I averaged all the charts over the past 20 years. Coaches, AP, BCS/CFP
Ucla was always borderline T10 but only 1 or 2x actually in the top 10. They even have decent draft selections.
But they have 1/2 the revenue of even the bottom end of the top 32. They dont have the money to sustain success. Hence why they have been garbage for the past 5 years.
Wash st is very similar
A fee good years performance wise.
But rarely have good draft picks.
And again 1/2 the revenue.
Hence why they were not invited to any of the remaining “power 4” conferences.
Not to derail this, but MLB is ten times better with the pitch clock, pickoff limitation, non-shift, extra-innings rule, etc. With the changes, its watchable, it didn’t used to be. In that case change was good.
I do think change for money’s sake is usually not to the benefit of the average fan.
This is a great question. While the smaller league might have more quality viewers, doesn’t this schedule against weaker teams increase the overall viewership and exposure? I don’t know really. Just wondering.
There are certain schools that the networks want as the viewership follows them no matter who they play.
Michigan, Ohio St, AL, ND etc.
Again, I see changes coming but more than 32 teams. Keep in mind the other sports at those schools matter to the schools and alumni not to mention the states the schools reside in.
No really.
Because the games were its a big school vs a little school. I would estimate 90+% of the views are for the big school. Again the smaller schools will still be on the lower tier networks (TNT, CW, FS1). Just like they are now. Just the quality of games on the big networks will be better.
I mean watch some of those garbage games with like Ohio st vs rudgers. Most casual fans dont watch. Unless you’re a diehard fan of the teams. And the stadium is half empty at halftime. Where if its a good matchup. Casual college football fans will watch it even if they arnt a fan of either school or even of the conference.
Thats why this realignment is ONLY for football. Every other sport will continue to operate in the conferences. Like the Big East still exists just not in football.
The only states left out that are a part of the FBS would be
HI, WY, AZ, NM, MO, MN, WV, MD, NY, NJ, MA.
And a state has NEVER won a lawsuit after realignment. There always is some sort of settlement. Ie profit sharing.
So say the 32 teams break off. Total revenue for the entire system would likely get close to $5 Billion!
They would probably give $1b back to the smaller schools for the next 10 years. As a settlement. So say $20m per power 5 school and $10m per group of 5.
Again the top 32 schools made B3.B in football last year.
The other 100 FBS schools and 200+ FCS schools COMBINED make less than $2.5MB
For the Entire Athletic Department, Donors and NIL.
The top 32 make over $8B!
The other 300+ D1 Combined? $4.5B
I hear what your saying. I could easily see it being a 48 or even 64 team league. But it would just water down the product. And the bottom 10-15 teams would NEVER be relevant.
Like if they expanded further, you would be including teams like Minnesota, NC St, Maryland, Arizona, Virginia.
Teams that haven’t been truly relevant in over 40 years. Have they been close or in the mix a few times? Sure. But ever a real chance at a championship? No.
There is only 2 solutions to College Football,
1 - Make a super League with 32/48/64 schools
2 - Somehow implement a salary cap/ Nil Cap, and regulate the transfer portal by having contracts for players.
Theres 2 major issues with that tho.
1 - every conference is self regulated, the NCAA has no power, and good luck having each conference agree and self regulate.
2 the larger schools would never agree to it neither would the players. It would cost them both money.
We’ve had this discussion before there is a lot I agree with, I do think you will see a super league as you put it at least 64 schools. As far as watering down the product I doubt it.
The states comment by me had more to do with not fully understanding how you are handling all the school sports and the revenue which funds those. IOW, not a lawsuit over realignment, tbh a lawsuit by the states wasn’t on my mind. More about title IX revenues etc, your 10,000’ view has a lot of merit but the devil is in the details which is why I don’t see it ever being 32 teams.
If they branch away from the NCAA and its simply a semi professional football league sponsored by the schools. Which can be done. Title Ix would have no effect.
Heres another way to look at the revenues.
Top 32 - Total $ per school $250m+
33-48 - $200m (i could see 48)
48-68 (rest of p5 programs ) - $120 (nearly HALF the cash flow from the next 12 highest)
Group of 5. -$60m
FCS $30m
And most of the revenue from those 33-68 schools come from the conference TV deals or playing games against those top 32. If those schools were in the group of 5 they would likely be close to that $60m
I could definitely see 48 because of schools like Olmiss, Arkansas, Missouri, Colorado, UCLA, that do generate large revenue and have major backers.
But the rest? Syracuse, Rudger, Arizona, Cal, Northwestern, Wash St.
those schools would water doen the product and lower the over all revenue per school.
Conference tv deals because of the University name attached to the school and team. That revenue also funds many many other athletic dept needs/teams etc.
THis is where you run into an issue. Public universities who take grant money etc etc means the revenue goes throughout the school not just the football team.
Again, we have had this discussion before and I just don’t see it happening in the manner you propose.
Oh i hear ya. But the b10 is really the ONLY conference where they do give a large % of the money for the other sports
And again. Its not like they wouldn’t continue to do that under this format
If these top ~40 schools in the new league are now making $200m per school per year.
They will still put a large chunk back into the AD to fund the other programs.
With this new Rev Share deal you will see a VAST majority of schools will be giving most of that money to mens football. (Well half of it because of title 9) unless they are major basketball program. But Georgia? Yea i will be willing to bet
40+% of the rev share goes to mens football.
10% other mens sports
50% womens.
I just see this as a much easier path for college football to go. Because its already trending this way anyway.
Were if you are a halfway decent player at a lower end school. Your transferring to one of those top 40. Because your have a much higher chance of making the playoffs, making into the NFL and of course getting 10x+ the money in NIL.
Its never ever going to go backwards. Because you will never get the larger conferences and larger schools to agree to regulate unless they are in their own tier.
The gap between Eastern Michigan and Minnesota is MUCH smaller than the gap between Minnesota and Michigan.