NCAA Football 2022

[Pyperkub]

There will no longer be a Big 10 West (most likely) after next season. In fact, pretty much all of the conferences are or will be scrapping their divisions. Divisions can muck up playoff berths and/or dilute the conference title game. The bottom line is the conference title game is often (not always) their highest rated, showcase "regular season" game. They aren't going to keep mediocre division champs making them anticlimactic.

Whatever happens, it's not really relevant to the prior discussion, which was around the tiering of the teams. I thought Pyperkub was generally (but not always) overvaluing teams from the West.

That said, it'll be interesting to see where the Big Ten goes. As it stands, OSU and Michigan are clearly the best two teams in the conference, as they were the last two years. The two are not going to want to move The Game off of its final weekend standing, and what the Big 2 want, the Big 2 generally get. For the last couple of years, that would have meant back-to-back Games, which devalues the first Game. Since the Game is usually the true marquee game for the conference (with the best ratings), will the Big Ten want to risk that? I don't know. Maybe?

SC/UCLA always play the weekend before Thanksgiving, due to the final weekend being the SC/ND game when it's in LA (so not an issue with the LA schools).

WRT to the divisions, because it is pretty well established that Fox orchestrated the LA expansion, I *could* see Fox wanting to just dump SC/UCLA into the West and hope for/stack the odds in favor of an LA v Mich/tOSU in the B1G championship, especially early in the cycle as people get used to it. As such, I could see the elimination of divisions coming later in the cycle.

It's not about getting the best matchup, but getting the best ratings.

[Skinypupy]

Removing the divisions worked pretty well for Utah this year. Even if choosing the two teams for the CCG came down to the 4th tiebreaker determined by a game that ended at 2am ET.

Truly must-see television.

[Pyperkub]

Removing the divisions worked pretty well for Utah this year. Even if choosing the two teams for the CCG came down to the 4th tiebreaker determined by a game that ended at 2am ET.

Truly must-see television.

It kind of screwed UCLA tho. If we had beaten SC (came down to last minute pick, if you recall), we would have been locked out regardless, even tho we had beaten both SC and Utah in the South, as well as UW.

[ImLawBoy]

There will no longer be a Big 10 West (most likely) after next season. In fact, pretty much all of the conferences are or will be scrapping their divisions. Divisions can muck up playoff berths and/or dilute the conference title game. The bottom line is the conference title game is often (not always) their highest rated, showcase "regular season" game. They aren't going to keep mediocre division champs making them anticlimactic.

Whatever happens, it's not really relevant to the prior discussion, which was around the tiering of the teams. I thought Pyperkub was generally (but not always) overvaluing teams from the West.

That said, it'll be interesting to see where the Big Ten goes. As it stands, OSU and Michigan are clearly the best two teams in the conference, as they were the last two years. The two are not going to want to move The Game off of its final weekend standing, and what the Big 2 want, the Big 2 generally get. For the last couple of years, that would have meant back-to-back Games, which devalues the first Game. Since the Game is usually the true marquee game for the conference (with the best ratings), will the Big Ten want to risk that? I don't know. Maybe?

SC/UCLA always play the weekend before Thanksgiving, due to the final weekend being the SC/ND game when it's in LA (so not an issue with the LA schools).

WRT to the divisions, because it is pretty well established that Fox orchestrated the LA expansion, I *could* see Fox wanting to just dump SC/UCLA into the West and hope for/stack the odds in favor of an LA v Mich/tOSU in the B1G championship, especially early in the cycle as people get used to it. As such, I could see the elimination of divisions coming later in the cycle.

It's not about getting the best matchup, but getting the best ratings.

You're right that ratings will drive things, but the ratings for USC-Minnesota or UCLA-Illinois aren't going to move the dial in the way games with OSU, Michigan, and PSU would.

[Pyperkub]

There will no longer be a Big 10 West (most likely) after next season. In fact, pretty much all of the conferences are or will be scrapping their divisions. Divisions can muck up playoff berths and/or dilute the conference title game. The bottom line is the conference title game is often (not always) their highest rated, showcase "regular season" game. They aren't going to keep mediocre division champs making them anticlimactic.

Whatever happens, it's not really relevant to the prior discussion, which was around the tiering of the teams. I thought Pyperkub was generally (but not always) overvaluing teams from the West.

That said, it'll be interesting to see where the Big Ten goes. As it stands, OSU and Michigan are clearly the best two teams in the conference, as they were the last two years. The two are not going to want to move The Game off of its final weekend standing, and what the Big 2 want, the Big 2 generally get. For the last couple of years, that would have meant back-to-back Games, which devalues the first Game. Since the Game is usually the true marquee game for the conference (with the best ratings), will the Big Ten want to risk that? I don't know. Maybe?

