[Goose]

I suspect you underestimate the appeal and legacy of college sports.  

Look at basketball where a professional minor league exists side by side with college sports.  It’s not the pro option which has the Television contract, March Madness tournament, of immense proportions attendance figures, and front of sport section headlines.  I follow sports pretty heavily and have no idea where the Santa Cruz “Sea Dubs” finished in their league.

Even in baseball with over a century of history I can’t tell you where the SJ Giants finished - and I attended several games.

I think you are correct that the "appeal and legacy" of college sports is what sets them apart from minor-league teams. However, the "legacy" aspect is the problem. The connections between the teams and their histories matter. So does (at least the illusion of) the athletes being amateurs. The ongoing changes have progressively stripped away these legacies. There are indeed plenty of people, particularly in the SEC, who don't much care about those legacies. Having Texas in the SEC is fine with them. However, there are plenty of people who do watch college sports because of those associations and legacies. These people will drift away when these associations are destroyed. That has been an ongoing process, greatly accelerated by the current demise of West Coast football.

It will only get worse as the over-inflated value of the TV contracts (sooner rather than later) requires a modification of the payouts. That is already happening, and as others point out we are already seeing calls to adjust compensation among the schools in the conferences based on how many fans they bring. This effect will either alienate so many fans that there will be an attempt to "restore" the legacy (a return to sanity) or many schools will drop out/be forced out leaving effectively the "professional" minor leagues you cite. These minor leagues don't make money and few care.

[Goose]

I suspect you underestimate the appeal and legacy of college sports.  

Look at basketball where a professional minor league exists side by side with college sports.  It’s not the pro option which has the Television contract, March Madness tournament, of immense proportions attendance figures, and front of sport section headlines.  I follow sports pretty heavily and have no idea where the Santa Cruz “Sea Dubs” finished in their league.

Even in baseball with over a century of history I can’t tell you where the SJ Giants finished - and I attended several games.

I think you are correct that the "appeal and legacy" of college sports is what sets them apart from minor-league teams. However, the "legacy" aspect is the problem. The connections between the teams and their histories matter. So does (at least the illusion of) the athletes being amateurs. The ongoing changes have progressively stripped away these legacies. There are indeed plenty of people, particularly in the SEC, who don't much care about those legacies. Having Texas in the SEC is fine with them. However, there are plenty of people who do watch college sports because of those associations and legacies. These people will drift away when these associations are destroyed. That has been an ongoing process, greatly accelerated by the current demise of West Coast football.

It will only get worse as the over-inflated value of the TV contracts (sooner rather than later) requires a modification of the payouts. That is already happening, and as others point out we are already seeing calls to adjust compensation among the schools in the conferences based on how many fans they bring. This effect will either alienate so many fans that there will be an attempt to "restore" the legacy (a return to sanity) or many schools will drop out/be forced out leaving effectively the "professional" minor leagues you cite. These minor leagues don't make money and few care.

[fullmetal]

I don't know that the college football craze will die down and that viewership will drop.  Out here in football factory land, the mania feels as strong as ever.  The large student bodies and alumni populations will sustain ticket sales, merch sales, and TV viewership on Saturdays.  Can conferences continue to command increasingly large contracts from broadcasters?  Only until the advertising money stops, and that's contingent on viewership: home cable sports subscriotions, commercial cable subscriptions (sports bars), etc.  

The cult of alumni/student loyalty to their football team is pretty close to a renewable/infinite resource at this point.

The NFL knows that fan loyalty is what keeps viewers coming back year after year.  It's why the XFL or USFL haven't taken off like a rocket ship -- the product is surely better than college ball, but no one cares about XFL or USFL teams right now other than geographic proximity.  Colleges have that loyalty, and the NFL has that loyalty now.  The NBA G League is a matter of necessity (talent), different discussion.  Suffice to say that NBA G League loyalty doesn't command a big broadcasting rights contract.

[fullmetal]

I don't know that the college football craze will die down and that viewership will drop.  Out here in football factory land, the mania feels as strong as ever.  The large student bodies and alumni populations will sustain ticket sales, merch sales, and TV viewership on Saturdays.  Can conferences continue to command increasingly large contracts from broadcasters?  Only until the advertising money stops, and that's contingent on viewership: home cable sports subscriotions, commercial cable subscriptions (sports bars), etc.  

