End of Pac12? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: End of Pac12? (/thread-23271.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: End of Pac12? (/thread-23271.html)
RE: End of Pac12? - dabigv13 - 07-07-2022
The people making these decisions don't seem to be thinking out longer than 10 years here.
This will be the last big media rights cash grab. Once the schools have consolidated to such a degree that only Fox or ESPN are paying, but they aren't bidding against each other for rights, future deals will not be growing like they have in the past.
Add on to that the decreasing numbers of cable subscribers and the alienation of long term fans by dumping tradition and increasing professionalization of the sport. College football is shooting itself in the gut with these moves.
RE: End of Pac12? - Canalejas - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 07:02 AM)BigJohn043 Wrote: The addition of USC/UCLA was a bit of a no brainer for the B10. It increased their payout per member and at the same time increased their overall academic standings. A win for both the ADs and the Presidents.
Turning down UW/UO was similarly a no brainer. It would have decreased their payout per member and while UW would have fit well within the B10 academic world, only Nebraska has a lower academic standing that UO. And as Hulk has pointed out there is probably some buyers remorse with Nebraska.
If you look at the other members the B10 has added (PSU, MD & RTG) they are all strong academic schools in the middle of the rest of the B10. They also all added to media rights per member. MD & RTG added based on the importance of conference networks and charging higher cable rates for in network markets. My sense is that this has gotten a lot less important in the media world so the B10 might be a bit more thoughtful about this going forward.
That brings us back to Stanford & cal. We would be a big win in terms of academics. But it is clear that we would be a negative to media rights per member. Of course ND solves this for Stanford potentially. The other thing that solves this is agreeing for the first deal to take less. But to take Stanford & cal the B10 would have to do something they haven't done before.....
And depending on what your preferred source of school rankings is, Oregon can be ranked worse than Nebraska.
RE: End of Pac12? - Giants - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 10:41 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: The people making these decisions don't seem to be thinking out longer than 10 years here.
This will be the last big media rights cash grab. Once the schools have consolidated to such a degree that only Fox or ESPN are paying, but they aren't bidding against each other for rights, future deals will not be growing like they have in the past.
Add on to that the decreasing numbers of cable subscribers and the alienation of long term fans by dumping tradition and increasing professionalization of the sport. College football is shooting itself in the gut with these moves.
It’s all about tomorrow.
Those of us who grew up with rabbit ears on our TV’s, watching five channels (2, 4, 5, 7, 9) are not the target audience. Therefore, alienation of long term fans is not a consideration.
Decreasing number of cable subscribers? Who cares? Tomorrow is about streaming and other technical advances we have not even considered.
The streaming dollars will more than make up for the loss of cable cents.
Young people are the focus (and rightfully so, we are dinosaurs, our time is nearly done). How do they want to receive information? What is their preference regarding viewing live programming?
If college football wants to remain a viable entity, it must anticipate the needs of masses and change accordingly.
I don’t like what is happening but I certainly understand why it is happening. Quite frankly, I think the powers that be are taking the right course of action.
RE: End of Pac12? - cardcrimson - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 10:41 AM)dabigv13 Wrote: The people making these decisions don't seem to be thinking out longer than 10 years here.
This will be the last big media rights cash grab. Once the schools have consolidated to such a degree that only Fox or ESPN are paying, but they aren't bidding against each other for rights, future deals will not be growing like they have in the past.
Add on to that the decreasing numbers of cable subscribers and the alienation of long term fans by dumping tradition and increasing professionalization of the sport. College football is shooting itself in the gut with these moves.
A good reason for the Pac-whatever to be pushing hard to align with Apple or Amazon. Heard from a producer friend that they are pushing hard for live content, including concerts, theatre, and sports. That appears to be the future. Would love to see them drive a stake through ESPNs heart. . . .
RE: End of Pac12? - dabigv13 - 07-07-2022
I think streaming is coming. I don't think it will come close to replacing the money ESPN and Fox can offer right now though. If you are streaming you are signing up for that specific content. If you have cable, you are forced to buy ESPN whether you watch or not.
I'm in my late 30's. As of a few years ago, I expected I'd be a Stanford college football fan for many more decades. But without SC or UCLA rivalry games, with mercenary players, etc, I don't think I'll be going to or watching many Stanford football games in the future.
