As recently as a year ago I'd have said I wouldn't like turning college football into a junior-NFL. Given what's happened since then, and what's likely to come, now I think it might be the best thing that could happen to the sport. Did some back-of-envelope pondering of how the seven 10-team divisions could be aligned, both to make geographic sense and preserve as many rivalries as possible (and even revive several that have gone dormant). I even restored some old conference names.
What made/makes College Football different from the NFL has always been regional rivalries and traditions. Where the NFL is corporate. Homogenized. And therefore bland. College Football has always been multifaceted and unique. Like a movie where one side is pushing uniformity and the other side is a rag-tag group of heroes.
ANYTHING that avoids the march towards uniform, national conferences would be preferable. All I saw yesterday / what I see in the comments here is people complaining about paying players and joining one big organization. But you know what? The Pac-10 originals playing together retains cultural ties. The Big Ten originals staying together and SEC originals staying together does the same.
I don't want Oregon to be in a conference with Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, and Georgia just because they are the biggest brands nationwide. THAT is NFL Light. A nationwide organization that retains regional divisions and historic conference alignments is not NFL Light.
Nope, wasn't me and I'm not on Reddit. Maybe this alignment just makes so much sense that 99% of people could come up with it on their own? (and the 1% who can't consists of money-chasing college administrators)
Instead of lip balm, the Trailtankers should be handing out Preparation H for fan appreciation night to offer some relief from the way they've been screwing them the last several years.
Using OSU's losing BB players to the portal as an example, I can't understand why they don't stay. Next year, all things remaining the same, an OSU women's team who went to the Elite 8 in a Power 5 conference would play in a lesser competitive conference with the same quality players. Why wouldn't they want to stay and slay everyone else in the conference? Are the players thinking they won't get paid NIL? Please help me wrap my head around this. Thanks.
Maybe they are concerned that playing in a much softer conference means that if they are upset in the conference tournament they won't get in the big dance, even if their regular season resume is strong. Or if they do get in, playing in the WCC won't have prepared them as well as playing in the Pac did.
Gonzaga did not win either conference tournament, but made the NCAAs and the Sweet 16 in men's and women's. If you have a strong WCC resume, you get in the tournament.
All the schools not in the SEC/B10 need to band together and threaten to form their own playoff. Say an NCAA December Madness with it's own TV deal. Not having a legitimate national champion will torpedo the TV money for the BCS if only the SEC and B10 are in it. It's the only leverage the other schools have and they should use it.
Yeah sure, if 80% of the teams like UConn, Duke, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Syracuse, Gonzaga, Memphis, Louisville, Baylor, Kansas, decided not to participate in the NCAA tournament and play in the NIT instead, and March Madness was only SEC and B10 schools, then OK, sure.
John, of all the current or former college football coaches you have known, who would have been best equipped (in demeanor) to negotiate a union contract with his players? Conversely, who would have struggled the most if they had to do it?
Here's one for the mailbag: While I was driving home from the Hillsboro Hops' opening game the other night, I was pleasantly surprised to hear male commentators on a national sports talk radio show breaking down the Iowa-Connecticut women's basketball game the way men's games have been analyzed for years. To be honest, I haven't heard much of that, and to some degree, still don't. As the father of daughters, do you consider that a sign that women's sports and female athletes are finally getting the respect and recognition they deserve -- especially as women's basketball and other sports (such as soccer or softball) grow in popularity? If not, what will it take to get there?
I've been under the impression from you and Jon Wilner that Fox (especially) would want a piece of the new college football playoff telecast rights as the culminating payoff for their Billion$/yr contract with the Big 10. Any thoughts (or word from Bob Thompson) how this went down w/o Fox? They must have given the Big 10 their tacit approval, no? Would be fascinating to hear Bob's thoughts on Fox's strategy here.
The schools that are at the top are the schools and fan bases that invested big time. The Cougs and Beavers like it or not, were part of a cooperative of school presidents that killed the golden goose. Self inflicted damage should not be rewarded. Lawsuits? What did the top schools do, what are they guilty of? Investing too much? Being highly successful? Note: Alabama, the basketball team is in the final four and the football team was in the championship final four of football. Why? Because one visit to the school facilities and the level of fan support came about because Alabamans care. They care more than the rest. Oregon fans and boosters care more and that is why they are forecast to win it all in football. So what are they guilty of? Lawsuits? BS
You notice how there are The Duck Stores but not The Beaver Stores? How Autzen was always sold out but Reser was not? That wasn't Phil Knight donating money.