The cult of alumni/student loyalty to their football team is pretty close to a renewable/infinite resource at this point.

The NFL knows that fan loyalty is what keeps viewers coming back year after year.  It's why the XFL or USFL haven't taken off like a rocket ship -- the product is surely better than college ball, but no one cares about XFL or USFL teams right now other than geographic proximity.  Colleges have that loyalty, and the NFL has that loyalty now.  The NBA G League is a matter of necessity (talent), different discussion.  Suffice to say that NBA G League loyalty doesn't command a big broadcasting rights contract.

[chrisk]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline. The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially. The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill. Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

[chrisk]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline. The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially. The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill. Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

[Maple Leaf]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline.  The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially.  The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill.  Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

Very good points of the shaky $$$ of these media/tv deals.  If they start to falter there very well could be a domino effect and the next thing is these conference deals are no better than crypto currency.  So now there could be a total implosion of financing of college athletics, at which point maybe, just maybe the conferences/teams agree to all work together to develop something fair and sustainable.  And for good measure the free agency portal and the NIL get some much-needed real enforcement. And for good measure make the needed changes to protect the student athletes.

[Maple Leaf]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline.  The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially.  The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill.  Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

Very good points of the shaky $$$ of these media/tv deals.  If they start to falter there very well could be a domino effect and the next thing is these conference deals are no better than crypto currency.  So now there could be a total implosion of financing of college athletics, at which point maybe, just maybe the conferences/teams agree to all work together to develop something fair and sustainable.  And for good measure the free agency portal and the NIL get some much-needed real enforcement. And for good measure make the needed changes to protect the student athletes.

[Goose]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline.  The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially.  The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill.  Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

Very good points of the shaky $$$ of these media/tv deals.  If they start to falter there very well could be a domino effect and the next thing is these conference deals are no better than crypto currency.  So now there could be a total implosion of financing of college athletics, at which point maybe, just maybe the conferences/teams agree to all work together to develop something fair and sustainable.  And for good measure the free agency portal and the NIL get some much-needed real enforcement. And for good measure make the needed changes to protect the student athletes.

While I am a believer that the trend away from cable has started to cut into the available pot of money (and will continue to do so at an accelerated rate), the "deals" will be much more solid than crypto, and probably for several years the money will flow as advertised. At some point, the TV providers will need to renegotiate the existing deals, because they will become economically nonviable. They won't go away, but they will need to get smaller. When that happens the disputes and gnashing of teeth will start. That MAY force a return to sanity, but it isn't going to happen soon enough to allow Stanford to just ignore the current situation. The time in the future when this happens could be 3 years away, or it could be 5, or it could be more. Myself, I would guess about 3-5 years, but it is a guess based on no data other than what I read in the media about the issue. Given that the media is also often prone to overstatement, I wouldn't be amazed if it took longer than that. The effects of "cord cutting" are real, but how many times have we heard dire forecasts about cable TV that have not (yet) happened?

[Goose]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline.  The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially.  The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill.  Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

Very good points of the shaky $$$ of these media/tv deals.  If they start to falter there very well could be a domino effect and the next thing is these conference deals are no better than crypto currency.  So now there could be a total implosion of financing of college athletics, at which point maybe, just maybe the conferences/teams agree to all work together to develop something fair and sustainable.  And for good measure the free agency portal and the NIL get some much-needed real enforcement. And for good measure make the needed changes to protect the student athletes.

While I am a believer that the trend away from cable has started to cut into the available pot of money (and will continue to do so at an accelerated rate), the "deals" will be much more solid than crypto, and probably for several years the money will flow as advertised. At some point, the TV providers will need to renegotiate the existing deals, because they will become economically nonviable. They won't go away, but they will need to get smaller. When that happens the disputes and gnashing of teeth will start. That MAY force a return to sanity, but it isn't going to happen soon enough to allow Stanford to just ignore the current situation. The time in the future when this happens could be 3 years away, or it could be 5, or it could be more. Myself, I would guess about 3-5 years, but it is a guess based on no data other than what I read in the media about the issue. Given that the media is also often prone to overstatement, I wouldn't be amazed if it took longer than that. The effects of "cord cutting" are real, but how many times have we heard dire forecasts about cable TV that have not (yet) happened?

