More conference realignment talk

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Relatively recently, there was a mayoral race in Phoenix where all 3 candidates were Marquette alums.

Rico was one of them.

[The Sultan]

I agree that this sucks for us as fans but why is college sports the one place where so many people decry the free market? There's just doing what makes the most sense financially. Isn't that what they're supposed to do?

Does it suck for us as fans? How?

College football kicks off in a few weeks and the stands will be packed and the TV ratings will be huge. Seems like a lot of these hand wringing articles have been written for decades and yet it seems like in the end, the numbers are still big.

[El Guerrero 2]

Does it suck for us as fans? How?

College football kicks off in a few weeks and the stands will be packed and the TV ratings will be huge. Seems like a lot of these hand wringing articles have been written for decades and yet it seems like in the end, the numbers are still big.

Yes, Alabama, ND, Ohio State, etc will always sell out and get great ratings. But what about schools like Syracuse, Maryland, and Arizona? Covid kind of screws up the stats, but college football game attendance dropped nationally every year between 2013 and 2019. They've turned the sport into a negative sum game, whereby schools are going to be fighting over a smaller and smaller pie. A select few will get more, but most will get far less.

[The Sultan]

I mean, the reasons for college football attendance declines are many.  But their television ratings continue to be huge. And that's what is driving this. People can lament what is happening, but most will still watch. And until they stop watching, and the networks notice and stop doling out big $$ for media rights, why would the major conferences change their tune?

Outside of a few writers lamenting what is in the past, the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 will face no real repercussions for these moves.

It would also help if Arizona, Maryland and Syracuse would put a better product on the field.

[The Sultan]

I'll just say this.

I'm 55 years old. I have read a lot of stuff in my lifetime about what would ruin college athletics. And none of it has come to pass. I really doubt this will too.

[pbiflyer]

not necessarily. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Back when I was an IT project manager that was my mantra. Wise words.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

It's so few and concentrated the beneficiaries of all this. Students and parents paying outrageous tuitions aren't going to get any help from all this money from media deals to ease that burden.  These supposed institutions of higher learning just keep getting further and further from their core missions.  It's all about feeding the beast to those at the top. Chase the dollar and screw everyone else.  Rivalries, long standing conference affiliations, traditions, fan experience, all suffer.  A student athlete has become even more of a sham notion.  How much benefit is there for non football and basketball athletes? But boy are these schools going to be able to pay coaches in those sports outrageous contracts and buy them out for enormous sums when they don't reach insane expectations. 

All the collateral damage of chasing power and greed with a total disregard of everything and everyone else.

Wow comrade! The disgust for the rich executives, the rage for the plight of the common workingman. You sound like a card-carrying commie!

Snark aside, I think you underestimate how much money college football and basketball raises for universities and overestimate how much of it goes to the people at the top. Most of the money raised gets reinvested into the universities so they can better serve students and better carry out their mission. "Rivalries, long standing conference affiliations, traditions, fan experience" all do suffer but you may be surprised to learn that none of those are in the mission of any university.

Universities are doing what any good organization should do, ensuring the financial health of the organization.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

And since another word for fans is customers........most businesses understand that they need to consider the customer when making decisions.

Not to mention the other stakeholders ie student athletes.

Typically businesses prosper by adding value to customers......and the profit then follows.

This hasn't been my experience with the free market. I've found that most companies don't focus on maximizing value to their customers, they focus on providing the value that is most profitable to them while still providing enough value to keep customers coming back...which is exactly what these universities are doing. The loss of rivalries, the consolidation of power, the brutal travel on student athletes, the decrease in winning (for most programs)....all of that sucks for fans, but...

I mean, the reasons for college football attendance declines are many.  But their television ratings continue to be huge. And that's what is driving this. People can lament what is happening, but most will still watch. And until they stop watching, and the networks notice and stop doling out big $$ for media rights, why would the major conferences change their tune?

Outside of a few writers lamenting what is in the past, the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 will face no real repercussions for these moves.

It would also help if Arizona, Maryland and Syracuse would put a better product on the field.

This is exactly right. Even though most fans/customers hate these changes, they will still come back for more. So if changing conferences will make the university more money and the fans will come back despite hating it, than the university is doing exactly what any smart organization would do.

not necessarily. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Just make sure you keep that same energy for the next time a company moves thousands of jobs overseas to save money, or causes an environmental disaster without technically breaking the law, or upcharges a life saving medicine like insulin beyond what a middle class family can afford.

[forgetful]

Wow comrade! The disgust for the rich executives, the rage for the plight of the common workingman. You sound like a card-carrying commie!

