Is this the long-term goal of expansion?

[18IsTheMan]

This article raises some interesting points regarding expansion and the safety of certain schools within conferences. Article is from a Lexington, KY paper and written about UK's position in the conference. The common assumption is "if you're in, you're in" but will that always be so? It does not seem entirely likely.

The premise of this article is that expansion has a goal of concentrating all the top football brands into one or two conferences. Once that happens, a contraction will take place where less-than-desirable brands are kicked out. Thus you end up with an ultra-concentrated collection of football powers. A Premier League type of setup is imagined.

Will being in the SEC always keep UK safe from the chaos of conference realignment?

Southeastern Conference membership has so far protected Kentucky from the destabilizing dynamic roiling college sports. Will that always be so?

news.yahoo.com

The article provides a link to a Tweet that speculates how this all might look in the end. I saw this a few years back and it seemed bizarrely far-fetched. Now it seems eventually more likely than not. I guess the good news for us is that, in his estimation, we make the cut.

 

[Deleted11512]

The only way this would work would be in a relegation/promotion scenario. There's no way the entire state of NC is going to get left out. Remember, TV is still driving this bus. It would have to be more like a 56 team group. 28 in the premier group, 28 in the select group. Bottom 3 (or 5) in the premier get relegated to select each year, top 3 (or 5) in select get promoted each year. Same setup as EPL soccer. That setup creates excitement throughout the league. Half of the league is fighting to win it, the other half is fighting to stay in it. Every game matters, there is no "well, there's always next year"...b/c next year you could be in the select league.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The only way this would work would be in a relegation/promotion scenario. There's no way the entire state of NC is going to get left out. Remember, TV is still driving this bus. It would have to be more like a 56 team group. 28 in the premier group, 28 in the select group. Bottom 3 (or 5) in the premier get relegated to select each year, top 3 (or 5) in select get promoted each year. Same setup as EPL soccer. That setup creates excitement throughout the league. Half of the league is fighting to win it, the other half is fighting to stay in it. Every game matters, there is no "well, there's always next year"...b/c next year you could be in the select league.

No idea how it would all work. Everything is very fluid.

However, the main point of the article is to discuss eventual contraction in which less-than-desirable brand are eventually squeezed out the super-conferences to create an ultra-concentration of football powers. The link to the Mandel Tweet was only provided in the article as a "for instance".

 

[Psycock]

I think the SEC has a loyalty factor that would come into play. Don’t think, as long as Sankey is there, they would even think about booting a team out of the conference. Adding? Maybe. Subtracting? No.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I think the SEC has a loyalty factor that would come into play. Don’t think, as long as Sankey is there, they would even think about booting a team out of the conference. Adding? Maybe. Subtracting? No.

Loyalty? Oregon and Oregon State had been partners in the Pac 12 since 1915. You think Oregon gave any consideration to loyalty when they effectively hung Oregon State out to dry? There may be some loyalty among the founding members of the SEC, but it's far from a certainty. What's being reinforced in all the expansion madness is that nothing is sacred. No partnership is sacred. No rivalry is sacred. EVERY decision is going to be a financial bottom-line decision. That may eventually necessitate conferences relieving themselves of perceived dead weight.

 

[Deleted11512]

Loyalty? Oregon and Oregon State had been partners in the Pac 12 since 1915. You think Oregon gave any consideration to loyalty when they effectively hung Oregon State out to dry? There may be some loyalty among the founding members of the SEC, but it's far from a certainty. What's being reinforced in all the expansion madness is that nothing is sacred. No partnership is sacred. No rivalry is sacred. EVERY decision is going to be a financial bottom-line decision. That may eventually necessitate conferences relieving themselves of perceived dead weight.

This does bring up a very good point. We're at a transitional phase of our program. HBC left us in a bad way. The Champ years ended up being a disaster. So far so good for Beamer, but it feels like it's now or never if there is going to be some kind of super power conference of elites. He either succeeds, or we get left behind.

 

[KingWard]

I think the SEC has a loyalty factor that would come into play. Don’t think, as long as Sankey is there, they would even think about booting a team out of the conference. Adding? Maybe. Subtracting? No.

I tend to agree. One would suspect Vandy would be expendable, but Nashville is our greatest trip in SEC territory. So, I say they remain.

 

[KingWard]

This does bring up a very good point. We're at a transitional phase of our program. HBC left us in a bad way. The Champ years ended up being a disaster. So far so good for Beamer, but it feels like it's now or never if there is going to be some kind of super power conference of elites. He either succeeds, or we get left behind.