Perhaps I am in the minority on this, but I don't think that the numbers of CFB fans is going to grow much by making it junior NFL. Do zoomers want that? I don't think so, my elder millennial friends who are fans of college football (many USC and UCLA fans included) all universally think this conference switching is dumb and bad, and turning them off the sport.
Quote:At present the NFL’s dominance is unquestioned, but the latter was once true about baseball. And the NBA was once seen as less watchable than the largely unwatchable television produced by the Big Three networks in the 1970s and 80s.
It’s a way of speculating on the future of college football. The bet here is that the height of its popularity is now a past-tense concept. Time will tell, but the guess is that fan interest is on the verge of a slow decline that will soon be fast. And that’s really sad.
I thought this article was good.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2022/07/02/the_slow-motion_suicide_of_college_football_840502.html
CFB decision makers should realize what makes their product unique and valuable and emphasize those traits. Else we're all just going to have to learn to like watching kids play video games, or whatever else content becomes popular in the coming years. There is no law that CFB will be popular forever.
RE: End of Pac12? - Goose - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 12:27 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: There is no law that CFB will be popular forever.Amen! I agree totally with your post. The problem is that it is unclear what the "public" will want to watch in the future. Its seems that ESPN and FOX believe that whatever they hype will bring the viewers. At the moment, that may be true. The younger viewers may be buying in to the SEC and B1G as "the thing". In three years, what will be the case? Who knows, but it makes these long term media deals look a bit risky to all involved.
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 12:27 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I thought this article was good.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2022/07/02/the_slow-motion_suicide_of_college_football_840502.html
Not a whole lot of rigorous analysis as much as emotional opinionizing.
RE: End of Pac12? - dabigv13 - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 01:00 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(07-07-2022, 12:27 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I thought this article was good.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2022/07/02/the_slow-motion_suicide_of_college_football_840502.html
Not a whole lot of rigorous analysis as much as emotional opinionizing.
I realize you meant this is as a denigrating comment but it's very revealing.
For me, the emotional opinionizing is what's best about college football, and the rigorous analysis is what's worst.
The mega conferences are what you get when rigorous analysis beats out emotion. The BCS formula is what you get when rigorous analysis beats out emotion. Your side won! Enjoy the high quality matchups of the Big xx and the SEC! The Rose Bowl will surely feature more optimized matchups now!
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 01:19 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:(07-07-2022, 01:00 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(07-07-2022, 12:27 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I thought this article was good.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2022/07/02/the_slow-motion_suicide_of_college_football_840502.html
Not a whole lot of rigorous analysis as much as emotional opinionizing.
I realize you meant this is as a denigrating comment but it's very revealing.
For me, the emotional opinionizing is what's best about college football, and the rigorous analysis is what's worst.
The mega conferences are what you get when rigorous analysis beats out emotion. The BCS formula is what you get when rigorous analysis beats out emotion. Your side won! Enjoy the high quality matchups of the Big xx and the SEC! The Rose Bowl will surely feature more optimized matchups now!
Things always change. This notion we live in a static world or should, is just silly. We'd still be using stone tools and living in grass huts if we didn't progress.
Sports is about crowning winners. College football isn't special because it was the only sport in the world that didn't crown a champion. It was just weird. We don't declare winners based on who we think is best, we have a competition to decide. Why should the 2007 Stanford game at USC have even been played with Stanford a 41 pt underdog?
As it relates to the "professionalization of college sports" and football in particular, what we are seeing now is simply evolution at work. It's survival of the fittest. If Stanford and Cal want to mail in having a competitive football program, they will simply be passed by and left behind. That's just how life works. I hate conference championship games, but I also hate the Electoral College. I still watch the games because they are entertaining and I still vote because voting decides more than who the POTUS is. I'm older than you and I'm not yelling at anyone to get off my lawn :)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised this thread finally veered into values talk instead of just the mechanics and issues at hand with football media rights and school conference affiliations, but I'm impressed it lasted focused on that topic as long as it did!
RE: End of Pac12? - BigJohn043 - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(07-07-2022, 01:19 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:(07-07-2022, 01:00 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(07-07-2022, 12:27 PM)dabigv13 Wrote: I thought this article was good.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2022/07/02/the_slow-motion_suicide_of_college_football_840502.html
Not a whole lot of rigorous analysis as much as emotional opinionizing.