[StanfordMatt]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline.  The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially.  The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill.  Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

Do you mind expanding a bit further on this idea? People have been cutting the cord for years now and all of the major streaming services like Hulu, Sling, Fubo, etc. bundle their channels just like cable packages. Why do Fox and ESPN care whether someone watches their games on cable or a streaming service as long as they’re getting still their cut?

[StanfordMatt]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline.  The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially.  The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill.  Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

Do you mind expanding a bit further on this idea? People have been cutting the cord for years now and all of the major streaming services like Hulu, Sling, Fubo, etc. bundle their channels just like cable packages. Why do Fox and ESPN care whether someone watches their games on cable or a streaming service as long as they’re getting still their cut?

[oman]

Powers Booth "Well Bye" gif for the long-winded OP.

We've got relatively few strong fans of Stanford sports and it's only really critical in football.  So if football doesn't make financial sense any more, or we are convinced we can't get the athletes that we want, we should play.  If we think we can, we should save the program.

[oman]

Powers Booth "Well Bye" gif for the long-winded OP.

We've got relatively few strong fans of Stanford sports and it's only really critical in football.  So if football doesn't make financial sense any more, or we are convinced we can't get the athletes that we want, we should play.  If we think we can, we should save the program.

[chrisk]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline.  The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially.  The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill.  Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

Do you mind expanding a bit further on this idea? People have been cutting the cord for years now and all of the major streaming services like Hulu, Sling, Fubo, etc. bundle their channels just like cable packages. Why do Fox and ESPN care whether someone watches their games on cable or a streaming service as long as they’re getting still their cut?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...ll/671231/

Expect to be stuck in this purgatory for a while, because sports leagues have heavy incentives to remain on traditional TV even as they dabble with streaming. The NFL’s new slate of media deals is worth $110 billion over 11 years. The Amazon piece is worth about a tenth of it. The NFL has you by the cord even as it also grabs you by the scruff of your preferred streaming device. “No sports league can pirouette to [streaming], because of the opportunity-cost problem” of how much more money can currently be made by putting games on TV, Crakes said. Unfortunately, in the short and medium term, streaming is going to be an extra cost for sports fans rather than a lower one.

[chrisk]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline.  The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially.  The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill.  Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

Do you mind expanding a bit further on this idea? People have been cutting the cord for years now and all of the major streaming services like Hulu, Sling, Fubo, etc. bundle their channels just like cable packages. Why do Fox and ESPN care whether someone watches their games on cable or a streaming service as long as they’re getting still their cut?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...ll/671231/

Expect to be stuck in this purgatory for a while, because sports leagues have heavy incentives to remain on traditional TV even as they dabble with streaming. The NFL’s new slate of media deals is worth $110 billion over 11 years. The Amazon piece is worth about a tenth of it. The NFL has you by the cord even as it also grabs you by the scruff of your preferred streaming device. “No sports league can pirouette to [streaming], because of the opportunity-cost problem” of how much more money can currently be made by putting games on TV, Crakes said. Unfortunately, in the short and medium term, streaming is going to be an extra cost for sports fans rather than a lower one.

[StanfordMatt]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline.  The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially.  The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill.  Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

Do you mind expanding a bit further on this idea? People have been cutting the cord for years now and all of the major streaming services like Hulu, Sling, Fubo, etc. bundle their channels just like cable packages. Why do Fox and ESPN care whether someone watches their games on cable or a streaming service as long as they’re getting still their cut?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...ll/671231/

Expect to be stuck in this purgatory for a while, because sports leagues have heavy incentives to remain on traditional TV even as they dabble with streaming. The NFL’s new slate of media deals is worth $110 billion over 11 years. The Amazon piece is worth about a tenth of it. The NFL has you by the cord even as it also grabs you by the scruff of your preferred streaming device. “No sports league can pirouette to [streaming], because of the opportunity-cost problem” of how much more money can currently be made by putting games on TV, Crakes said. Unfortunately, in the short and medium term, streaming is going to be an extra cost for sports fans rather than a lower one.

