Jump to content

The Changing FBS Football Landscape


Cerebus

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, golfingomez said:

if you roll without those schools, like it or not, you might get a TV deal Bein Sports/online streaming. You would have 7 schools with only LaTech and SoMiss only being 'known' football schools.

All future G5 is going to get a bein/snapface/streaming deal.  Some are holding out hope that this will bring in more money but those Silicon Valley folks are known for being bad a metrics.

In 2011 ESPN was willing to throw free money around to keep Fox out of market, and on the hope a CUSA team would strike it rich and suddenly deliver a big part of their market.   In the future the new media will know exactly how many people are streaming which parts of a game and will give precise payouts on that performance.  

None of the G5, possibly excepting BYU, can deliver big bucks on that model.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

They will need to cut expenses where they can.   Travel is a killer, especially for the non revenue generating sports.  To be honest, the only team that we have that comes close to covering expenses is the football team.   Mostly because it drives MGC memberships and it can schedule payout games.   The arms race will still exist, but the P5/G5 gulf will be larger than ever. 

Another good post.  Might be a tick early for this, but if the science around CTE research is eventually able to draw enough of a direct line to football that the sport stops drawing young talent (ala boxing), what happens to college athletics then? 

Even if current youth participation trends hold, by 2025, we might be looking at a 9-10 year steady decline in the numbers of kids playing football and graduating to college level programs.  I would imagine that by that point there will still be more than enough kids playing for all current FBS members to fill rosters, but with fewer kids playing the number of top end talents will be less---which would make it potentially even harder for the G5 schools to compete on the field with P5 schools, who will no doubt still be able to recruit the best players.

Edited by TIgreen01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TIgreen01 said:

Another good post.  Might be a tick early for this, but if the science around CTE research is eventually able to draw enough of a direct line to football that the sport stops drawing young talent (ala boxing), what happens to college athletics then? 

Even if current youth participation trends hold, by 2025, we might be looking at a 9-10 year steady decline in the numbers of kids playing football and graduating to college level programs.  I would imagine that by that point there will still be more than enough kids playing for all current FBS members to fill rosters, but with fewer kids playing the number of top end talents will be less---which would make it potentially even harder for the G5 schools to compete on the field with P5 schools, who will no doubt still be able to recruit the best players.

You beat me to the post regarding CTE.  There will be a contraction of schools offering football.  The CA, TX, FL states will be the last to hang on.  But football is on life support dying and the patient doesn't even know.  They think the panacea is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding what @TIgreen01 and @FAU Connoisseur said about CTE.

  • Remember all the new studies link hard repetitive hits, not concussions, to CTE.
  • These kinds of hits happen most often on the line, which is why linemen seem to be the most affected group.  
  • You can legislate ways to cut down those types of repetitive hits.
  • Helmet technology can be directed to advance protecting athletes from those repetitive hits.  

There are already some parents holding out kids.  However I think this is the height of the fear.  Once technology and the sports governance bodies catch up, it will subside.

Now, will that football of 2040 be as different from today's game as the football of 1940?  Probably.  Rules might make it so it looks a lot more like 7 on 7 instead of what we think of now.  The big guys playing near the line will probably have all sorts of restrictions to prevent helmet to helmet contact.   But there will still be football.  It might not be THE sport in America at the time, but it might.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

Regarding what @TIgreen01 and @FAU Connoisseur said about CTE.

  • Remember all the new studies link hard repetitive hits, not concussions, to CTE.
  • These kinds of hits happen most often on the line, which is why linemen seem to be the most affected group.  
  • You can legislate ways to cut down those types of repetitive hits.
  • Helmet technology can be directed to advance protecting athletes from those repetitive hits.  

There are already some parents holding out kids.  However I think this is the height of the fear.  Once technology and the sports governance bodies catch up, it will subside.

Now, will that football of 2040 be as different from today's game as the football of 1940?  Probably.  Rules might make it so it looks a lot more like 7 on 7 instead of what we think of now.  The big guys playing near the line will probably have all sorts of restrictions to prevent helmet to helmet contact.   But there will still be football.  It might not be THE sport in America at the time, but it might.   

Unfortunately new technology in helmets doesn't stop your brain from bouncing around inside your skull.  You might be right about the way the game look, but will anyone want to pay to see that game?  Every game has a life cycle, football might be approaching retirement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, FAU Connoisseur said:

Unfortunately new technology in helmets doesn't stop your brain from bouncing around inside your skull. 

That applies to every sport.  Soccer, Basketball, Baseball, etc.   Unless you think we are all going to do e-sports and nothing else, CTE will be a risk.  

At one time the flying wedge was legal, after it caused great general concern, calls to ban the game, etc the rules were modified.   Same thing will happen.  

Yes football may look very different in the future.  Who knows what the rule changes will be?  Maybe they will ban running inside the tackles?  Maybe it will actually turn into 7 on 7?   But at this point not only is too much money being made, but it is too deeply ingrained into the culture.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a few ways CFB has changed since the playoffs.