SC/UCLA always play the weekend before Thanksgiving, due to the final weekend being the SC/ND game when it's in LA (so not an issue with the LA schools).

WRT to the divisions, because it is pretty well established that Fox orchestrated the LA expansion, I *could* see Fox wanting to just dump SC/UCLA into the West and hope for/stack the odds in favor of an LA v Mich/tOSU in the B1G championship, especially early in the cycle as people get used to it. As such, I could see the elimination of divisions coming later in the cycle.

It's not about getting the best matchup, but getting the best ratings.

You're right that ratings will drive things, but the ratings for USC-Minnesota or UCLA-Illinois aren't going to move the dial in the way games with OSU, Michigan, and PSU would.

On the other hand, I can make an argument that the B1G will *keep* the divisions pretty easy:

With the new Playoff format (autobids for conference champs), the B1G could make MORE money by keeping divisions and having a Western also-ran with a couple of losses pull a miracle win in the B1G championship and getting them and Mich/tOSU/Penn St/other still get in (or even 2 of them).

[ImLawBoy]

If they keep the divisions, I doubt they'd keep them geographically based. Even if you add two better teams in the West and move Purdue into East, you've still got a power imbalance skewed heavily to the East. I think the Big Ten would take the opportunity to realign the divisions competitively (and come up with better names the "Leaders" and "Legends", one would hope).

[JCC]

Big 12 reportedly going after Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado.

This would pretty much nail the coffin shut for the Pac 12. This certainly increases the urgency for a new TV deal and to lock up all the current members.

[Pyperkub]

Big 12 reportedly going after Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado.

This would pretty much nail the coffin shut for the Pac 12. This certainly increases the urgency for a new TV deal and to lock up all the current members.

This is old news, and has been pretty thoroughly shut down by all 4 schools.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Skinypupy]

Big 12 reportedly going after Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, and Colorado.

This would pretty much nail the coffin shut for the Pac 12. This certainly increases the urgency for a new TV deal and to lock up all the current members.

This is old news, and has been pretty thoroughly shut down by all 4 schools.

Yep. Dodd has posted multiple "what if" scenarios that include the "4 Corners" schools going elsewhere. They're entirely his opinion, but get picked up as "inside sources say" reporting by articles like this one. Not to say it couldn't happen at some point, but there is zero indication that it's actually in the works now.

Canzano had a pretty interesting column this week. Contained two bits of info that may be relevant to some folks here:

• Keep an eye on Fresno State as an addition to the Big 12 Conference. I’m told the Pac-12 has only had “intermittent” contact with the Bulldogs. No visit. Nothing planned. I don’t think the presidents and chancellors — especially the ones a few hours away in the Bay Area — in the Pac-12 view Fresno as a “must have.”

• Fresno State and the Big 12 are talking, though. Yormark and Fresno State President Saúl Jiménez-Sandoval have had “multiple conversations” a source said. The Bulldogs would love to join a Power Five conference.

I imagine this would make Scuzz happy. Also...

• I saw multiple media reports this week that announced CBS and Turner were “no longer involved” in Pac-12 media rights negotiations. I had to stop and check whether I’d missed something. It was strange to see the CBS/Turner development reported as if it were breaking news. I’ve been told for months that neither network was ever seriously involved. I expect ESPN/Amazon to end up with the Pac-12’s media rights.

One high-level industry source said: “I don’t know that CBS and Turner were ever actually in.”

Which tracks with some other reports I've heard.

[Scuzz]

I think Fresno State is one of those schools were football would die as a sport if it drops to a lower level than it is now. I can't see the Pac-12 taking us because we are seen as a little sister school and they prefer recruiting here to playing here. The Oregon and Washington schools don't mind playing us but we can only get the others on the road. The B12 would be nice but Fresno is a weird city to fly in and out of, so I don't know how great that would work. But we would take it tomorrow.

[JCC]

So this article about the Pac 12 is interesting. I don't bring this up to reiterate the Pac 12's woes, but to point out an interesting stat.

Here are the top rated games for each conference (note that they are excluding the teams that are leaving their conference) so no Texas/Oklahoma/UCLA/USC games are included here....