Thank you.

[StanfordMatt]

The current TV deals are built on cable, which is in full scale decline.  The transition to streaming first / cable second will be rocky financially.  The cable cash flow to sports networks is a relatively small portion of a monthly cable bill.  Getting a lot of the people dropping cable to pay a la carte streaming prices at a rate that pays for the TV deals is not a sure thing.

Do you mind expanding a bit further on this idea? People have been cutting the cord for years now and all of the major streaming services like Hulu, Sling, Fubo, etc. bundle their channels just like cable packages. Why do Fox and ESPN care whether someone watches their games on cable or a streaming service as long as they’re getting still their cut?

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...ll/671231/

Expect to be stuck in this purgatory for a while, because sports leagues have heavy incentives to remain on traditional TV even as they dabble with streaming. The NFL’s new slate of media deals is worth $110 billion over 11 years. The Amazon piece is worth about a tenth of it. The NFL has you by the cord even as it also grabs you by the scruff of your preferred streaming device. “No sports league can pirouette to [streaming], because of the opportunity-cost problem” of how much more money can currently be made by putting games on TV, Crakes said. Unfortunately, in the short and medium term, streaming is going to be an extra cost for sports fans rather than a lower one.

Thank you.

[Maple Leaf]

Pac-12, Apple deal was $23M per school and underwhelming, but hope remained until 11th hour - The Athletic


“The mountain schools and Oregon and Washington didn’t want to have to do this,” said a person outside the Pac-12 conference briefed on the schools’ discussions. “They wanted it to be true that they could hit those (Apple) numbers. They wanted to be out west with those travel partners.

“They didn’t want to be in the Big Ten with a bad deal and those crazy travel details. Even at that time (Thursday night), it could have been held together, but that’s a lot to process in a short time. And that $50 million figure they thought they could hit on the high end, that wasn’t realistic.”

[Maple Leaf]

Pac-12, Apple deal was $23M per school and underwhelming, but hope remained until 11th hour - The Athletic


“The mountain schools and Oregon and Washington didn’t want to have to do this,” said a person outside the Pac-12 conference briefed on the schools’ discussions. “They wanted it to be true that they could hit those (Apple) numbers. They wanted to be out west with those travel partners.

“They didn’t want to be in the Big Ten with a bad deal and those crazy travel details. Even at that time (Thursday night), it could have been held together, but that’s a lot to process in a short time. And that $50 million figure they thought they could hit on the high end, that wasn’t realistic.”

[Mick]

Pac-12, Apple deal was $23M per school and underwhelming, but hope remained until 11th hour - The Athletic


“The mountain schools and Oregon and Washington didn’t want to have to do this,” said a person outside the Pac-12 conference briefed on the schools’ discussions. “They wanted it to be true that they could hit those (Apple) numbers. They wanted to be out west with those travel partners.

“They didn’t want to be in the Big Ten with a bad deal and those crazy travel details. Even at that time (Thursday night), it could have been held together, but that’s a lot to process in a short time. And that $50 million figure they thought they could hit on the high end, that wasn’t realistic.”

EDITED: Indiana will get twice what Oregon and Washington gets and the same as what USC and UCLA gets. How long before Indiana gets voted out?

[Mick]

Pac-12, Apple deal was $23M per school and underwhelming, but hope remained until 11th hour - The Athletic


“The mountain schools and Oregon and Washington didn’t want to have to do this,” said a person outside the Pac-12 conference briefed on the schools’ discussions. “They wanted it to be true that they could hit those (Apple) numbers. They wanted to be out west with those travel partners.

“They didn’t want to be in the Big Ten with a bad deal and those crazy travel details. Even at that time (Thursday night), it could have been held together, but that’s a lot to process in a short time. And that $50 million figure they thought they could hit on the high end, that wasn’t realistic.”

EDITED: Indiana will get twice what Oregon and Washington gets and the same as what USC and UCLA gets. How long before Indiana gets voted out?

[chrisk]

Pac-12, Apple deal was $23M per school and underwhelming, but hope remained until 11th hour - The Athletic


“The mountain schools and Oregon and Washington didn’t want to have to do this,” said a person outside the Pac-12 conference briefed on the schools’ discussions. “They wanted it to be true that they could hit those (Apple) numbers. They wanted to be out west with those travel partners.