If you look at the historical data on Knightnewhouse, Oregon's athletic department gets about $25 million more per year in donations than Oregon State does ($35 to $10 on a 5 year average). This is true. However, Oregon has $70 million more in total incomes on average. Subtracting out the donation difference, that's about $45 million more coming in per year to Oregon that comes from fans attending games. Fans buying merchandise. Advertising deals to appeal to the larger fanbase. And so on.
The truth is that Oregon was dwarfing Oregon State on all fronts, not just the Phil Knight front. That's why they were bringing in 155 million and Oregon State was bringing in 85 million despite being on the same media rights deal. Even if you subtract for donations, you're talking 120 million to 75 million in incomes. Just looking at those numbers... the difference was not one fan donating money.
The difference was that Oregon fans supported their team to a much larger degree. The school's athletics were more popular and more successful.
I'm going to miss the in-conference rivalry as much as anyone. However, bitterly chalking up Oregon rising above to Phil Knight is completely disregarding all the other reasons Oregon rose above Oregon State. Does the money help? Absolutely. Is it the only reason? Only a moron would think that.
Oh come now, Mathias. Let's just make this simple: where do you think Oregon would be sitting in the world of CFB without Phil Knight's monetary involvement? I can answer that, because I'm old enough to remember them sans PK. Answer? About where Oregon State is right now, stuck in a small rural town with little national tradition or attraction for urban black athletes. I'm not an Oregon hater nor arrogant enough to tell PK where to spend his money, but for you or any Duck fan to pretend he hasn't solely lifted Oregon athletics above Eugene's punching weight is delusional. It's not something to be ashamed of, or apologetic---just lucky. Absorb a joke about it on occasion...
The Phil Knight factor isn't simply the heap of money he donates to buy players and build buildings. It's the advertising and marketing that comes with that money and the associated Nike expertise that created UO's beloved "brand." This incentivizes people to purchase Duck gear and attend games. It's all part of the package, one and the same.
I'm also old enough to remember football life pre-PK. I attended the infamous Toilet Bowl. Scott is correct that PK can do whatever he chooses to spend his money. But UO would absolutely be in the Pac-3 were it not for Uncle Phil.
And Mathias, name-calling never is helpful and says more about you and your lack of argument than anything else. You can do better.
Jean and Scott are right on. Why have the Ducks drawn more fans to Autzen and sold more merch? Because they win. Why do they win? Because of Phil's investment. It went down in this order: 1. Phil invested in facilities. 2. Better facilities attracted better players. 3. Better players created more wins, bowl games, and national exposure. 4. More wins and national exposure created more revenue. I have said on this site before: It's virtually impossible to find a Duck fan who will admit that if it weren't for Phil, the Ducks would be the Beavers.
Lotta jealousy on this thread. Oregon wins and Trojans and Beavers fans play the laughingstock "it's not fair" game.
Cry me a river. Need a tissue? USC cheats, gets caught, hasn't won since and needs to point at something other than themselves. Oregon State fans? That 1965 Rose Bowl was something, wasn't it!
Oregon was back to back conference champions and went to the Rose Bowl and Cotton Bowl back to back before PK started donating. Oregon has been a huge beneficiary of PK. So has Oregon State. PK is the sole reason that Pat Casey stayed at Oregon State. Show me school that has not been a beneficiary of a big booster.
Right? And maybe Dwight could tell us how exactly OSU and WSU killed the golden goose? Pac12 prez advising the schools to reject ESPN’s $30 million media rights offer and greedily asking for $50 million killed the the conference
How many fans attend Ducks football games versus Beavers football games? It’s not even close! Reser being the smaller stadium rarely sells out so don’t use that as the excuse.
Then why is this Bama’s first time ever in Final Four? They had decades to “invest” and get there. They have new fans or something that got them there? This response has no validity otherwise Bama would have been there before in hoops.