We're never going to be a superpower, but not all the teams that make the cut will be superpowers. Superpowers would have a hard time becoming superpowers if superpowers were all there were. Somebody has to lose every football game.

 

[Lurker123]

Unless you have multiple divisions with somethingblike relegation, i dont think you can maintain a conferwnce of only the elite teams.

Some of those teams will shake out to become bottom feeders of that new division. Someone has to take the losses.

 

[Lurker123]

We're never going to be a superpower, but not all the teams that make the cut will be superpowers. Superpowers would have a hard time becoming superpowers if superpowers were all there were. Somebody has to lose every football game.

Ha, was typing a similar thing at the same time.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I tend to agree. One would suspect Vandy would be expendable, but Nashville is our greatest trip in SEC territory. So, I say they remain.

It's not hard to imagine cold-hearted financial decisions (ask Oregon State, Washington, Cal and Stanford). We're already seeing them. If they go full-on corporate it may simply involve a bottom-line analysis. Of the 16 teams in the SEC, which 10 are the most valuable/generate the most revenue for the league?

Nothing is far-fetched any longer and if you're not a major revenue generator, look out.

I know we are basking in our safety within the SEC, and we are downright lucky to be where we are. We are not a power but have the good fortune of being in a fraternity with a bunch of other powers. We just have to hope those powers always want to keep us in the club.

 

[Deleted11512]

We're never going to be a superpower, but not all the teams that make the cut will be superpowers. Superpowers would have a hard time becoming superpowers if superpowers were all there were. Somebody has to lose every football game.

Never say never...clemson wasn't a power until 2015. UF was an all time .500 program until HBC showed up. All it takes is the right guy with the right vision to get it rolling. If Clem can doing, there's no reason we can't. And we need to start holding folks accountable to that.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Unless you have multiple divisions with somethingblike relegation, i dont think you can maintain a conferwnce of only the elite teams.

Some of those teams will shake out to become bottom feeders of that new division. Someone has to take the losses.

Yeah, certainly not just elite teams, but you're concentrating to the top 30 or so teams.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I suppose I have a bit less confident view of our standing within the SEC than some of our other fans.

 

[Big JC]

It really isn't going to matter. The foundation of college football and college sports in general has always been regionalism and rivalries. The conferences are destroying that foundation in the pursuit of tv money and in doing so they are going to destroy the appeal of college sports. College sports fans don't want NFL style divisions, they want traditions and rivalries and to see how teams from their region compare to teams from other parts of the country.

Once college sports are "fundamentally changed", to quote another destroyer of good things, the fans will no longer have the passion or the interest. Once the fans lose their passion and interest, the tv audiences will shrink and the tv money will dry up and all that will be left will be memories of how great college football used to be. The idiot sports reporters will do shows debating who or what killed college sports and the conference commissioners and the tv executives who killed it will be retired with their millions. The ADs and conference commissioners left holding the bag will be pointing fingers of blame in every direction except where it really belongs, at themselves and their predecessors.

It is going to take a handful of years but college sports are dead, they just haven't fallen over yet.

 

[Deleted11512]

It really isn't going to matter. The foundation of college football and college sports in general has always been regionalism and rivalries. The conferences are destroying that foundation in the pursuit of tv money and in doing so they are going to destroy the appeal of college sports. College sports fans don't want NFL style divisions, they want traditions and rivalries and to see how teams from their region compare to teams from other parts of the country.

Once college sports are "fundamentally changed", to quote another destroyer of good things, the fans will no longer have the passion or the interest. Once the fans lose their passion and interest, the tv audiences will shrink and the tv money will dry up and all that will be left will be memories of how great college football used to be. The idiot sports reporters will do shows debating who or what killed college sports and the conference commissioners and the tv executives who killed it will be retired with their millions. The ADs and conference commissioners left holding the bag will be pointing fingers of blame in every direction except where it really belongs, at themselves and their predecessors.

It is going to take a handful of years but college sports are dead, they just haven't fallen over yet.

I believe at some point the regional rivalries will come back into play. The question is, will it be too late? There's going to have to be a massive reshuffling at some point.

 

[18IsTheMan]

It really isn't going to matter. The foundation of college football and college sports in general has always been regionalism and rivalries. The conferences are destroying that foundation in the pursuit of tv money and in doing so they are going to destroy the appeal of college sports. College sports fans don't want NFL style divisions, they want traditions and rivalries and to see how teams from their region compare to teams from other parts of the country.