“They didn’t want to be in the Big Ten with a bad deal and those crazy travel details. Even at that time (Thursday night), it could have been held together, but that’s a lot to process in a short time. And that $50 million figure they thought they could hit on the high end, that wasn’t realistic.”

Indiana will get twice what Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA gets.  Crazy.

USC and UCLA will get full shares from the start.

[chrisk]

Pac-12, Apple deal was $23M per school and underwhelming, but hope remained until 11th hour - The Athletic


“The mountain schools and Oregon and Washington didn’t want to have to do this,” said a person outside the Pac-12 conference briefed on the schools’ discussions. “They wanted it to be true that they could hit those (Apple) numbers. They wanted to be out west with those travel partners.

“They didn’t want to be in the Big Ten with a bad deal and those crazy travel details. Even at that time (Thursday night), it could have been held together, but that’s a lot to process in a short time. And that $50 million figure they thought they could hit on the high end, that wasn’t realistic.”

Indiana will get twice what Oregon, Washington, USC and UCLA gets.  Crazy.

USC and UCLA will get full shares from the start.

[Mick]

Pac-12, Apple deal was $23M per school and underwhelming, but hope remained until 11th hour - The Athletic


“The mountain schools and Oregon and Washington didn’t want to have to do this,” said a person outside the Pac-12 conference briefed on the schools’ discussions. “They wanted it to be true that they could hit those (Apple) numbers. They wanted to be out west with those travel partners.

“They didn’t want to be in the Big Ten with a bad deal and those crazy travel details. Even at that time (Thursday night), it could have been held together, but that’s a lot to process in a short time. And that $50 million figure they thought they could hit on the high end, that wasn’t realistic.”

Indiana will get twice what Oregon and Washington gets and the same as what USC and UCLA gets. How long before Indiana gets voted out?

USC and UCLA will get full shares from the start.

Fixed.

[Mick]

Pac-12, Apple deal was $23M per school and underwhelming, but hope remained until 11th hour - The Athletic


“The mountain schools and Oregon and Washington didn’t want to have to do this,” said a person outside the Pac-12 conference briefed on the schools’ discussions. “They wanted it to be true that they could hit those (Apple) numbers. They wanted to be out west with those travel partners.

“They didn’t want to be in the Big Ten with a bad deal and those crazy travel details. Even at that time (Thursday night), it could have been held together, but that’s a lot to process in a short time. And that $50 million figure they thought they could hit on the high end, that wasn’t realistic.”

Indiana will get twice what Oregon and Washington gets and the same as what USC and UCLA gets. How long before Indiana gets voted out?

USC and UCLA will get full shares from the start.

Fixed.

[Maple Leaf]

Some interesting observations in this article.

Vannini: College sports may not like what lies at the end of the path paved with TV money - The Athletic

The final nail in the coffin of the modern Pac-12 came from the golf course, as Oregon Board of Trustees chair Steve Holwerda conducted a board meeting via Zoom. He couldn’t be bothered to cancel the round, or even stop playing, as the meeting progressed.

This will be one of the lasting images of the end of the old Pac-12, a fitting one to sum up the state of college sports. Oregon had a chance to grab more money and security, so it moved forward unabated, not even stopping a golf round.


"Big Ten commissioner Tony Pettiti and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said at their respective media days last month that they weren’t interested in expanding. Big Ten sources leaked to media last week that they didn’t want to be the ones to deliver the death blow to a conference with which they’d held a close relationship for a century. Within a day, they did exactly that.

What changed? The money, of course. Fox ponied up just enough to convince Oregon and Washington they had to jump and convince the Big Ten the adds were worth making. Fox now owns the four largest college brands on the West Coast, alongside USC and UCLA.

Meanwhile, a good number of SEC schools wanted to move to nine conference games earlier this year, as did Sankey. But the group couldn’t get the votes in May, in part because ESPN reportedly wouldn’t pay any more for the additional conference games. Texas A&M didn’t really want Texas in the SEC. USC doesn’t really want Oregon in the Big Ten. But they don’t control things anymore."

[Maple Leaf]

Some interesting observations in this article.