Bama’s football success is because of coaches they have had. Also, many of Bama’s Chip’s in football were mythical votes where they were segregated and never left the region. Took USC kicking their butt in Bama for them to integrate.
Bama history in football before 1972 is spotty at best. Has nothing to do with facilities, fans.
I think the 70 member high level league is what fans want. It certainly honors the traditions of the game and its historic divisions. The P5 and G5 were created with this structure in mind. So I am all in with this CST proposal!! That said, I don't think this is what ESPN, CBS and FSN want. They want a 32 team league that is more concentrated which makes production cost lower and the ability to air all games easier for the networks, who pay the cost of production and distribution. Who has the power? The fans or the media? I think it is the media since they have all the money. Fans only spend a fraction on tickets and such compared to the networks. And money talks. If there is anything I can do to help the CST proposal, I would love to know.
What’s the best part of this proposal is it gets rid of the college playoff selection committee. This proposal is NFL style playoff with division winners as wild card winners comprising who makes the playoffs as opposed to a bunch of people who watch small portion of games and then determine who makes it.
Selection committee concept needs to go.
Can you see NFL owners getting in a room and voting in playoff teams that make it?
I thought it was interesting that one of the NFL front office people is endorsing the CST proposal. That is not by accident. This guy did not just go off the reservation. So, if the NFL wants this 70 team league (it is really better to have more schools involved for player development, like the multi-tiered minor league system is to the MLB). This is the only reason I give this proposal any chance at all. The NFL tells the media what to do, not the other way around.
Brian, maybe the NFL needs to start opening the pocketbook and funding some of these changes. It's so ludicrous that their entire business model depends on third-parties developing their future employees free of charge. You talk about a textbook case of socializing the costs and privatizing the profits.
Exactly. MLB funds its minor leagues. Same should be true in college football, especially as the "college" part of the equation in football, probably basketball, too, loses significance with the unionizing and salarying of players.
This system where universities source and fund the development of athletes for professional leagues is unique to the USA. There's no other place in the world where this happens. This concept is especially egregious when it comes to football. As you said, MLB has an extensive professional minor league system, but so does the NHL, MLS, and even the NBA to a lesser extent. Footbal is completely alone, wherein the NFL has developed and encouraged a system where the massive costs of developing an athlete into a professional are borne by third parties at no charge to the prime beneficiary.
Exactly... so we can all see where this is going, now. There is no reason for the Ducks and Beavers fans to bicker about realignment because in the end, there will be one minor league NFL football team based most likely in Portland. It will have its own draft that will have nothing to do with recruiting and commitments. Oregon fans will have no reason to take any school pride in the Portland minor league football team because it will have nothing to do with them (as soon as this league of football unionizes, pays its players a graduated salary, has its bills paid for by its own "ownership" group and thus disconnects from its university). Same for BYU and Utah. Same for many programs around the country. Univ of Minnesota might end up as a minor league team to the Vikings, but in St Paul. Univ of Iowa's minor league NFL team will be based in Des Moines. Just like in baseball, second tier cities without an NFL team will get their own minor league team and the NFL will control it all, enhancing its value. It makes a ton of sense in a world where all that matters is the money
The proposal might start out at 70, but you can bet that Alabama and Ohio State aren't about to share the potential bounty equally. That list will be winnowed down to something more like 20 or 24. The only reason for them to keep it at anything close to 70 is if they won't be able to play the East Cupcake States and Punxsutawney Techs of the football world. They'll need enough patsies around so that they can pad their records.
As I said, there is what the media networks and the SEC and the B1G want and then there is what everyone else, including the NFL apparently, wants. In your example, Alabama and Ohio State are probably happy with a two team league and they get ALL the money, since greed is driving college football. It does not serve the NFL to narrow down this new pro league if they want it as a player development league that they control (hence the minor league analogy). As I said earlier, the fact is this "top NFL executive", Brian Rolapp, would not be part of this CST process if that is not the NFL's official position. I know the B1G and SEC think they are a big deal, but they are not bigger than the NFL. The NFL will get what it wants as it tells the media what to do, not the other way around as in college football.