Snark aside, I think you underestimate how much money college football and basketball raises for universities and overestimate how much of it goes to the people at the top. Most of the money raised gets reinvested into the universities so they can better serve students and better carry out their mission. "Rivalries, long standing conference affiliations, traditions, fan experience" all do suffer but you may be surprised to learn that none of those are in the mission of any university.

Universities are doing what any good organization should do, ensuring the financial health of the organization.

Do you really believe that most of the money raised in these new contracts is reinvested into the educational mission? That flies so much in the face of everything I've seen at Universities.

Most administrators don't even try to claim that, rather they claim that the profile of the University is raised by athletics, and that draws in more donations...which of course is very difficult to prove.

[El Guerrero 2]

I mean, the reasons for college football attendance declines are many.  But their television ratings continue to be huge. And that's what is driving this. People can lament what is happening, but most will still watch. And until they stop watching, and the networks notice and stop doling out big $$ for media rights, why would the major conferences change their tune?

Outside of a few writers lamenting what is in the past, the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 will face no real repercussions for these moves.

It would also help if Arizona, Maryland and Syracuse would put a better product on the field.

This all is built on a major, very tenuous assumption: that the next TV deals are going to match or exceed what exists now. I don't think that is going to be the case.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Do you really believe that most of the money raised in these new contracts is reinvested into the educational mission? That flies so much in the face of everything I've seen at Universities.

Most administrators don't even try to claim that, rather they claim that the profile of the University is raised by athletics, and that draws in more donations...which of course is very difficult to prove.

I didn't say money raised in these new contracts. I said money raised by college athletics. College athletics is a development tool.

[El Guerrero 2]

Snark aside, I think you underestimate how much money college football and basketball raises for universities and overestimate how much of it goes to the people at the top. Most of the money raised gets reinvested into the universities so they can better serve students and better carry out their mission. "Rivalries, long standing conference affiliations, traditions, fan experience" all do suffer but you may be surprised to learn that none of those are in the mission of any university.

Universities are doing what any good organization should do, ensuring the financial health of the organization.

I'm sorry, but this is just an asinine take. You think any of the money SEC schools make is being "reinvested" into education or serving the student experience? No, it's being used to build the next practice facility, add five more marketing directors in the athletics department, and charter more jets for assistants to recruit. Most schools are lucky if their athletics programs break even, even the big ones. The money just further feeds the beast.

[forgetful]

I didn't say money raised in these new contracts. I said money raised by college athletics. College athletics is a development tool.

Got it. I wasn't sure if that is what you meant or not. Slightly confused, because I think the original poster was referencing the media contracts, and your take seemed to imply more general donations.

That said, the mantra of athletics driving donations is the constant pitch from administrators/athletics departments, but there isn't a whole lot to prove that it raises funding for academic purposes at all.

And just for the record, I'm not completely disagreeing with you. Often major donors threaten to cutoff donations in general if their athletic wishes are not being met, as far as I'm aware though, no one really ever tries to call their bluff.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Would it ever make sense for conferences like the BEAST and Big 12 to merge?

It was close when the old BE dissolved and Texas and OU were going to jump.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm sorry, but this is just an asinine take. You think any of the money SEC schools make is being "reinvested" into education or serving the student experience? No, it's being used to build the next practice facility, add five more marketing directors in the athletics department, and charter more jets for assistants to recruit. Most schools are lucky if their athletics programs break even, even the big ones. The money just further feeds the beast.

It's not asinine, you just don't understand how much money college athletics raises for universities and how. If athletic departments truly didn't even break even in value, they would have died out a long time ago

[MurphysTillClose]

It's not asinine, you just don't understand how much money college athletics raises for universities and how. If athletic departments truly didn't even break even in value, they would have died out a long time ago

You're also disregarding the debt for which athletic dept's run in. This isn't in the best interest of literally anyone. College sports are a mess - the latest move isn't gone lead to positives.

We all know the percentage of revenue for these programs are going back into football.  The incremental revenue isn't going to lead to better women's soccer, men's volleyball, etc.

[The Sultan]

You're also disregarding the debt for which athletic dept's run in. This isn't in the best interest of literally anyone. College sports are a mess - the latest move isn't gone lead to positives.

We all know the percentage of revenue for these programs are going back into football.  The incremental revenue isn't going to lead to better women's soccer, men's volleyball, etc.

College athletics have always been a mess. Coaches are the highest paid employees at most D1 institutions. They give scholarships not based on academic ability, but athletic ability. Many athletic departments incur huge debts.

