10+ years because its schools were willing to cheat at a level that other schools were not. That era is over because paying players is not cheating anymore. Throw in the transfer portal, and expanded access to the CFP absolutely balancing the playing field among at least the P5 schools, and that will eventually filter down to TV contracts. Oklahoma and Texas to the SEC and USC and UCLA to the Big 10 will look like bad, reactive decisions, within 5 years.

5) A streaming world will reward programs for playing interesting games that fans care about, not filling their schedule with a bunch of random "conference" partners that fans will be indifferent to. I do not think USC and UCLA will be in the same conference with all of Rutgers, Iowa, Minnesota and Indiana in 10 or 15 years. Something will happen to shake that up. Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC and USC and UCLA to the Big 10 will not age well. In a streaming world, people do not even know what channel they are watching, and they are not stuck watching whatever game ESPN or CBS put on the TV. They are looking for specific games.

6) I don't know what Northwestern, Duke, Vanderbilt and Stanford will do. They have massive endowments and all the resources they need to compete with any program, but they think of their competition as Ivy League, New York University, University of Chicago and Rice, not Mississippi State, Minnesota and Arizona State. If I had to bet, I think the super-elite academic D1 programs will drop down a level or reorganize into a league with each other at some point.

7) Some winners and losers:

Losers: The era of Alabama and Clemson dominance is over, and a school like Auburn is probably never returning to being a perennial Top 10 program and will be lucky to occasionally pop into the Top 20. I think the Mississippis, LSU, Oklahoma State and Arkansas will have problems. Rural state schools in poor states are not going to be great destinations in a world where every school can pay players, get on TV, and compete for a national championship.

On the other hand, Texas will become a dominant program in the new environment unless its athletic program is run by idiots. It is in a wealthy city, the school has a huge alumni base and lots of corporate support, and it is Texas. Florida could be one too. Georgia, Michigan and Ohio State should do very well in both major sports.

Pitt, TCU, Minnesota, BYU, Cincinnati, UCF, Arizona State, Washington, Virginia and North Carolina are all positioned to do very well. They are all in or near big or mid-sized cities with lots of wealthy people and corporations. In several cases there is not a full complement of pro teams in those cities so the college program will become the de facto pro team. I think all the Big East schools will do well in the NIL world, as will UConn.
I agree with most of this, but CFP expansion will lead to 3-5 SEC teams in the field a year. The talent may disperse but I think it will do so throughout the SEC and B1G primarily.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,220
Reaction Score
33,097
If the rules appear to hurt the Power 5, the rules will be changed almost immediately.

I think there are a handful of schools, like Memphis, Boise, SDSU, and UConn, still outside of the P5 that will be able to and have the desire to commit.

I think the dispersion of talent will be unavoidable unless there is a return to requiring athletes to sit a year. Athletes are going to want to play.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,220
Reaction Score
33,097
I agree with most of this, but CFP expansion will lead to 3-5 SEC teams in the field a year. The talent may disperse but I think it will do so throughout the SEC and B1G primarily.

Give me the argument for why kids would prefer to sit for Iowa than play at Arizona State.
 

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
11,996
Reaction Score
18,536
Give me the argument for why kids would prefer to sit for Iowa than play at Arizona State.
The B1G ten will likely get at a minimum 3 bids a year; the Pac-12 is likely getting 1-2 at best. More opportunity.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
5,027
Reaction Score
19,819
If the rules appear to hurt the Power 5, the rules will be changed almost immediately.
I did some checking in the portal today. It seems like the greatest number of entries right now are coming from schools with coaching changes, P5 schools with issues such as recent coaching changes or difficult seasons or didn't make the playoffs. As you would expect, the 4 schools in the CFP have a total of 6 players in the portal. I would expect another bump in the portal numbers after teams play their bowl games as the portal is open until January 18th. Here are some examples:

The 4 CFP schools:
Michigan 4
Ohio St. 2
Georgia 0
TCU 0

Schools with coaching changes:
Stanford 16
Wisconsin 9
Auburn 10
Nebraska 10
Arizona St. 10
Colorado 8
Louisville 8

Schools with coaching changes last year:
Oregon 10
Miami 11
Virginia Tech 9

Schools not making the CFP that normally do:
Alabama 12
Clemson 8

Schools with performance problems:
Texas A&M 15
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,220
Reaction Score
33,097
The B1G ten will likely get at a minimum 3 bids a year; the Pac-12 is likely getting 1-2 at best. More opportunity.