Brian is correct. The SEC and B1G...along with Fox, NBC, ABC/NBC, CBS...want the Premier Two and the associated money means there will be no going backwards anytime soon. Perhaps revisited when the 2030's arrive, but no one should be believe there will be regional conferences again. They do not want OU/UT and the Little 8 type conferences again.
A slight correction on the Final Night's Giveaway, Ticketmaster is the sponsor of the Lip Balm Giveaway, It is just being handed at at the Trailblazer's game.
If Ticketmaster is sponsoring the lip balm "giveaway", there will be a $24 service charge for each tube of lip balm and they will all be gone to secondary market re-sellers before the general ticket holders get a crack at them.
And if you "list" your lip balm on the secondary market, you will only get 90% of the listed price, while Ticketmaster will add 20% in fees to the buyer. When you deal with Pay Pay, Amazon or Ticketmaster, you will always end up on the losing end of the deal
Interesting prospect. Chip Kelly's remarks about separating out football from other sports was intriguing when he said several months ago. Sounds like others are running with the idea and it would be fun if it came to be. I'd love to see a Pacific Division of the old PAC-10 rise up from the ashes of the PAC12 implosion.
Big 10 & SEC will "go for it" when they realize this sort of deal can be offered as a settlement of the House lawsuit. Getting to a set salary structure with individual bonuses for performance will settle down the transfer portal. And relegation should be determined by a team's combined two-year record. Promotion should be for more than one year.
As recently as a year ago I'd have said I wouldn't like turning college football into a junior-NFL. Given what's happened since then, and what's likely to come, now I think it might be the best thing that could happen to the sport. Did some back-of-envelope pondering of how the seven 10-team divisions could be aligned, both to make geographic sense and preserve as many rivalries as possible (and even revive several that have gone dormant). I even restored some old conference names.
Big Ten: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Pac 10: Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
SEC: Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, LSU, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky
ACC: Georgia Tech, Clemson, South Carolina, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Maryland
Big East: Miami, Florida State, West Virginia, Pitt, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse, Boston College, UCF, Notre Dame
SWC: Texas, Texas A&M, Houston, TCU, SMU, Baylor, Arkansas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State
Big Eight+: Utah, BYU, Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Louisville
“Lite NFL” by Miller 🍺 That should be the new branding 👍
What made/makes College Football different from the NFL has always been regional rivalries and traditions. Where the NFL is corporate. Homogenized. And therefore bland. College Football has always been multifaceted and unique. Like a movie where one side is pushing uniformity and the other side is a rag-tag group of heroes.
ANYTHING that avoids the march towards uniform, national conferences would be preferable. All I saw yesterday / what I see in the comments here is people complaining about paying players and joining one big organization. But you know what? The Pac-10 originals playing together retains cultural ties. The Big Ten originals staying together and SEC originals staying together does the same.
I don't want Oregon to be in a conference with Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, and Georgia just because they are the biggest brands nationwide. THAT is NFL Light. A nationwide organization that retains regional divisions and historic conference alignments is not NFL Light.
I saw this exact alignment yesterday on Reddit.
Cribbing Reddit fan posts, unless that was you on Reddit.
Nope, wasn't me and I'm not on Reddit. Maybe this alignment just makes so much sense that 99% of people could come up with it on their own? (and the 1% who can't consists of money-chasing college administrators)
Instead of lip balm, the Trailtankers should be handing out Preparation H for fan appreciation night to offer some relief from the way they've been screwing them the last several years.
Two thumbs up (so to speak)
Why is Coach Graves continually losing his top recruits to the transfer portal?
For the Monday mailbag:
Using OSU's losing BB players to the portal as an example, I can't understand why they don't stay. Next year, all things remaining the same, an OSU women's team who went to the Elite 8 in a Power 5 conference would play in a lesser competitive conference with the same quality players. Why wouldn't they want to stay and slay everyone else in the conference? Are the players thinking they won't get paid NIL? Please help me wrap my head around this. Thanks.
Maybe they are concerned that playing in a much softer conference means that if they are upset in the conference tournament they won't get in the big dance, even if their regular season resume is strong. Or if they do get in, playing in the WCC won't have prepared them as well as playing in the Pac did.
Gonzaga did not win either conference tournament, but made the NCAAs and the Sweet 16 in men's and women's. If you have a strong WCC resume, you get in the tournament.