Vannini: College sports may not like what lies at the end of the path paved with TV money - The Athletic

The final nail in the coffin of the modern Pac-12 came from the golf course, as Oregon Board of Trustees chair Steve Holwerda conducted a board meeting via Zoom. He couldn’t be bothered to cancel the round, or even stop playing, as the meeting progressed.

This will be one of the lasting images of the end of the old Pac-12, a fitting one to sum up the state of college sports. Oregon had a chance to grab more money and security, so it moved forward unabated, not even stopping a golf round.


"Big Ten commissioner Tony Pettiti and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey said at their respective media days last month that they weren’t interested in expanding. Big Ten sources leaked to media last week that they didn’t want to be the ones to deliver the death blow to a conference with which they’d held a close relationship for a century. Within a day, they did exactly that.

What changed? The money, of course. Fox ponied up just enough to convince Oregon and Washington they had to jump and convince the Big Ten the adds were worth making. Fox now owns the four largest college brands on the West Coast, alongside USC and UCLA.

Meanwhile, a good number of SEC schools wanted to move to nine conference games earlier this year, as did Sankey. But the group couldn’t get the votes in May, in part because ESPN reportedly wouldn’t pay any more for the additional conference games. Texas A&M didn’t really want Texas in the SEC. USC doesn’t really want Oregon in the Big Ten. But they don’t control things anymore."

[fullmetal]

"But they don’t control things anymore."

That's the epitaph of all college sports coming in a few years.  Networks and the pursuit of ever-increasing contracts/media reach are taking over everything.  Is this peak capitalism, money ruining sports?

[fullmetal]

"But they don’t control things anymore."

That's the epitaph of all college sports coming in a few years.  Networks and the pursuit of ever-increasing contracts/media reach are taking over everything.  Is this peak capitalism, money ruining sports?

[qwerty49]

Classic case of “be careful what you wish for” — Rutgers

https://theathletic.com/4748780/2023/08/...ed_article

[qwerty49]

Classic case of “be careful what you wish for” — Rutgers

https://theathletic.com/4748780/2023/08/...ed_article

[Softball Fan]

https://www.aol.com/top-25-rankings-clos...12785.html

Coaches Top 25 Preseason Poll:  USC at #6.  Stanford not in the top 25.

[Softball Fan]

https://www.aol.com/top-25-rankings-clos...12785.html

Coaches Top 25 Preseason Poll:  USC at #6.  Stanford not in the top 25.

[g1313]

Classic case of “be careful what you wish for” — Rutgers

https://theathletic.com/4748780/2023/08/...ed_article

Would Rutgers be better off not in the big 10?

[g1313]

Classic case of “be careful what you wish for” — Rutgers

https://theathletic.com/4748780/2023/08/...ed_article

Would Rutgers be better off not in the big 10?

[fullmetal]

Classic case of “be careful what you wish for” — Rutgers

https://theathletic.com/4748780/2023/08/...ed_article

Would Rutgers be better off not in the big 10?

Nah.  Rutgers needed the B1G revenue if their budget woes were any indication.  It's just how poorly they managed their athletics that was their undoing.

[fullmetal]

Classic case of “be careful what you wish for” — Rutgers

https://theathletic.com/4748780/2023/08/...ed_article

Would Rutgers be better off not in the big 10?

Nah.  Rutgers needed the B1G revenue if their budget woes were any indication.  It's just how poorly they managed their athletics that was their undoing.

[BostonCard]

From the Wall Street Journal (I believe it is a gifted article so not behind the paywall):

https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/coll..._permalink

To say the obvious: The horse left the barn long ago in college football. It left the barn and built a newer, bigger barn, with heated floors, a home theater, wine cellar, a pool with a lazy river, a LeRoy Neiman of Secretariat and a five-horse garage. Colleges grew spellbound by the windfall potential, even if they weren’t any good at football, even if the revenue usually gets sunk right back into football, and the impact upon enrollment and alumni loyalty isn’t as potent as claimed.