Power is more distributed among the P5.  The Rise of the ACC.  More money all the way around.  Everyone has a championship game.  Awesome early OOC match ups.  G5 participation in a "major" bowl is no longer a big deal.  The middle of the polls is more accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shaft said:

Power is more distributed among the P5.  

I think part of the problem is that power was given to the P5 without them having any sort of agreement on how to share it.  The back on forth over satellite camps was because the SEC was for it, then feared it, then could and then couldn't get other teams to back them in reversing the rule.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cerebus said:

That applies to every sport.  Soccer, Basketball, Baseball, etc.   Unless you think we are all going to do e-sports and nothing else, CTE will be a risk.  

At one time the flying wedge was legal, after it caused great general concern, calls to ban the game, etc the rules were modified.   Same thing will happen.  

Yes football may look very different in the future.  Who knows what the rule changes will be?  Maybe they will ban running inside the tackles?  Maybe it will actually turn into 7 on 7?   But at this point not only is too much money being made, but it is too deeply ingrained into the culture.  

I don't disagree, there is certainly risk anything you choose to do.  But this CTE is different, participation rates are dropping like never seen before.  You can rationalize all you want about this being just another  bump in the road, but a lot of families will not let their kids play football anymore.  There are other less risky options.  Soccer is probably the most risky with heading of the non-football sports.  I am a football fan hope they figure it out, but I am also a realist and like you guys we built pretty expensive stadium for a sport that may not exist as we know it in 15 to 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, FAU Connoisseur said:

I don't disagree, there is certainly risk anything you choose to do.  But this CTE is different, participation rates are dropping like never seen before.  You can rationalize all you want about this being just another  bump in the road, but a lot of families will not let their kids play football anymore.  There are other less risky options.  Soccer is probably the most risky with heading of the non-football sports.  I am a football fan hope they figure it out, but I am also a realist and like you guys we built pretty expensive stadium for a sport that may not exist as we know it in 15 to 20 years.

I have had this same thought about football but if the stadium can last 20 years it will be ok.  I am just afraid the lawmakers will get involved first and shorten the 20 years.  I guess we can always play touch or flag football in the stadiums.  Soccer is risky also, I will be bored to death.  The NFL will be facing the same problem so I am sure they put the money out to keep the game going.  That is my hope anyway.  The players have become bigger, stronger and faster and makes a violent sport even more violent. I played in High School during the 70's and a big lineman weight around 200 or 250.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will see P5 and G5 programs align similar to high school football. Think of P5's as 6A,G5's as 5A, and existing 1aa programs as 4A. The 6A schools will be allowed to schedule down to 5A's,4A's can schedule up to 5A's, and 5's can schedule both up and down. It will kill money games for 4A's[existing 1aa programs], but should not effect 5A's[existing G5 programs]. The 6A programs will get most if not all the television money, 5A a few dollars, and 4A nothing. For 5A and 4A programs football will be a gate revenue sport with emphasis on driving attendance thru regional conferences with smaller footprints and reduction of travel expenses .This will happen when in about 5 years when existing television contracts expire. At age 75 I hope I live long enough to see what should be the last major conference realignment. I have no idea how this will play out for UNT. I assume that the AAC will benefit by picking up any existing P5 program "left behind".We could be proactive make a nice 12 team conference combining existing Western CUSA and Sun Belt teams, but I would bet that everyone waits until they are forced to make changes.UTEP,UNT,UTSA,Rice,Texas State,Arkansas State,La. Tech,ULL, So. Miss,UAB,Troy,and USA. would work with 2 divisions. UL Monroe will be forced to drop down, as like NMSU, no one wants them[especially La. Tech] but for different reasons. ULM is greatly under funded, and NMSU is in a terrible location and brings nothing to the table. At any rate, just an old man's opinion.

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 3:03 PM, FAU Connoisseur said:

You beat me to the post regarding CTE.  There will be a contraction of schools offering football.  The CA, TX, FL states will be the last to hang on.  But football is on life support dying and the patient doesn't even know.  They think the panacea is coming.

No doubt there is an argument to be made about CTE.  However, I truly don't think CTE will have that big of an impact on Football.  As long as people watch the games and generate fame and fortune for players there will always be someone next in line to put on a helmet! 

Edited by GAMeanGreen
  • Lovely Take 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2017 at 4:09 PM, Cerebus said:

Yes football may look very different in the future.  Who knows what the rule changes will be?  Maybe they will ban running inside the tackles?  Maybe it will actually turn into 7 on 7?   But at this point not only is too much money being made, but it is too deeply ingrained into the culture.  