All the schools not in the SEC/B10 need to band together and threaten to form their own playoff. Say an NCAA December Madness with it's own TV deal. Not having a legitimate national champion will torpedo the TV money for the BCS if only the SEC and B10 are in it. It's the only leverage the other schools have and they should use it.
That’s like suggesting the winner of the NIT is Co National Champion along with the winner of the NCAA Match Madness tourney.
Yeah sure, if 80% of the teams like UConn, Duke, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Syracuse, Gonzaga, Memphis, Louisville, Baylor, Kansas, decided not to participate in the NCAA tournament and play in the NIT instead, and March Madness was only SEC and B10 schools, then OK, sure.
Should have happened a long time ago.
John, of all the current or former college football coaches you have known, who would have been best equipped (in demeanor) to negotiate a union contract with his players? Conversely, who would have struggled the most if they had to do it?
Here's one for the mailbag: While I was driving home from the Hillsboro Hops' opening game the other night, I was pleasantly surprised to hear male commentators on a national sports talk radio show breaking down the Iowa-Connecticut women's basketball game the way men's games have been analyzed for years. To be honest, I haven't heard much of that, and to some degree, still don't. As the father of daughters, do you consider that a sign that women's sports and female athletes are finally getting the respect and recognition they deserve -- especially as women's basketball and other sports (such as soccer or softball) grow in popularity? If not, what will it take to get there?
Will you be covering Pac12 baseball this season?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Thanks for asking this one.
If Jody Allen sells the blazers will it stay in Portland?
The prize: lip balm. I thought this was a very good sarcastic joke until I read further.
"Come on Man" you cant be serious...
John,
I've been under the impression from you and Jon Wilner that Fox (especially) would want a piece of the new college football playoff telecast rights as the culminating payoff for their Billion$/yr contract with the Big 10. Any thoughts (or word from Bob Thompson) how this went down w/o Fox? They must have given the Big 10 their tacit approval, no? Would be fascinating to hear Bob's thoughts on Fox's strategy here.
Love this. Will ask.
THANKS John. would love to hear what Bob has to say if he's willing to comment.
The schools that are at the top are the schools and fan bases that invested big time. The Cougs and Beavers like it or not, were part of a cooperative of school presidents that killed the golden goose. Self inflicted damage should not be rewarded. Lawsuits? What did the top schools do, what are they guilty of? Investing too much? Being highly successful? Note: Alabama, the basketball team is in the final four and the football team was in the championship final four of football. Why? Because one visit to the school facilities and the level of fan support came about because Alabamans care. They care more than the rest. Oregon fans and boosters care more and that is why they are forecast to win it all in football. So what are they guilty of? Lawsuits? BS
Oregon "fans" invested or an Oregon "fan" invested?
Fans.
You notice how there are The Duck Stores but not The Beaver Stores? How Autzen was always sold out but Reser was not? That wasn't Phil Knight donating money.
If you look at the historical data on Knightnewhouse, Oregon's athletic department gets about $25 million more per year in donations than Oregon State does ($35 to $10 on a 5 year average). This is true. However, Oregon has $70 million more in total incomes on average. Subtracting out the donation difference, that's about $45 million more coming in per year to Oregon that comes from fans attending games. Fans buying merchandise. Advertising deals to appeal to the larger fanbase. And so on.
The truth is that Oregon was dwarfing Oregon State on all fronts, not just the Phil Knight front. That's why they were bringing in 155 million and Oregon State was bringing in 85 million despite being on the same media rights deal. Even if you subtract for donations, you're talking 120 million to 75 million in incomes. Just looking at those numbers... the difference was not one fan donating money.
The difference was that Oregon fans supported their team to a much larger degree. The school's athletics were more popular and more successful.
I'm going to miss the in-conference rivalry as much as anyone. However, bitterly chalking up Oregon rising above to Phil Knight is completely disregarding all the other reasons Oregon rose above Oregon State. Does the money help? Absolutely. Is it the only reason? Only a moron would think that.