I realize you meant this is as a denigrating comment but it's very revealing.
For me, the emotional opinionizing is what's best about college football, and the rigorous analysis is what's worst.
The mega conferences are what you get when rigorous analysis beats out emotion. The BCS formula is what you get when rigorous analysis beats out emotion. Your side won! Enjoy the high quality matchups of the Big xx and the SEC! The Rose Bowl will surely feature more optimized matchups now!
Things always change. This notion we live in a static world or should, is just silly. We'd still be using stone tools and living in grass huts if we didn't progress.
Sports is about crowning winners. College football isn't special because it was the only sport in the world that didn't crown a champion. It was just weird. We don't declare winners based on who we think is best, we have a competition to decide. Why should the 2007 Stanford game at USC have even been played with Stanford a 41 pt underdog?
As it relates to the "professionalization of college sports" and football in particular, what we are seeing now is simply evolution at work. It's survival of the fittest. If Stanford and Cal want to mail in having a competitive football program, they will simply be passed by and left behind. That's just how life works. I hate conference championship games, but I also hate the Electoral College. I still watch the games because they are entertaining and I still vote because voting decides more than who the POTUS is. I'm older than you and I'm not yelling at anyone to get off my lawn :)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised this thread finally veered into values talk instead of just the mechanics and issues at hand with football media rights and school conference affiliations, but I'm impressed it lasted focused on that topic as long as it did!
Agree 100%. I liked the P12, but frankly I liked the P10 even better and the best would have probably been the P8.
It sucks that USC/UCLA left and it gives me yet another reason to hate $c. But it happened and now we have to deal with it and make smart decisions based on facts and how others might react.....
RE: End of Pac12? - cardcrimson - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Sports is about crowning winners.
Wow, just wow. That statement couldn't be more wrong.
RE: End of Pac12? - Giants - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 02:35 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(07-07-2022, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Sports is about crowning winners.
Wow, just wow. That statement couldn't be more wrong.
Agree. And the older I get, the more I realize that sports isn’t just about winning and losing. It is about the experience. Of course, I like to see my favorite teams win. However, many of the best games I have seen in my lifetime resulted in losses for the team for whom I was rooting. Disappointed - yep. Happy to have been able to witness an amazing game - double yep.
RE: End of Pac12? - Phogge - 07-07-2022
I think 1969 Stanford/SC was one of the best college games ever. Tough loss but better than a 49-0 win. Entertainment is my primary interest. Lenny Briscoe was entertaining, Dennis Farina was entertaining. The ones who followed not so much.
RE: End of Pac12? - CowboyIndian - 07-07-2022
(07-07-2022, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Sports is about crowning winners. College football isn't special because it was the only sport in the world that didn't crown a champion.
I call BS! College football WAS special because you could argue about who was the best team in the country all winter, spring and summer until the next season rolled around. WTF was the matter with that? I know the $$ created the playoff but it doesn't prove a goddam thing other than who can recruit enough good players to withstand the slings and arrows of a 15-game season.
RE: End of Pac12? - BostonCard - 07-07-2022
FWIW, this is Wilber’s take on the relative attraction of various schools.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/wilnerhotline/status/1544792519585763334?s=21&t=EY39jUXenX2MdK4bEQU1gw[/tweet]
BC
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-08-2022
(07-07-2022, 02:35 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(07-07-2022, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Sports is about crowning winners.
Wow, just wow. That statement couldn't be more wrong.
No, it couldn't be more correct. Name a sport beyond what was D1 college football before the playoff that doesn't have a tournament or contest to determine an ultimate winner. I'm not even considering the process and experience, etc. That's a whole other topic not at all related to how sports always are contested to determine an ultimate winner.
It's your right to prefer sports not crowning a champion. Just don't claim sports aren't organized to do this.
RE: End of Pac12? - Goose - 07-08-2022
(07-08-2022, 07:02 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:Your argument is flawed in so many ways. First, the existence of a championship game does not ipso facto mean that a sport was "organized" (brought into existence under a common set of rules) mainly or solely to crown a champion. You have to show that it is "essential" some other way. Secondly, there are obviously may NCAA sports that played and thrived for many years without a "championship game" or anything like it. How could that be if such a game is a "requirement"? Third, there are many NCAA schools that play sports in which they have never even competed in a championship game and almost certainly never will. How is the existence of such a game a prerequisite for these schools playing the sport? Fourth, since the NCAA has divisions, there is no "ultimate" championship game. How is this possible if there must be exactly one "winner" for an NCAA sport to exist?(07-07-2022, 02:35 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(07-07-2022, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Sports is about crowning winners.
