2022 NCAA Football Thread

[MichiganCardinal]

17 hours ago, buddha said:

i dont think the numbers back that up.  stanford-cal drew 2 million eyeballs.  that's their only 2 million game.  the only other one that comes close is stanford-usc.

michigan iowa is double that.  michigan illinois is more than double that.

the only pac 12 team that brings eyeballs consistently is usc (or when a pac 12 team plays a big sec or big ten team)  i would hazard a guess that usc-osu will draw as many or more eyeballs than stanford-cal in the bay area.

and i dont think that in the days of streaming people think about markets in the same way.  its like saying it was good for the big ten to get rutgers because it gave them the NY market.  did it?  or did the big ten already have it with michigan, penn state, and osu?

i have always said the big ten SHOULD get stanford as a way to increase their national brand (via stanford academics and other sports besides football) and to corner notre dame into joining by collecting all their real rivals (stanford, usc, michigan, and even msu).  but i dont think stanford and cal bring a "market" the big ten doesnt already have with the addition of usc.

I thought my reply posted earlier.

I don’t think it’s an apples to apples comparison between television eyes on PAC-12 games to B1G games. I’m not saying that Stanford-Cal would draw what Michigan-USC would, but it would draw much more on the B1G Network than what the crappy PAC-12 Network deal provides. Stanford and Cal both have plenty of alum in New York and Chicago who would tune in. The Nebraska-Northwestern game in Dublin got 4.42 million for crying out loud. I think those PAC teams see their ratings double overnight on the B1G’s deal.

If you gave Kevin Warren (or I guess Tony Petitti) a truth serum, I honestly don’t know if they would say the addition of Rutgers and Maryland was worth it, and whether they would do it today. Streaming continues to increase, but cable still exists, and is in many cases is a foundation for the streaming. Nothing we have seen says they are done using TV markets as a basis for $$$ in expansion.

[casimir]

On 7/28/2023 at 1:12 PM, lordstanley said:

Two-tiered, 24-team B1G with relegation and promotion. Top half of the conference plays each other (11 games and 1 non-conf), bottom half of the conference plays each other. Teams #11 and #12 go down, Teams #13 and #14 go up

The thing I don’t like about promotion/relegation is that current season standings have a factor of last season built into it.  It just doesn’t make any sense to me.  Each season should be its own entity based solely upon that season.

[casimir]

On 7/28/2023 at 4:36 PM, MichiganCardinal said:

I love this, and it would also provide a route for the Big Ten elite to protect its coffers while expanding if they introduced a different revenue sharing system for the A-tier and B-tier schools. If A-tier was apportioned 2/3 of revenue and B-tier 1/3, then the Michigan/Ohio State/Penn States could maintain or increase their revenue sharing while still expanding. I would probably want to see B1 play A12 and B2 play A11 in postseason games though rather than just waving them up and down.

Of course it would never happen though. The Iowas, Michigan States, and Wisconsins of the conference would be afraid of possible relegation (and subsequently losing their job) and the Rutgers, Northwestern, and Marylands would be dead set against the notion.

It wasn’t all that long ago that Michigan would have been a relegated team. I wonder how that would have went over with the fan base.

[MichiganCardinal]

1 minute ago, casimir said:

It wasn’t all that long ago that Michigan would have been a relegated team. I wonder how that would have went over with the fan base.

It’s not like they didn’t deserve it. They lost to freaking Toledo.

[casimir]

On 7/29/2023 at 6:34 AM, gehringer_2 said:

Right. If any of the PAC schools beside USC/UCLA would actually bring more total $$ than the current B1G share, they would likely have already been asked.

The B1G's problem is how to jettison the deadwood. They can't maximize their profits until they find a way to do that.

I wonder if we’ll see along the line somewhere that this current bubble bursts and there might be a return to smaller population conferences?  Maybe that’s where the deadwood decides to band together to form a division of steams in between the current FBS and FCS?

[casimir]

Just now, MichiganCardinal said:

It’s not like they didn’t deserve it. They lost to freaking Toledo.

Nah, Toledo beat Michigan.

[MichiganCardinal]

4 minutes ago, casimir said:

Nah, Toledo beat Michigan.

Just looked it up. The starting QB for Toledo in that game is now the Director of Sales for an Ohio battery manufacturing company.

[Hongbit]

Stanford is a blip on the radar of the Bay Area sports scene.   They have an aging fanbase that is almost entirely alumni.   They don’t really attract much from the regular sports fan in the Bay.  USC probably has close to the same appeal locally.  The stadium is at least half full of Trojans whenever they play up there. It’s one thing for Oregon State and Wazzu to draw 30k fans in their small rural locations but to do that in a major metro area like Stanford has done is telling at how little impact they have.  

Edited July 30, 2023 by Hongbit

[casimir]

13 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Just looked it up. The starting QB for Toledo in that game is now the Director of Sales for an Ohio battery manufacturing company.

That’s interesting. I had glanced at a job at an Ohio battery manufacturer not that long ago.

[MichiganCardinal]

23 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Stanford is a blip on the radar of the Bay Area sports scene.   They have an aging fanbase that is almost entirely alumni.   They don’t really attract much from the regular sports fan in the Bay.  USC probably has close to the same appeal locally.  The stadium is at least half full of Trojans whenever they play up there. It’s one thing for Oregon State and Wazzu to draw 30k fans in their small rural locations but to do that in a major metro area like Stanford has done is telling at how little impact they have.  

Agreed here. Attendance at Stanford Football is pitiful (though it is better when they are good). The same could be said for Rutgers and Maryland though. Do 95% of sports fans in NYC really give a rat’s ass about Rutgers? Or DC fans about Maryland? Their additions brought those markets anyway (granted it was nearly ten years ago now).