Oh come now, Mathias. Let's just make this simple: where do you think Oregon would be sitting in the world of CFB without Phil Knight's monetary involvement? I can answer that, because I'm old enough to remember them sans PK. Answer? About where Oregon State is right now, stuck in a small rural town with little national tradition or attraction for urban black athletes. I'm not an Oregon hater nor arrogant enough to tell PK where to spend his money, but for you or any Duck fan to pretend he hasn't solely lifted Oregon athletics above Eugene's punching weight is delusional. It's not something to be ashamed of, or apologetic---just lucky. Absorb a joke about it on occasion...
Exactly, Scott.
The Phil Knight factor isn't simply the heap of money he donates to buy players and build buildings. It's the advertising and marketing that comes with that money and the associated Nike expertise that created UO's beloved "brand." This incentivizes people to purchase Duck gear and attend games. It's all part of the package, one and the same.
I'm also old enough to remember football life pre-PK. I attended the infamous Toilet Bowl. Scott is correct that PK can do whatever he chooses to spend his money. But UO would absolutely be in the Pac-3 were it not for Uncle Phil.
And Mathias, name-calling never is helpful and says more about you and your lack of argument than anything else. You can do better.
Jean and Scott are right on. Why have the Ducks drawn more fans to Autzen and sold more merch? Because they win. Why do they win? Because of Phil's investment. It went down in this order: 1. Phil invested in facilities. 2. Better facilities attracted better players. 3. Better players created more wins, bowl games, and national exposure. 4. More wins and national exposure created more revenue. I have said on this site before: It's virtually impossible to find a Duck fan who will admit that if it weren't for Phil, the Ducks would be the Beavers.
Lotta jealousy on this thread. Oregon wins and Trojans and Beavers fans play the laughingstock "it's not fair" game.
Cry me a river. Need a tissue? USC cheats, gets caught, hasn't won since and needs to point at something other than themselves. Oregon State fans? That 1965 Rose Bowl was something, wasn't it!
Oregon was back to back conference champions and went to the Rose Bowl and Cotton Bowl back to back before PK started donating. Oregon has been a huge beneficiary of PK. So has Oregon State. PK is the sole reason that Pat Casey stayed at Oregon State. Show me school that has not been a beneficiary of a big booster.
Right? And maybe Dwight could tell us how exactly OSU and WSU killed the golden goose? Pac12 prez advising the schools to reject ESPN’s $30 million media rights offer and greedily asking for $50 million killed the the conference
Ed Ray… Larry Scott’s strongest supporter.
Best part is it was Utah’s President who was one of two least tenured members and then bolted. Comical.
Oregon fans? Or Phil Knight....
How many fans attend Ducks football games versus Beavers football games? It’s not even close! Reser being the smaller stadium rarely sells out so don’t use that as the excuse.
Then why is this Bama’s first time ever in Final Four? They had decades to “invest” and get there. They have new fans or something that got them there? This response has no validity otherwise Bama would have been there before in hoops.
Bama’s football success is because of coaches they have had. Also, many of Bama’s Chip’s in football were mythical votes where they were segregated and never left the region. Took USC kicking their butt in Bama for them to integrate.
Bama history in football before 1972 is spotty at best. Has nothing to do with facilities, fans.
I think the 70 member high level league is what fans want. It certainly honors the traditions of the game and its historic divisions. The P5 and G5 were created with this structure in mind. So I am all in with this CST proposal!! That said, I don't think this is what ESPN, CBS and FSN want. They want a 32 team league that is more concentrated which makes production cost lower and the ability to air all games easier for the networks, who pay the cost of production and distribution. Who has the power? The fans or the media? I think it is the media since they have all the money. Fans only spend a fraction on tickets and such compared to the networks. And money talks. If there is anything I can do to help the CST proposal, I would love to know.
What’s the best part of this proposal is it gets rid of the college playoff selection committee. This proposal is NFL style playoff with division winners as wild card winners comprising who makes the playoffs as opposed to a bunch of people who watch small portion of games and then determine who makes it.
Selection committee concept needs to go.
Can you see NFL owners getting in a room and voting in playoff teams that make it?
Literally is what college does. It’s so stupid.
I thought it was interesting that one of the NFL front office people is endorsing the CST proposal. That is not by accident. This guy did not just go off the reservation. So, if the NFL wants this 70 team league (it is really better to have more schools involved for player development, like the multi-tiered minor league system is to the MLB). This is the only reason I give this proposal any chance at all. The NFL tells the media what to do, not the other way around.