Big Ten
Michigan vs. Ohio State - 17.14 million

SEC
Tennessee vs. Georgia - 13.06 million

ACC
NC State vs. Clemson - 4.98 million

Big 12
TCU vs. Baylor - 4.35 million

Pac-12
Oregon vs. Oregon State - 3.56 million

It's so clear that every team in the ACC, Pac 12, and Big 12 is going to be desperate to be invited up to the "big leagues". The ACC, Pac 12, and Big 12 should be getting their best programs together and try to form a 3rd super conference. They would still be behind the other two, but they would at least be able to get closer to them in revenue. I just don't see how those 3 conferences survive long term without merging in some form.

[JCC]

Sorry to continue on this topic but I find it fascinating. There is a rumor that the Pac 12 is actually considering deals with Amazon + Apple to stream all of their games. Wow.

[Isgrimnur]

They care about the money, let the carriers worry about eyeballs.

[Pyperkub]

Sorry to continue on this topic but I find it fascinating. There is a rumor that the Pac 12 is actually considering deals with Amazon + Apple to stream all of their games. Wow.

Wilner has been on this, and seems to have a very good grasp of it. And as a long term strategy, it's pretty clear these are the direction these things will go. I do think that the pac 12 will need some non-internet presence tho. Local partnerships in the markets at least to start the process, because sports streaming isn't yet the way:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/02/23/ ... companies/

But to give you a sense of the reach of streaming compared to the cable networks (ESPN and FS1) and the Pac-12 Networks, we found these estimates online:

Prime Video: 77 million
Paramount (CBS): 56 million
Hulu (Disney): 48 million
Apple TV: 30 million
ESPN+: 25 million
Peacock: 15 million

Even ESPN+ and Apple TV, potential landing spots for Pac-12 content, have approximately twice as many subscribers as the Pac-12 Networks.

[Skinypupy]

Sigh...

[JCC]

Wow, I think being on all streaming is a short term disaster. Even if the revenue was on par with the Big 10 and SEC (it won't be), it's still going to be way fewer eyeballs watching - at least in the short term. It's a lot harder to flip between games when you have to exit one app and wait for another one to pop up. (ie. going between someting like YouTubeTV/Sling/Fubo/etc. where all the other games are and then exiting that and popping up Apple or Amazon or whatever.

Now if all conferences eventually go that way (which Disney and FOX will strongly fight against) then I guess it will work long term. And maybe revenue now matters more than the gradual deterioration of the brand(s) later.

Like I said, I find this stuff fascinating (during the CFB off season)!

[JCC]

Changing over to a little closer to (my) home, it sounds like the beginning of dissent is happening in the ACC. They are locked into this super long grant of rights/tv contract. Florida State is starting to grumble...

"Something has to change..."

[Pyperkub]

Sigh...

TBH, more bidders is a good thing, and if this could fill the holes from streaming...

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Skinypupy]

Thought this was quite interesting.



A few things that surprised me:
- West Virginia much higher than I expected
- Utah is actually quite a bit higher than Clemson (isn’t their whole gripe right now that “we carry the conference”?)
- Is that Oregon State at #7? Just people tuning in accidentally thinking they’re watching Oregon?
- BYU not nearly the huge national draw they claim they are (ok, that one’s not particularly surprising)

[JCC]

Thought this was quite interesting.



A few things that surprised me:
- West Virginia much higher than I expected
- Utah is actually quite a bit higher than Clemson (isn’t their whole gripe right now that “we carry the conference”?)
- Is that Oregon State at #7? Just people tuning in accidentally thinking they’re watching Oregon?
- BYU not nearly the huge national draw they claim they are (ok, that one’s not particularly surprising)

The interesting caveat is that this is on "secondary channels". On this graph, NCSU gets more eyeballs than Clemson, but in reality Clemson is the 2nd highest TV rated school in the ACC (behind FSU). So this is just a subset of the ratings. (So we are really talking about ratings for less important games.)

On another note, here is a good LA Times Article on the rock and a hard place the Pac 12 finds itself in STILL with no TV deal. Nothing really new, but a pretty good summation of the precarious place the conference is in and the various scenarios ahead. The Big 12 was *so* smart to negotiate early after the Pac 12 wasted months when they could have beaten the Big 12 to the punch.

[Carpet_pissr]

As alluded to above, if you have the graph for ‘primary’ channels, I think it will answer most of your questions. (Not rhetorical, I actually would like to see that graph )

[Skinypupy]

Yeah, I'm an idiot and completely missed that rather important distinction.

[LordMortis]

How old is that graph? FS1 left the Detroit market several years ago. I'm not sure how many. Shortly after the time that Fox was sold to Disney. FS1, FSD, etc... became Bally Sports Entertainment channels around here.