The next 'big' change IMO, will be a ban on all blocking below the waist anytime/anywhere on the field.  The rules are already moving that way at a steady pace. Low blocking is already banned from behind (clipping), when engaged with another player (chop block), and during all return plays (after a change of possession).  When not otherwise prohibited, starting this year it can only be done from the front, defined as between the 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock position (from the perspective of the player being blocked).  My guess is the complete ban on low blocking will happen within the next 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 9:27 AM, Cerebus said:

I wonder what @Arkstfan has to say about all this?

A lot

First in regards to ESPN and layoffs. Remember ESPN before the layoffs was profitable. ESPN does not have a revenue/expense problem, they have a Wall Street problem. When a company is in growth mode, investors want to ride the growth. When a company reaches the inevitable plateau the price generally will decline a big because it has reached a stable income/expense place. Right now ESPN is shedding expense to boost the ROI because they already hit the growth ceiling in the prevailing economic model. ESPN is now more like a boring utility than a hot growth property.

The economic model of intercollegiate athletics is becoming a two-tier model.

Any G5 not investing in production capacity is foolish. A-State has gone all in and has been hired to by ESPN to handle the Sun Belt volleyball and soccer tournament productions for ESPN3, which are a must carry for ESPN even if it is on ESPN3. A-State also provides some of the production for the Liberty Bowl.

You cannot get a huge ROI carrying G5 games in general. You know all that talk about how Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, Apple are going to be the new sports outlets. Guess what boys and girls. Each of them already has a model in place for content like ours. A huge amount of what you buy on Amazon is not sold by Amazon. Someone else owns the inventory and puts the listing on Amazon and many have their inventory shipped direct to Amazon warehouses from the manufacturer. Amazon just lists it and takes a piece of the sale. Apples uses the same model for apps, movies, and TV as well as subscriptions for each. Apple has zip in the inventory cost, they just provide a place to sell and take a piece of the action. Netflix and Hulu do the same thing with a lot of their content. Random documentary or movie you've never heard of? Odds are Netflix and Hulu have invested $0 in that program. Instead they pay the owner a small amount per view.  The Duplass brothers have done so well on that model that Netflix now gives them an advance for exclusive rights.

This is where the bulk of the G5 programming is going to go. We will pay production costs. We will insert our own commercials (maybe all, maybe a percentage) and we will get paid per view by someone whether it is Disney/ESPN, Fox, Amazon, Apple, Roku, Netflix, whomever.

If you want to make money on TV in the future, you are going to need to host teams that fans. Nobody is going to give a damn if eleventy billion people live in Miami or Houston or San Diego. The number of fans willing to pull up the WatchESPN app or the Amazon app is going to determine your media value. Troy in a tiny little town in Alabama can have greater TV value than a team in an NFL market because actual viewers will determine the TV value. Actual viewers is going to be simple to determine, just look at the number of connected subscribers.

Self-distributed is probably a loser. You can make more per view but it is going to be harder to convince a viewer to shell out another $5-$15 a month. You want to reach audience you have to be where the subscribers already are and that's WatchESPN and Amazon and Netflix right now. So you self-produce and let someone else distribute.

Attendance wise, I think you see schools starting to move to the MLS model. A small section of very affordable seating. A large area of moderate priced seating. Increasing the number of "premium" seats that include other amenities such as included food and you pay nothing out of pocket at the stadium for anything but alcohol and includes premium parking in the price.

If you cannot fill your seats, then maybe you are more interested in cheaper travel that might sell some seats on the return trip. Go to any fan space of an MLS team. The supporters group generally has an organized road trip to every opponent. Some clubs go so far as to provide a certain number of seats out of their own pocket (Kansas City provides 200 or 300 tickets per regular season road game to the supporters group) because they know people who will blow up their weekend to travel several hundred miles to watch the team are going to buy tickets at home and they are going to spend plenty on licensed merchandise. The traveling fan is your community evangelist making sure family and friends hear the gospel of being a fan.

As to CTE.

Sure it's an issue but that's not what's wrong. It makes a nice neat explanation that fits an agenda, the agenda being football is a brutal exploitive sport.

Here's what's really wrong.

#1. More schools aren't permitting the use of the school day to practice. Kid rides the bus and the only adult at home either lacks a car or work schedule interferes, how does the kid get home from practice?

#2 Money. More and more schools are charging more and more fees for kids to play high school football yet the public schools are serving a more and more impoverished population as the middle classes have followed the wealthy into private schools. Poor kids are getting priced out of football.

#3. Social status. What sport has liberal arts colleges scrambling to add? Lacrosse. Is it a safe sport for little Trey Moneybags to play? Hell no. Get hit in the noggin with that ball at full speed or whacked in the old thinker with a stick? It'll mess you up. Plenty of knee injuries as well.. The other growth? Soccer. Another high injury sport. CTE studies put it similar to football and again another high injury sport for knees. But right now it in many social circles its just seen as better to tell people that junior plays lacrosse or soccer than football or basketball.

So recruiting football is going to become more challenging because the pool is shrinking and presidents and AD's are going to have to rethink what is an appropriate group of schools to align with.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.