But this has been true for years. But why do schools do this? It's because athletics are these schools largest marketing tool. It drives enrollment and philanthropy.

People are somehow thinking these conferences and schools are acting irrationally. But they aren't.

[The Sultan]

This all is built on a major, very tenuous assumption: that the next TV deals are going to match or exceed what exists now. I don't think that is going to be the case.

It may not be. Which means they'll have to adjust.

[El Guerrero 2]

It's not asinine, you just don't understand how much money college athletics raises for universities and how. If athletic departments truly didn't even break even in value, they would have died out a long time ago

Last year the Badgers athletics made $148MM and they spent... $148MM. They aren't building libraries with this money, they're building practice facilities.

[The Sultan]

Last year the Badgers athletics made $148MM and they spent... $148MM. They aren't building libraries with this money, they're building practice facilities.

He's explained this twice. He's not talking about the direct money earned by athletics. He is talking about the alumni engagement and philanthropy that occurs around athletic activities.

Marcus Lemonis sits with President Lovell at a basketball game, National Marquette Day, etc.  Marquette's primary "point of pride" and "point of connection" is the men's basketball team.

I have said this before, but intercollegiate athletics for many D1 schools is their most effective marketing tool. At the lower levels, it is a huge enrollment driver.

[Shooter McGavin]

My only concern with this consolidation of power is its long term impact (or not so long term) on CBB, the college sport that I and most of us on here care about way more than college football. My fear, however irrational, is that this will lead to another division of bball higher than MU will be allowed to play in.  I don't want MU to be a "buy game" at some point for a school that once was a peer if not below our status. 

The money doesn't bother me.  The consolidation of power does. This is different than "what has alway happened in college athletics".  I hope MU is not second tier/class 10-25 years from now. 

[WhiteTrash]

The money doesn't bother me.  The consolidation of power does. This is different than "what has alway happened in college athletics".  I hope MU is not second tier/class 10-25 years from now.

That is the most likely outcome. College athletics will consolidate to the point of diminishing returns. Colleges make decisions on an individual basis and will do so until the money starts shrinking. I think it it a logical outcome in 25 years to have 30 D1 schools.
The hierarchy for college sports (football, men's basketball) is 1. School/Team 2. Conference 3. The Sport/NCAA
The hierarchy for other professional sports are 1. The Sport/League 2. The Team.

Other professional sports like the NFL and teams like the Jets understand their competition is MLB, NBA, MLS, movies, reality TV shows, HBO and NOT the Packer or Cowboys or Titans.

Michigan or Ohio State would put the boot on Wisconsin's or Illinois' neck in a second to get a better contract or win more games. So yes, the idea of 30 team D1 is real.

[MU82]

Here's the lead on The Athletic's epitaph of the Pac-12:

On the morning of Nov. 12, 2011, Palo Alto, Calif., was the improbable epicenter of college football. ESPN's "College GameDay" was live from Stanford, where that night the undefeated, third-ranked Cardinal hosted sixth-ranked Oregon. The Pac-12 finished that regular season with three of the top six teams in the country. It was the same year that the league signed what was then the richest television contract in college sports history (12 years, $3 billion).

That this same storied conference would be on the verge of extinction just a dozen years later seems utterly inconceivable. And almost entirely self-inflicted.

[79Warrior]

He's explained this twice. He's not talking about the direct money earned by athletics. He is talking about the alumni engagement and philanthropy that occurs around athletic activities.

Marcus Lemonis sits with President Lovell at a basketball game, National Marquette Day, etc.  Marquette's primary "point of pride" and "point of connection" is the men's basketball team.

I have said this before, but intercollegiate athletics for many D1 schools is their most effective marketing tool. At the lower levels, it is a huge enrollment driver.

Agree.

[The Sultan]

Here's the lead on The Athletic's epitaph of the Pac-12:

On the morning of Nov. 12, 2011, Palo Alto, Calif., was the improbable epicenter of college football. ESPN's "College GameDay" was live from Stanford, where that night the undefeated, third-ranked Cardinal hosted sixth-ranked Oregon. The Pac-12 finished that regular season with three of the top six teams in the country. It was the same year that the league signed what was then the richest television contract in college sports history (12 years, $3 billion).

That this same storied conference would be on the verge of extinction just a dozen years later seems utterly inconceivable. And almost entirely self-inflicted.

After Oklahoma and Texas turned them down, whenever they had a chance to be bold in expansion, they stood pat. And everyone wanted this to work..but it didn't because of failed leadership.