Once college sports are "fundamentally changed", to quote another destroyer of good things, the fans will no longer have the passion or the interest. Once the fans lose their passion and interest, the tv audiences will shrink and the tv money will dry up and all that will be left will be memories of how great college football used to be. The idiot sports reporters will do shows debating who or what killed college sports and the conference commissioners and the tv executives who killed it will be retired with their millions. The ADs and conference commissioners left holding the bag will be pointing fingers of blame in every direction except where it really belongs, at themselves and their predecessors.

It is going to take a handful of years but college sports are dead, they just haven't fallen over yet.

I'd like to think you're right, but I think you're probably not. Fans are largely mindless drones who will fork over their dough for whatever product is sold to them as "college football". Even if it's a total shell of what it used to be. This is what the powers-that-be are banking on. Thus far, they've been right in their thinking. Fans have stuck around in spite of many anti-fan decisions (seat licensing??). Fans moan and groan about how bad it is for the game, but ADs and networks know that, ultimately, the fans will always show up or tune in. They are exploiting the fans' unavoidable compulsion to sentimentalize the game

Fans COULD get back the game we want in one year if we did one thing: avoid the game for one season. Just one season. 12 Saturdays of our lives. Mostly empty stadiums and almost no eyeballs on TV. But they know fans largely can't do that. They know most fans identify emotionally with their team of choice. In spite of so many changes which fans decry as "not good" for the game, ratings are still sky high.

 

[Prestonyte]

It appears that a two/three Super Power Conference set up is in the works with a major championship playoff and then one or two lower tier conferences with championship playoffs of their own to generate viewership and some recognition/prestige of it's own. This may be the best way to keep regionalization and traditional rivalries alive.

 

[IOPGCock]

This article raises some interesting points regarding expansion and the safety of certain schools within conferences. Article is from a Lexington, KY paper and written about UK's position in the conference. The common assumption is "if you're in, you're in" but will that always be so? It does not seem entirely likely.

The premise of this article is that expansion has a goal of concentrating all the top football brands into one or two conferences. Once that happens, a contraction will take place where less-than-desirable brands are kicked out. Thus you end up with an ultra-concentrated collection of football powers. A Premier League type of setup is imagined.

Will being in the SEC always keep UK safe from the chaos of conference realignment?

Southeastern Conference membership has so far protected Kentucky from the destabilizing dynamic roiling college sports. Will that always be so?

news.yahoo.com

The article provides a link to a Tweet that speculates how this all might look in the end. I saw this a few years back and it seemed bizarrely far-fetched. Now it seems eventually more likely than not. I guess the good news for us is that, in his estimation, we make the cut.

I’ve seen similar commentary and it definitely makes you wonder.

I would think we are safe at the current time thanks primarily to Spurrier. The profile he helped build, the way the atmosphere shows on TV and the upgrades have to help. If this is 2004 I’m not so sure we would not be on a hot seat.

 

[gamecock stock]

I’ve seen similar commentary and it definitely makes you wonder.

I would think we are safe at the current time thanks primarily to Spurrier. The profile he helped build, the way the atmosphere shows on TV and the upgrades have to help. If this is 2004 I’m not so sure we would not be on a hot seat.

I agree with this.

Also, I would add, believe it or not, Shane Beamer, given his first 2 seasons here of overachieving, to go with the legacy of his Dad's career, gives us an extra margin of safety. Of course, that could all blow up in Shane's 3rd season.

I agree with KW above that we are never going to be a superpower. But a consistent Top 15 program here is doable. If we attain that level of success, we will be safe.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I’ve seen similar commentary and it definitely makes you wonder.

I would think we are safe at the current time thanks primarily to Spurrier. The profile he helped build, the way the atmosphere shows on TV and the upgrades have to help. If this is 2004 I’m not so sure we would not be on a hot seat.

Yeah, I think Spurrier's presence definitely imparted a sense of belonging that still exists today.

 

[IOPGCock]

I agree with this.

Also, I would add, believe it or not, Shane Beamer, given his first 2 seasons here of overachieving, to go with the legacy of his Dad's career, gives us an extra margin of safety. Of course, that could all blow up in Shane's 3rd season.

I agree with KW above that we are never going to be a superpower. But a consistent Top 15 program here is doable. If we attain that level of success, we will be safe.

You’re so right. Was going to add that but had to stop typing and get some stuff done.

I truly think he will be here for a long time and he has a way of creating buzz.

 

[Big JC]

Yeah, I think Spurrier's presence definitely imparted a sense of belonging that still exists today.

Spurrier didn't win a championship and he quit on the team mid season and went back to UF and took a job, not exactly the "sense of belonging" a "top tier" team wants. From '11 to '13 Spurrier had USC on the national radar, before and after that, not so much. Those "glory days" are 10 years in the past now. If there is going to be a "top tier" conference it is going to be made up of recent champions of some sort and teams who are really good now.

