P5-G5 divide

NT80 · June 10, 2023

19 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I know you were specifically asking ArkStFan, but I personally don't see it. There is still cachet in being able to call your team "national champions," and the more teams in their division/subdivision, the more impressive it appears. And the way things are going right now with media rights, NIL, and all the other financial winds blowing more strongly at the SEC/B1G's back than ever, they are set up nicely to use competition from lesser conferences to their own advantage.

That was kind of the point, they don't want interaction with lesser conferences due to differences in funding, fan support, and athletics in general. There was an article that quoted Saban as saying he wanted to end scheduling G5 and FCS games in the SEC. He said 98% of fans would rather see another SEC opponent or P5 team. They are more competitive games, draw more media, revenue, and better for strength of schedule to get into the CFP even with a loss or two.

All that is fine until these SEC and Big10 teams don't get their 8 home games and 8-9 wins each year to keep fans happy. The so-called lesser conference opponents provided that. Beating up on each other will just bring more coaching changes more often because they have the $$ to fire a 5-7 coach rather than wait for the next year.

Edited June 10, 2023 by NT80

Mean Green 93-98 · June 10, 2023

5 minutes ago, NT80 said:

That was kind of the point, they don't want interaction with lesser conferences due to differences in funding, fan support, and athletics in general. There was an article that quoted Saban as saying he wanted to end scheduling G5 and FCS games in the SEC. He said 98% of fans would rather see another SEC opponent or P5 team. They are more competitive games, draw more media, revenue, and better for strength of schedule to get into the CFP even with a loss or two.

All that is fine until these SEC and Big10 teams don't get their 8 home games and 8-9 wins each year to keep fans happy. The so-called lesser conference opponents provided that. Beating up on each other will just bring more coaching changes more often because they have the $$ to fire a 5-7 coach rather than wait for the next year.

As for your first paragraph, I take whatever these coaches say publicly with a grain of salt. I mean, those comments about what fans want are true enough, but is that really what Alabama wants? Giving up wins to have more competitive and interesting games? As it is, they get to schedule their own OOC games, and they have two weak G5s and an FCS team scheduled this season. So Saban is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I think your second paragraph is right on the money.

Arkstfan · August 17, 2023

On 6/10/2023 at 9:23 AM, NT80 said:

Do your foresee the SEC, B1G, and perhaps some Big12/ACC combo breaking away to form their own league?

The new CFP+ seems to keep access for lessor conferences for now, but Nick Saban of Alabama and some media have called for more strength of schedules...either with more in-conference games or scheduling only P5 programs, no more G5 and FCS games. When our access to those P5 matchups goes away, I see a split happening.

Hey just drifted back, been an interesting summer 🙂

I agree with 93-98

There's so little to gain walking completely away. If it happens, it will be a blessing because if it happens it will be because one of two things has happened.

1. Players become employees and the cost of business becomes so high that the schools have to consolidate down to something in the sub 40 range in order to make it work. The supply of schools with BIG ticket revenue, BIG sponsor money, BIG donor revenue, and BIG viewership is small. A handful of schools can quickly price everyone out of the market and the long term affinity for Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss St, etc., simply won't be sufficient to overcome the opportunity cost of keeping them around as full equity partners. Stanford is one of the richest schools in the world, Cal the flagship of arguably the best public university system in the world and they are struggling to stay in the big leagues.

2. Universities give up, turn athletics over to venture capitalists who pay a fee to use the university intellectual property and venues. Denver Broncos sold for just over $4 billion, Washington went for $5 billion. Your investment fund has a few billion to take a flier on a sports venture but the chances of buying an NFL team are slim, they average something like a sale every other year so. NBA maybe has more upside. MLB and NHL? Hard to see that upside. MLS? Maybe but maybe not as long as shackled to the system that prevents you from losing money for a few years by buying a couple mega stars to dominate. Soccer is a ways from being peer level with the top Euro leagues and the damn Saudis might well beat you there.

Nah you go sit down with the folks in Austin, offer a fat licensing fee to the stadium and facilities and name and you enter pro football with the Texas Longhorns. No XFL Arlington Renegades or USFL Birmingham Stallions names that take years to develop if the league lasts that long. Nope. Buy the rights to use the name, give the school a cut. Much better investment than XFL or USFL. You've got an established fan base. You license the name for professional football and basketball. University of Texas, Austin might keep an athletic department but it keeps an athletic department in sports that don't generate big revenue.

USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Texas, TAMU, OU, etc. you probably only want to start with maybe 12-16 schools in "The College League", as other big spenders see what you've got going you can start expanding to 32. You've got a professional sports enterprise that swing toe-to-toe with the NFL and the NBA is short order. Columbus using the Ohio State name vs the Browns, Bengals, and Cavs? The College League might well win that. Michigan Wolverines vs. Detroit Lions and Pistons?