So kids want more opportunity not to play football?
 

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
11,996
Reaction Score
18,536
So kids want more opportunity not to play football?
If you play for a B1G school you have a greater percentage chance of making the field than a Pac-12 school.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
926
Reaction Score
2,067
It's difficult to have a conversation about the future of college sports without including pay for play.

The B1G Commissioner is already on record saying it is something that needs to be addressed and that players will likely be paid in some way.


"Those (paying players) are things we have to resolve," Warren said. "We have to. So I want to be part of this conversation and will be part of this conversation of what we can do to make this better."

This where the P2 can really leverage their revenue advantage.

Would the "pay" be enough for kids to be willing to sit at Iowa rather than play for free at ASU? Maybe.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,220
Reaction Score
33,097
It's difficult to have a conversation about the future of college sports without including pay for play.

The B1G Commissioner is already on record saying it is something that needs to be addressed and that players will likely be paid in some way.


"Those (paying players) are things we have to resolve," Warren said. "We have to. So I want to be part of this conversation and will be part of this conversation of what we can do to make this better."

This where the P2 can really leverage their revenue advantage.

Would the "pay" be enough for kids to be willing to sit at Iowa rather than play for free at ASU? Maybe.

Who said that player is playing for free at ASU? He might make less, but I can promise that if the Big 10 starts paying players, other leagues will do it too.

Also, once the revenue hits the school, it is the school's revenue, not the players' or the coaches' or anyone else's. How the school chooses to spend its revenue is dependent on a lot of factors, beyond just the athletic department.

Anyone who has taken Game Theory can map this out to either a distributed talent pool across schools, or the NBA and NFL step in with their own minor league, smashing the Big 10. There is no long-term solution where the Big 10 and SEC dominate college sports as a P2.

It is amusing that the "P2" is probably like the 6th different "this is the final outcome of college sports" in my lifetime. We live in a dynamic, and for now, free market where people are constantly competing with each other and it never ends. At least not in my lifetime.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,220
Reaction Score
33,097
If you play for a B1G school you have a greater percentage chance of making the field than a Pac-12 school.

I don't understand what you are saying here. The argument has been presented that the P2 will get all the good players. I pointed out that the competitive dynamic would indicate that some good players would rather play for a "lesser" team than sit for a "better" team. By some good players making this decision, which team is lesser and which team is better could switch.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
926
Reaction Score
2,067
Who said that player is playing for free at ASU? He might make less, but I can promise that if the Big 10 starts paying players, other leagues will do it too.

Also, once the revenue hits the school, it is the school's revenue, not the players' or the coaches' or anyone else's. How the school chooses to spend its revenue is dependent on a lot of factors, beyond just the athletic department.

Anyone who has taken Game Theory can map this out to either a distributed talent pool across schools, or the NBA and NFL step in with their own minor league, smashing the Big 10. There is no long-term solution where the Big 10 and SEC dominate college sports as a P2.

It is amusing that the "P2" is probably like the 6th different "this is the final outcome of college sports" in my lifetime. We live in a dynamic, and for now, free market where people are constantly competing with each other and it never ends. At least not in my lifetime.
Why would the NFL spend any money to create it's own minor league system when it already has a free one in place?
 

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
11,996
Reaction Score
18,536
I don't understand what you are saying here. The argument has been presented that the P2 will get all the good players. I pointed out that the competitive dynamic would indicate that some good players would rather play for a "lesser" team than sit for a "better" team. By some good players making this decision, which team is lesser and which team is better could switch.
My point is that some players will move to the Pac-12, Big 12, ACC, or even top-end AAC or MWC schools but many will stay in the SEC and/or B1G as those leagues will have more spots in the field. A kid at Iowa is more likely to make the playoff than a kid at Arizona State as Iowa only have to be the 3rd best B1G team to get in the field; Arizona State likely has to win the Pac-12.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,220
Reaction Score
33,097
Why would the NFL spend any money to create it's own minor league system when it already has a free one in place?