Interesting link in that paragraph:

https://econofact.org/who-wins-with-coll...8f20257ee-

However, research finds the effect of participating in high-profile athletic contests on private donations range from no impact to a modest increase, or negative impacts when a team performs poorly (see here). Increases in donations to programs that compete in football bowls tend to be irregular and directed to athletic departments and may not provide as much benefit to the university overall. Any such donations are  included in the reported athletic department’s revenues. Competition in high-profile sports can boost a university’s image but it can also expose it to negative publicity from coverage of cheating scandals and other negative news. And while there is uneven evidence that football and basketball wins increase the quantity of applications to Division I schools, the effect is relatively modest and short-lived.

Basically, the value added from competing in intercollegiate sports at the highest level is probably less than we would like to believe (the existence of Ivy League schools, MIT, Cal Tech etc., let alone places like Oxford and Cambridge and pretty much any school outside the US kind of proves that having a scholarship D1 sports program is not necessary to the mission of a university).

More from the WSJ article:

One after the other, schools have fallen into a silky bed of billion-dollar network arrangements, eight-figure head coaches, millionaire assistants and conditioning gurus earning high six figures to say That is not a proper squat. (Yes, I know they do more.) In return, schools rearranged their scholastic priorities, athletic departments and the entire U.S. map to please the true leaders of college sports: television programmers...

College football’s musical chairs derby might be defensible in the abstract (we’re just serving up better games) if it wasn’t creating such collateral damage. It’s another handful of hypocrisy for a sport that already held the copyright on the term.

There’s a weird hubris that this party (and the growth) is going to keep on rocking. I’m not so sure. If you follow anything about the TV business in 2023, you know that it’s a volatile place, as the profitable cable bundle (customers even paying for stuff they don’t watch) declines in favor of streaming (customers paying only for what they want), and the latter hasn’t proven to be anywhere near as lucrative as the former.

Whole piece is spot-on in my opinion.

BC

[BostonCard]

From the Wall Street Journal (I believe it is a gifted article so not behind the paywall):

https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/coll..._permalink

To say the obvious: The horse left the barn long ago in college football. It left the barn and built a newer, bigger barn, with heated floors, a home theater, wine cellar, a pool with a lazy river, a LeRoy Neiman of Secretariat and a five-horse garage. Colleges grew spellbound by the windfall potential, even if they weren’t any good at football, even if the revenue usually gets sunk right back into football, and the impact upon enrollment and alumni loyalty isn’t as potent as claimed.

Interesting link in that paragraph:

https://econofact.org/who-wins-with-coll...8f20257ee-

However, research finds the effect of participating in high-profile athletic contests on private donations range from no impact to a modest increase, or negative impacts when a team performs poorly (see here). Increases in donations to programs that compete in football bowls tend to be irregular and directed to athletic departments and may not provide as much benefit to the university overall. Any such donations are  included in the reported athletic department’s revenues. Competition in high-profile sports can boost a university’s image but it can also expose it to negative publicity from coverage of cheating scandals and other negative news. And while there is uneven evidence that football and basketball wins increase the quantity of applications to Division I schools, the effect is relatively modest and short-lived.

Basically, the value added from competing in intercollegiate sports at the highest level is probably less than we would like to believe (the existence of Ivy League schools, MIT, Cal Tech etc., let alone places like Oxford and Cambridge and pretty much any school outside the US kind of proves that having a scholarship D1 sports program is not necessary to the mission of a university).

More from the WSJ article:

One after the other, schools have fallen into a silky bed of billion-dollar network arrangements, eight-figure head coaches, millionaire assistants and conditioning gurus earning high six figures to say That is not a proper squat. (Yes, I know they do more.) In return, schools rearranged their scholastic priorities, athletic departments and the entire U.S. map to please the true leaders of college sports: television programmers...

College football’s musical chairs derby might be defensible in the abstract (we’re just serving up better games) if it wasn’t creating such collateral damage. It’s another handful of hypocrisy for a sport that already held the copyright on the term.

There’s a weird hubris that this party (and the growth) is going to keep on rocking. I’m not so sure. If you follow anything about the TV business in 2023, you know that it’s a volatile place, as the profitable cable bundle (customers even paying for stuff they don’t watch) declines in favor of streaming (customers paying only for what they want), and the latter hasn’t proven to be anywhere near as lucrative as the former.

Whole piece is spot-on in my opinion.

BC