I will say that UC Berkeley has many more local supporters of their sports. They’re a much larger school in terms of student population, with an alumni network much more likely to stay in the Bay Area after graduation. They’re also geographically much closer to both SF and Oakland.

[Deleterious]

 

[buddha]

say goodnight, pac 10.

they might as well merge with the acc now.  a western division and an eastern division.  maybe that would be enough for the acc to leverage new terms of their deal with espn?

[Hongbit]

Somewhere Bill Walton is crying on his tie-dye.

Have to assume that ASU and Utah won’t be far behind.   

[buddha]

3 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Somewhere Bill Walton is crying on his tie-dye.

Have to assume that ASU and Utah won’t be far behind.   

the "four corners" schools are good fits for the big 12.  

its too bad.  the pac 12 had a great set up for a long time with 2 schools in every state.  they really missed the boat when texas and oklahoma were looking around the first time.  usc saw the writing on the wall and ucla was just lucky enough to be usc's rival school or else they would be adrift too.

soooooo....a return to the pac 8?  do they swallow their pride and bring in san diego state and (gulp) boise state?

[Hongbit]

Im not sure what the options are for the remainders.  Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and Cal are all stuck without much leverage.   Maybe the B10 reconsiders but that seems more like wishful thinking.   Wazzu and Oregon State are really screwed as the only option outside the existing PAC would be to step down to full G5 level in the Mountain West.

[casimir]

Who would have guessed after the BIG 8/12 lost Nebraska and Colorado and the PAC12 also took in Utah that it would be the PAC12 to be the first of the power 5 to crumble?

Let’s also not forget about the Rose Bowl and it’s life long affiliation with the PAC12.  Seems like the bowl might be the granddaddy of them all, but it probably loses some of its power with future playoff/championship arrangements as an indirect effect of these recent falling dominoes.

[gehringer_2]

16 minutes ago, casimir said:

Who would have guessed after the BIG 8/12 lost Nebraska and Colorado and the PAC12 also took in Utah that it would be the PAC12 to be the first of the power 5 to crumble?

Let’s also not forget about the Rose Bowl and it’s life long affiliation with the PAC12.  Seems like the bowl might be the granddaddy of them all, but it probably loses some of its power with future playoff/championship arrangements as an indirect effect of these recent falling dominoes.

HS football participation rates have been falling for a decade or more in CA, AZ, OR. While there isn't an easy direct line between that and football conference health, it seems logical that the two things have enough underlying common premises that they might track together.

[casimir]

14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

HS football participation rates have been falling for a decade or more in CA, AZ, OR. While there isn't an easy direct line between that and football conference health, it seems logical that the two things have enough underlying common premises that they might track together.

Interesting.  Concussion concerns?  Are participation rates up in another sport in particular?

[Hongbit]

31 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

HS football participation rates have been falling for a decade or more in CA, AZ, OR. While there isn't an easy direct line between that and football conference health, it seems logical that the two things have enough underlying common premises that they might track together.

This is certainly true but it’s not why the PAC-12 is in this position.

It is 100% related to the absolutely train wreck leadership of former commissioner Larry Scott.  He was brought over from the Women’s Tennis tour to run the conference and proceeded to destroy it instead.   All the while he lined his pockets and pretended to be a media and contract expert.  The decision to keep the Pac-12 network internal and it bring on a partner was monumentally bad.   They took on all of the expenses and overhead to get it off the ground and ended up costing the conference hundreds of millions versus taking on a media partner like all the conferences did for their networks.  He conned the University presidents for a decade before the pitiful results were so oblivious that he had to go.  The new guy has been on board for a year and was brought into an untenable situation and couldn’t save it.  

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, Hongbit said:

versus taking on a media partner like all the conferences did for their networks

does B10 networks have a partner? Serious question - I have no idea.

[Hongbit]

16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

does B10 networks have a partner? Serious question - I have no idea.

It’s a JV with Fox Sports.  

[MichiganCardinal]

The B1G may extend an offer to those NorCal and Northwest teams on a crap end of the stick deal as it pertains to their cut of the pie. They might not have a choice.

This is entirely the PAC-12’s fault. They had the choice to eat or be eaten and they got ate. The Big 12 was there for the poaching when Texas and OU left.

[Hongbit]

3 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

The B1G may extend an offer to those NorCal and Northwest teams on a crap end of the stick deal as it pertains to their cut of the pie. They might not have a choice.

This is entirely the PAC-12’s fault. They had the choice to eat or be eaten and they got ate. The Big 12 was there for the poaching when Texas and OU left.

Even more they had the chance to swallow the B12 in 2011 and didn’t do it for non-football reasons. 
 

 

[gehringer_2]

25 minutes ago, Hongbit said:

Even more they had the chance to swallow the B12 in 2011 and didn’t do it for non-football reasons. 

that's true. The original B10 and Pac10 were AAU conferences. That became part of the controversy over Nebraska, which had been an AAU member but got booted before switching conferences to the B10. The B10 consoled itself that NEB was booted for purely 'political' reasons so it wasn't really making an exception to bring Neb in.  It's still the only non-AAU member of the conference.

50-60 years ago the you might have been able to make a case that the AAU schools did run their programs to different standards, but that was ancient history by the time the PAC10 decisisions referenced above were being made (~2011)

Edited July 30, 2023 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

HS football participation rates have been falling for a decade or more in CA, AZ, OR. While there isn't an easy direct line between that and football conference health, it seems logical that the two things have enough underlying common premises that they might track together.

that has zero to do with why the pac 12 imploded.  it is mostly to what hongbit said about terrible leadership.  abysmal leadership, tbh.

also, california is still a top 3 recruiting ground for football players, for all the handwringing over concussions among the white elite crowd who are "very concerned" about such things.