Wow, just wow. That statement couldn't be more wrong.
No, it couldn't be more correct. Name a sport beyond what was D1 college football before the playoff that doesn't have a tournament or contest to determine an ultimate winner. I'm not even considering the process and experience, etc. That's a whole other topic not at all related to how sports always are contested to determine an ultimate winner.
It's your right to prefer sports not crowning a champion. Just don't claim sports aren't organized to do this.
As an aside, I am pretty certain that most fans would agree that the "best team in the country" often doesn't win the championship game. Ditto the Super Bowl, FWIW. The single elimination format provides many paths to anomalous outcomes. These "championships" are fun to watch and to argue about, but they "prove" very little in many cases. Their actual important purpose in our society at present is to make money, which they do well.
Yes, you play to win the damn game. Every one of them, from opener to the championship (if you get there). But you do not vanish into thin air if you do not.
RE: End of Pac12? - BigJohn043 - 07-08-2022
(07-08-2022, 07:40 AM)Goose Wrote:(07-08-2022, 07:02 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:Your argument is flawed in so many ways. First, the existence of a championship game does not ipso facto mean that a sport was "organized" (brought into existence under a common set of rules) mainly or solely to crown a champion. You have to show that it is "essential" some other way. Secondly, there are obviously may NCAA sports that played and thrived for many years without a "championship game" or anything like it. How could that be if such a game is a "requirement"? Third, there are many NCAA schools that play sports in which they have never even competed in a championship game and almost certainly never will. How is the existence of such a game a prerequisite for these schools playing the sport? Fourth, since the NCAA has divisions, there is no "ultimate" championship game. How is this possible if there must be exactly one "winner" for an NCAA sport to exist?(07-07-2022, 02:35 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(07-07-2022, 01:39 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Sports is about crowning winners.
Wow, just wow. That statement couldn't be more wrong.
No, it couldn't be more correct. Name a sport beyond what was D1 college football before the playoff that doesn't have a tournament or contest to determine an ultimate winner. I'm not even considering the process and experience, etc. That's a whole other topic not at all related to how sports always are contested to determine an ultimate winner.
It's your right to prefer sports not crowning a champion. Just don't claim sports aren't organized to do this.
As an aside, I am pretty certain that most fans would agree that the "best team in the country" often doesn't win the championship game. Ditto the Super Bowl, FWIW. The single elimination format provides many paths to anomalous outcomes. These "championships" are fun to watch and to argue about, but they "prove" very little in many cases. Their actual important purpose in our society at present is to make money, which they do well.
Yes, you play to win the damn game. Every one of them, from opener to the championship (if you get there). But you do not vanish into thin air if you do not.
The largest sport and leagues in the world are European soccer. They don't have a single championship but multiple. There is usually a league winner, a cup winner (sometime multiple) and a Euro league winner.
RE: End of Pac12? - cardcrimson - 07-08-2022
Sure, sports crown winners. But there is a hell of a lot more to sports than that. Currently there are 34 D1 women's water polo programs. Each year, only three of those programs have any shot of winning a ring. But the other 31 train very hard and still compete. Why?
Most other sports are the same. To most people, there is obviously more to sports than crowning winners. I feel sorry for those who think the sole purpose is to win. Moreso, I feel sorry for their kids.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLnZhbbM_ks
RE: End of Pac12? - OutsiderFan - 07-08-2022
Never thought people could find a way to disagree that sports are organized around determining who the best competitors are when a competition takes place. I guess you guys would argue the 2001 Seattle Mariners who went 116-46 should have just been given the World Series trophy, and the Yankees should have an asterisk for actually winning it, because we don't play sports with a primary objective of crowning a champion.
Even when I played college intramural sports, we played to win our league. We enjoyed the games, but winning the championship was the goal, which I was fortunate enough to win one time in Softball. I still to this day am bothered by the fact my team lost in the Volleyball championship twice!