[JCC]

Yeah, I'm an idiot and completely missed that rather important distinction.

You are not an idiot at all. The only reason I knew to look at the graph more closely is I knew for a fact that my beloved Wolfpack could not possbily rate higher than Clemson in the ratings. (and I had read an article about ratings for ACC football games recently)

[JCC]

As alluded to above, if you have the graph for ‘primary’ channels, I think it will answer most of your questions. (Not rhetorical, I actually would like to see that graph )

I did a little bit of googling and could not find such a graph. There are some articles about highest rated teams for the season. (Spoiler alert: Ohio State was #1.) But, there were some inconsistencies in how they were ranked, and no graphs as nice as the one above.

[JCC]

So one of my favorite (if not favorite) CFB podcasts is the AP Top 25 CFB podcast hosted by Ralph Russo. I always find him to be even keeled and very objective. He always closes his show with 3 quick commentaries about the goings on in CFB. On this week's he touched on the Pac 12 media negotiations. He thinks it will ultimately kill the conference if they have to settle with 2-3 games a week being on a streaming only service because their exposure will be greatly diminished. He went on to speculate that he thinks long term, it is possible if not probable the Big 10 and SEC power programs are going to break off on their own and invite the few remaining power programs/brands from the Pac 12, ACC, and Big 12 to form a real super league.

I have been hearing for a long while now that what's been happening in CFB the last few years completely mirrors how the Premier League was created in the UK. I just can't believe in the long term Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Bama, Georgia, etc. are going to remain content to dole out equal shares to the Indianas and Vanderbuilts of the world when networks would be salivating to hurl money at a league made up of the super powers from the current power 5. Fascinating, wild times for my favorite sport. I really hope it doesn't get ruined.

[Skinypupy]

He went on to speculate that he thinks long term, it is possible if not probable the Big 10 and SEC power programs are going to break off on their own and invite the few remaining power programs/brands from the Pac 12, ACC, and Big 12 to form a real super league.

That would be the end of my interest in college football, as Utah likely wouldn’t be included. Even if we somehow were, I don’t know that I’d be that interested.

[JCC]

That would be the end of my interest in college football, as Utah likely wouldn’t be included. Even if we somehow were, I don’t know that I’d be that interested.

Yeah, if we are limited to say, only 40 teams, playing "top tier" college football, that would diminish my enthusiasm greatly. On the other hand, the TV partners might not want to reduce the inventory of "important" games on college Saturdays, so that may prevent it from happening. As, I have said before, I find all this fascinating. Previous conference realignment just seems like kid games compared to the potential upheaval that could happen.

[Pyperkub]

Interesting look at recruiting budgets:

How much does it cost to buy the resources necessary to win a national championship? If you ask the two-time reigning champion Georgia Bulldogs, the answer is $16,518,859. The Bulldogs spent that much between 2017-22 on recruiting expenses, which was more than $5 million more than any other program in the country over the same period, according to analysis of public records obtained by USA Today for Power Five schools. The gap between Georgia and No. 2 spender Alabama almost matches the difference between Alabama and Nebraska.

Recruiting budgets can cover a wide variety of expenses during the process, including vast recruiting departments, transportation, visits and much more. While spending does not guarantee success, seven of the last eight titles were won by schools in the top three in recruiting spending: Georgia, Alabama and Clemson.

List doesn't include private schools, FWIW.

[JCC]

Interesting look at recruiting budgets:

Thanks for this. Very interesting.

[McNutt]

I never would have guessed that LSU would have been outspent by Indiana.

[ImLawBoy]

Much larger talent base in Louisiana than in Indiana, so fewer out of state recruiting trips. That's partially why it's a bit surprising that UGA is so high up there - they sit in a great recruiting territory and shouldn't need to spend as much.

[JCC]

Much larger talent base in Louisiana than in Indiana, so fewer out of state recruiting trips. That's partially why it's a bit surprising that UGA is so high up there - they sit in a great recruiting territory and shouldn't need to spend as much.

There is certainly sound logic in your comment. Having said that, I doubt UGA is feeling too much buyer's remorse the last couple years!

[Hyena]

Much larger talent base in Louisiana than in Indiana, so fewer out of state recruiting trips. That's partially why it's a bit surprising that UGA is so high up there - they sit in a great recruiting territory and shouldn't need to spend as much.

There is certainly sound logic in your comment. Having said that, I doubt UGA is feeling too much buyer's remorse the last couple years!

As a Horned Frog, I can confirm this statement.