[Austroturf]

The transfer explosion couple with the demise of the PAC-12 has greatly diminished my interest in college football.

I share these sentiments.  The demise of the PAC-12 was driven by forces that are destroying traditional college football and replacing it with a two-tier semi-professional feeder system for the NFL.  But let's be clear: the NFL now has stricter guidelines and regulations on who can play where and who can transfer when and how much each team can spend on its roster.  

USC and UCLA dumped a century of tradition to increase their take in the media payout package.  With that money, they are certainly hoping to buy more transfers via NIL, more TV exposure for their athletes, better facilities, higher profile coaches, etc.  They kick-started an exodus of other PAC-12 members with the thinking that those who wait will lose (and they weren't wrong).  And all of this was just for football (maybe a bit for basketball) and completely ignored the needs of student athletes in other sports.  

Conferences used to have a regional significance, simply because excessive travel is onerous for the athletes, who are also students.  Even the NFL has regional divisions in which you play each divisional member home-and-away -- this builds meaningful rivalries that spur fan interest.  Regional significance is also reflected in many of the conference names in college sports: PAC-12, SEC, ACC, MWC, etc.  The B1G and the SEC have been driving the demolition of the traditional conference structure.  And the only driver for this?  Bucks.  

I still enjoy college football; but these developments (and every ad I see while watching the livestreams) make it clear that the product is no longer the same.  And the blow-out we witnessed in the Coliseum yesterday is clearly a sign of how winners and losers are being tailored in this brave new world of "media-money-rules-all".

So it's not the move to the ACC that diminishes my interest; it's the root cause of that move that diminishes my overall interest in college football as a whole.  Monied programs will rule; and the winners will drive further consolidation until, maybe, there is a semi-professional Power 1 "conference" of teams.

With UCLA ranked this week, the PAC now has 7 ranked teams.  The competition should be easier next year.  The new conference will provide much more national exposure.

46 years ago, Walsh lost by a bigger margin  at USC than Taylor did last night.  There are some short cycles and some longer cycles, but nothing is permanent.  It is possible that if college football sets up a top tier of 30-40 schools, Stanford may end up in the 2nd tier.  If tier 1 goes to a completely pro model, Stanford may be a better fit in Tier 2.

The current transfer mania has been partially fueled by the COVID eligibility rules.
Stanford will not be at as much of a disadvantage going forward.

The Pac-12 has 8 ranked teams.  Only Cal, Stanford, ASU and Arizona are outside the top 25.  Impressive.

[Austroturf]

The transfer explosion couple with the demise of the PAC-12 has greatly diminished my interest in college football.

I share these sentiments.  The demise of the PAC-12 was driven by forces that are destroying traditional college football and replacing it with a two-tier semi-professional feeder system for the NFL.  But let's be clear: the NFL now has stricter guidelines and regulations on who can play where and who can transfer when and how much each team can spend on its roster.  

USC and UCLA dumped a century of tradition to increase their take in the media payout package.  With that money, they are certainly hoping to buy more transfers via NIL, more TV exposure for their athletes, better facilities, higher profile coaches, etc.  They kick-started an exodus of other PAC-12 members with the thinking that those who wait will lose (and they weren't wrong).  And all of this was just for football (maybe a bit for basketball) and completely ignored the needs of student athletes in other sports.  

Conferences used to have a regional significance, simply because excessive travel is onerous for the athletes, who are also students.  Even the NFL has regional divisions in which you play each divisional member home-and-away -- this builds meaningful rivalries that spur fan interest.  Regional significance is also reflected in many of the conference names in college sports: PAC-12, SEC, ACC, MWC, etc.  The B1G and the SEC have been driving the demolition of the traditional conference structure.  And the only driver for this?  Bucks.  

I still enjoy college football; but these developments (and every ad I see while watching the livestreams) make it clear that the product is no longer the same.  And the blow-out we witnessed in the Coliseum yesterday is clearly a sign of how winners and losers are being tailored in this brave new world of "media-money-rules-all".

So it's not the move to the ACC that diminishes my interest; it's the root cause of that move that diminishes my overall interest in college football as a whole.  Monied programs will rule; and the winners will drive further consolidation until, maybe, there is a semi-professional Power 1 "conference" of teams.

With UCLA ranked this week, the PAC now has 7 ranked teams.  The competition should be easier next year.  The new conference will provide much more national exposure.

46 years ago, Walsh lost by a bigger margin  at USC than Taylor did last night.  There are some short cycles and some longer cycles, but nothing is permanent.  It is possible that if college football sets up a top tier of 30-40 schools, Stanford may end up in the 2nd tier.  If tier 1 goes to a completely pro model, Stanford may be a better fit in Tier 2.

The current transfer mania has been partially fueled by the COVID eligibility rules.
Stanford will not be at as much of a disadvantage going forward.

The Pac-12 has 8 ranked teams.  Only Cal, Stanford, ASU and Arizona are outside the top 25.  Impressive.