Brian, maybe the NFL needs to start opening the pocketbook and funding some of these changes. It's so ludicrous that their entire business model depends on third-parties developing their future employees free of charge. You talk about a textbook case of socializing the costs and privatizing the profits.
Exactly. MLB funds its minor leagues. Same should be true in college football, especially as the "college" part of the equation in football, probably basketball, too, loses significance with the unionizing and salarying of players.
This system where universities source and fund the development of athletes for professional leagues is unique to the USA. There's no other place in the world where this happens. This concept is especially egregious when it comes to football. As you said, MLB has an extensive professional minor league system, but so does the NHL, MLS, and even the NBA to a lesser extent. Footbal is completely alone, wherein the NFL has developed and encouraged a system where the massive costs of developing an athlete into a professional are borne by third parties at no charge to the prime beneficiary.
Exactly... so we can all see where this is going, now. There is no reason for the Ducks and Beavers fans to bicker about realignment because in the end, there will be one minor league NFL football team based most likely in Portland. It will have its own draft that will have nothing to do with recruiting and commitments. Oregon fans will have no reason to take any school pride in the Portland minor league football team because it will have nothing to do with them (as soon as this league of football unionizes, pays its players a graduated salary, has its bills paid for by its own "ownership" group and thus disconnects from its university). Same for BYU and Utah. Same for many programs around the country. Univ of Minnesota might end up as a minor league team to the Vikings, but in St Paul. Univ of Iowa's minor league NFL team will be based in Des Moines. Just like in baseball, second tier cities without an NFL team will get their own minor league team and the NFL will control it all, enhancing its value. It makes a ton of sense in a world where all that matters is the money
The NBA’s went under for same reason that college football continues.
Spot on!
The proposal might start out at 70, but you can bet that Alabama and Ohio State aren't about to share the potential bounty equally. That list will be winnowed down to something more like 20 or 24. The only reason for them to keep it at anything close to 70 is if they won't be able to play the East Cupcake States and Punxsutawney Techs of the football world. They'll need enough patsies around so that they can pad their records.
As I said, there is what the media networks and the SEC and the B1G want and then there is what everyone else, including the NFL apparently, wants. In your example, Alabama and Ohio State are probably happy with a two team league and they get ALL the money, since greed is driving college football. It does not serve the NFL to narrow down this new pro league if they want it as a player development league that they control (hence the minor league analogy). As I said earlier, the fact is this "top NFL executive", Brian Rolapp, would not be part of this CST process if that is not the NFL's official position. I know the B1G and SEC think they are a big deal, but they are not bigger than the NFL. The NFL will get what it wants as it tells the media what to do, not the other way around as in college football.
Brian is correct. The SEC and B1G...along with Fox, NBC, ABC/NBC, CBS...want the Premier Two and the associated money means there will be no going backwards anytime soon. Perhaps revisited when the 2030's arrive, but no one should be believe there will be regional conferences again. They do not want OU/UT and the Little 8 type conferences again.
A slight correction on the Final Night's Giveaway, Ticketmaster is the sponsor of the Lip Balm Giveaway, It is just being handed at at the Trailblazer's game.
If Ticketmaster is sponsoring the lip balm "giveaway", there will be a $24 service charge for each tube of lip balm and they will all be gone to secondary market re-sellers before the general ticket holders get a crack at them.
And if you "list" your lip balm on the secondary market, you will only get 90% of the listed price, while Ticketmaster will add 20% in fees to the buyer. When you deal with Pay Pay, Amazon or Ticketmaster, you will always end up on the losing end of the deal
Interesting prospect. Chip Kelly's remarks about separating out football from other sports was intriguing when he said several months ago. Sounds like others are running with the idea and it would be fun if it came to be. I'd love to see a Pacific Division of the old PAC-10 rise up from the ashes of the PAC12 implosion.
Big 10 & SEC will "go for it" when they realize this sort of deal can be offered as a settlement of the House lawsuit. Getting to a set salary structure with individual bonuses for performance will settle down the transfer portal. And relegation should be determined by a team's combined two-year record. Promotion should be for more than one year.