If the names are licensed, the college doesn't have to worry about that crap any more. It's the venture capitalist problem. Maybe you want to keep baseball and track and tennis, and volleyball but that's your call. Maybe you retire the school from athletics and quit worrying about Title IX in athletics and quit worrying about whether coaches are selling admission to the school and quit worrying about whether the student-athlete can fit the academic profile, and quit worrying about armed robberies and sexual assaults by star players. They aren't students any more and they aren't your dad gum problem as long as the checks clear.

That happens then college athletics becomes an amateur venture again among the remaining schools.

NT80 · August 17, 2023

18 minutes ago, Arkstfan said:

A handful of schools can quickly price everyone out of the market and the long term affinity for Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Miss St, etc., simply won't be sufficient to overcome the opportunity cost of keeping them around as full equity partners. Stanford is one of the richest schools in the world, Cal the flagship of arguably the best public university system in the world and they are struggling to stay in the big leagues.

Stanford and Cal are struggling to find a big league to stay in because of their location and because they misjudged the market. They thought they were buyers when they should have been sellers, like the ones that left.

Arkstfan · August 17, 2023

35 minutes ago, NT80 said:

Stanford and Cal are struggling to find a big league to stay in because of their location and because they misjudged the market. They thought they were buyers when they should have been sellers, like the ones that left.

I don't think being in the 10th largest TV market and at the epicenter of the largest state economy in the US (the 5th largest economy in the world if it were a nation) hurts either school.

The problem they have is Stanford doesn't turn out a lot of undergrads and neither Stanford nor Cal seem to attract and graduate people who think athletics is the best part of their alma mater. Their grads I suspect are more inclined to donate to insure their kiddos get in than they are to donate to watch great football and basketball. Their grads are more likely to view athletics as 49'ers, Giants, Warriors, getting deals done in the luxury boxes than yelling their head off.

West Coast viewership for college athletics isn't awesome. USC and UCLA got lucky that most of their numbers were compiled while LA lacked NFL and in the wake of the Rams return and the general indifference to the Chargers return. Their long-term value to B1G may not hold up. Pro sports do great on the West Coast. The networks actually were not excited about LA getting NFL back because they were concerned about blackout rules hurting the great numbers they pull in. Starting later for home games helps avoid the rule that prevents showing a competing telecast against the local team.

If this happens a decade earlier, both teams are in play but their recent non-success has hurt. Stanford hasn't been in a final poll last five years and not top 10 the last seven. In the 2010's they had double digit win totals six times. Cal hasn't been ranked since 2008. They've hit 8 wins three times since 2009.

Don't want to be in a sustained slump when people pull your credit repot, uh pull your TV ratings.

NT80 · August 17, 2023

10 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

I don't think being in the 10th largest TV market and at the epicenter of the largest state economy in the US (the 5th largest economy in the world if it were a nation) hurts either school.

The problem they have is Stanford doesn't turn out a lot of undergrads and neither Stanford nor Cal seem to attract and graduate people who think athletics is the best part of their alma mater. Their grads I suspect are more inclined to donate to insure their kiddos get in than they are to donate to watch great football and basketball. Their grads are more likely to view athletics as 49'ers, Giants, Warriors, getting deals done in the luxury boxes than yelling their head off.

West Coast viewership for college athletics isn't awesome.

No, I'm talking physical location being bad, as in 3000 miles from the ACC, their last hope joining a Big League conference anytime soon. Stanford in 2022 averaged only 29,000+ per home game with West Coast opponents. What would they average with East Coast teams visiting?

Edited August 17, 2023 by NT80

Arkstfan · August 17, 2023

26 minutes ago, NT80 said:

No, I talking physical location being bad, as in 3000 miles from the ACC, their last hope joining a Big League conference anytime soon. Stanford in 2022 averaged only 29,000+ per home game with West Coast opponents. What would they average with East Coast teams visiting?

Yeah only thing is it's not so bad for minor sports because you can fly non-stop almost anywhere from San Francisco.

Travel isn't bad if ACC were to want them. Sucks getting an equipment truck there. Might be cheaper to fly it freight and that's not cheap.

But basketball, volleyball, you can fly direct from most ACC cities, get in two games and come home. What is horrible is how would Stanford or Cal players survive the constant trips from Pacific to Eastern time zone.

That's another, this irks me.

If you give a crap about the players, you don't send them that far across so many time zones so many times. You toughen up and live with the prospect of playing Utah State.