Free? College football is generating billions of dollars. Those are all dollars the NFL could have. The NFL has a history of stomping out competitive leagues. When college football starts to truly look like a minor league, or maybe a semi-minor league that is kind of competitive, the NFL will take it out. The NBA will do the same on the basketball side. They both probably already have a plan for how to do it.

I know how I would do it, and it would be pretty easy. Just impose MLB draft rules for football and basketball, or make them more stringent. Basically, every high school kid would have to decide to go to the pros or commit to 3 or 4 years of college. It would be a no brainer for most kids, go pro. And that would be the end of it.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,220
Reaction Score
33,097
My point is that some players will move to the Pac-12, Big 12, ACC, or even top-end AAC or MWC schools but many will stay in the SEC and/or B1G as those leagues will have more spots in the field. A kid at Iowa is more likely to make the playoff than a kid at Arizona State as Iowa only have to be the 3rd best B1G team to get in the field; Arizona State likely has to win the Pac-12.

How does the SEC or Big 10 have more spots on the field? Will they start playing with 15 players?
 

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
11,996
Reaction Score
18,536
Free? College football is generating billions of dollars. Those are all dollars the NFL could have. The NFL has a history of stomping out competitive leagues. When college football starts to truly look like a minor league, or maybe a semi-minor league that is kind of competitive, the NFL will take it out. The NBA will do the same on the basketball side. They both probably already have a plan for how to do it.

I know how I would do it, and it would be pretty easy. Just impose MLB draft rules for football and basketball, or make them more stringent. Basically, every high school kid would have to decide to go to the pros or commit to 3 or 4 years of college. It would be a no brainer for most kids, go pro. And that would be the end of it.
On the basketball side, many kids would stay in college for 3 years if the NIL money is equivalent to G-League or European leagues. Also, there are only 360 spots in the NBA.

On the football side, 17-19 year olds are not physically ready for the NFL. It would be extremely rare to see a high schooler go straight to the NFL.
 

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
11,996
Reaction Score
18,536
How does the SEC or Big 10 have more spots on the field? Will they start playing with 15 players?
The playoff field.

Most years it will look something like this:
SEC-3
B1G-3
ND
Pac-12
Big 12-2
ACC
AAC
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,220
Reaction Score
33,097
The playoff field.

Most years it will look something like this:
SEC-3
B1G-3
ND
Pac-12
Big 12-2
ACC
AAC

Sure. Or not. With that many slots, it is a jump ball.

Actually, the non-Michigan and Ohio State schools are at a huge disadvantage compared to the #2 school in the Pac 12. Which the coaches at those schools will point out.

There is no evidence that conferences have gotten deeper as they have gotten bigger. Actually, the opposite appears to be true. Teams like Miami or WVU were powerhouses when they switched leagues ended up struggling in the new leagues. Likewise, some schools that were strong in the surviving league, like Iowa, actually declined in competitiveness as the league got bigger.

Unless you have new rules for math, the conference has to have as many wins as losses for intraconference games, and that means roughly half the teams will have losing records.
 

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
11,996
Reaction Score
18,536
Sure. Or not. With that many slots, it is a jump ball.
I think there will be a lot more parity in the B1G and SEC as a result of this (especially in the SEC). One or two teams in each of the Pac-12, ACC, and Big 12 will start to dominate as it looks like they will be single bid leagues. I could be wrong, but that is the prevailing opinion.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,220
Reaction Score
33,097
I think there will be a lot more parity in the B1G and SEC as a result of this (especially in the SEC). One or two teams in each of the Pac-12, ACC, and Big 12 will start to dominate as it looks like they will be single bid leagues. I could be wrong, but that is the prevailing opinion.

It is your opinion. There is no evidence that a conference absorbing new schools results in more parity. It actually appears to result in less.
 

shizzle787

King Shizzle DCCLXXXVII of the Cesspool
Joined
Oct 19, 2015
Messages
11,996
Reaction Score
18,536
I do think NIL is a bigger deal in basketball though. Would you rather play for a middle of the pack Pac-12 team or UNLV/SDSU (where you will make the tournament most years)? I think urban mid majors will be big winners.
 

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
1,929
Total visitors
2,050

Forum statistics

Threads
157,278
Messages
4,091,085
Members
9,983
Latest member
Darkbloom


Top Bottom