9 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
John Canzano's avatar

I am not sure this is going to end well for any school outside the top 50 or so.

Expand full comment
Jason Snell's avatar

Feels like a Super League is coming in the 2030s, right? And the Northwesterns and Cals of the world will not be in that one. (Maybe that'll be for the best, and the rest of us can go back to Saturday 1pm starts.)

Expand full comment
Michael Morrow's avatar

May not wait seven years Jason. But yeah, once millions of fans blow off fantasies of a "national championship," those Saturday afternoon games may be a Godsend.

OR, Div I may become a three or four-tiered system and EACH has its' own playoffs, much as the Div I to III does now.

Expand full comment
Maverick's avatar

Completely agree that the whole situation is a mess. Maybe we have to redefine what 'end well' means. Right now, the focus is all on how much money universities can generate from broadcast rights. Sixty years ago that was a minor concern. In those days most schools had to pay to get television to broadcast a game. Top coaches were paid reasonable salaries for the scope of their jobs (Bo Schembechler, Michigan, 1969: $135,127). Perhaps the end game should be to simply get back to the basics of what college athletics were meant to be. Good luck with that.

Expand full comment
Kurt in Philomath's avatar

I don't know ... $135,127 was A LOT of money back in 1969.

Expand full comment
Maverick's avatar

Yup... around $1 million todays $s. Alabama pays Saban $7million.

Expand full comment
AndyPanda's avatar

I'm pretty sure it won't.

While fixating on the media rights dollar amount, I'm concerned that the loss of value for advertising (with a streaming deal) the games on the over the air/cable/satellite carried channels, the loss of connection to the older and the rural segment of their market and alumni and fans (which happen to be larger part of the audience, and more loyal customers, and pump more $s in in the long run), the loss of new customer recruitment from channel surfers, and the loss of revenue from advertisers who won't reach as large a market from poor distribution, will wind up in total costing even more. That part of the valuation equation is being largely overlooked.

Expand full comment
Jeff McNamee's avatar

Not the top 50, but the 50 Div I colleges in the largest media markets. ThereтАЩs a difference. When weтАЩre calling SMU a good fit for the PAC, weтАЩre doing so on the size of the market and nothing else. To an extent, same with SDSU. Boise State is a FAR better athletic fit for the PAC-12 but the market is too small.

I mean, why not UPenn to the ACC? Rice to the Big 12? Why not Cal State-Long Beach to the PAC-12 for baseball or something?

None of this makes sense. ItтАЩs all media markets.

Expand full comment
Michael Morrow's avatar

There's already a two-tiered system among the Div I in football, this may just add another tier or two? 125 FCS teams and 129 FBS teams may just morph into another configuration, with perhaps those 50-60 schools--the perennial Top 25s in football and a handful of ambitious pretenders--in an "elite" division. Stay tuned.

Expand full comment