If that is what the future holds, Beamer needs to start regularly winning 9+ games a season pretty soon.

 

[Big JC]

I'd like to think you're right, but I think you're probably not. Fans are largely mindless drones who will fork over their dough for whatever product is sold to them as "college football". Even if it's a total shell of what it used to be. This is what the powers-that-be are banking on. Thus far, they've been right in their thinking. Fans have stuck around in spite of many anti-fan decisions (seat licensing??). Fans moan and groan about how bad it is for the game, but ADs and networks know that, ultimately, the fans will always show up or tune in. They are exploiting the fans' unavoidable compulsion to sentimentalize the game

Fans COULD get back the game we want in one year if we did one thing: avoid the game for one season. Just one season. 12 Saturdays of our lives. Mostly empty stadiums and almost no eyeballs on TV. But they know fans largely can't do that. They know most fans identify emotionally with their team of choice. In spite of so many changes which fans decry as "not good" for the game, ratings are still sky high.

I think that line of thinking is where the powers-that-be are wrong. In the past, they could sort of do whatever they wanted because the product they were selling was the product the fans loved and wanted. What they are doing now is changing the product and it will not be what the fans love. Once the rivalries and the sentimentality are gone, the fans will have no compelling reason to go to games or watch as much.

New Coke and NASCAR are the two most obvious examples I can think of. Coca Cola was at least able to still offer the old product and was able to do away with New Coke without any lasting damage. NASCAR has abandoned their core fan base, moved away from the tracks that built the brand, embraced wokeness and changed the whole sport to the point it no longer resembles what the fan base loved and wanted. There is no going back for NASCAR, they have destroyed their product. College football is marching directly in NASCAR's footsteps.

Once the fans start doing something else with their free time and expendable income, college football will never get them back. I don't think the fans are the "mindless drones" you think they are.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Spurrier didn't win a championship and he quit on the team mid season and went back to UF and took a job, not exactly the "sense of belonging" a "top tier" team wants. From '11 to '13 Spurrier had USC on the national radar, before and after that, not so much. Those "glory days" are 10 years in the past now. If there is going to be a "top tier" conference it is going to be made up of recent champions of some sort and teams who are really good now.

If that is what the future holds, Beamer needs to start regularly winning 9+ games a season pretty soon.

There’s no way around the fact that his presence here gave a sense of legitimacy and we are to some degree still living off that. I’m not analyzing his entire tenure.

 

[Big JC]

There’s no way around the fact that his presence here gave a sense of legitimacy and we are to some degree still living off that. I’m not analyzing his entire tenure.

I think initially he did and for those few years where he had USC in the top 10 he had things going well and had USC on the national radar. After '13 USC never really threatened to break through as any sort of championship contender and the narrative became "Spurrier is washed up and his best days are behind him" and the death watch on his career was on. He should have retired after the '14 season when he started talking about it. He let himself be talked into staying and his heart wasn't in it and it was obvious. Rivals used his age and his comments about coaching "a couple more years" against him in recruiting and the program started trending down.

Looking at Hotlz and Spurrier, if nothing else, they generated the narrative that USC was where coaching legends go to watch their legacies die. I don't think that is the narrative USC wants. Until the Gamecocks have a coach who builds a legacy coaching at USC they will continue to be viewed as an "also ran" type program. It's not pretty but it's true.

 

[Fried Chicken]

If it happened, no doubt we’d end up in that south division with Alabama, LSU, and Georgia. Good grief. That is definitely something that would happen to us.

 

[Atlanta_Cock]

This article raises some interesting points regarding expansion and the safety of certain schools within conferences. Article is from a Lexington, KY paper and written about UK's position in the conference. The common assumption is "if you're in, you're in" but will that always be so? It does not seem entirely likely.

The premise of this article is that expansion has a goal of concentrating all the top football brands into one or two conferences. Once that happens, a contraction will take place where less-than-desirable brands are kicked out. Thus you end up with an ultra-concentrated collection of football powers. A Premier League type of setup is imagined.

Will being in the SEC always keep UK safe from the chaos of conference realignment?

Southeastern Conference membership has so far protected Kentucky from the destabilizing dynamic roiling college sports. Will that always be so?

news.yahoo.com

The article provides a link to a Tweet that speculates how this all might look in the end. I saw this a few years back and it seemed bizarrely far-fetched. Now it seems eventually more likely than not. I guess the good news for us is that, in his estimation, we make the cut.

 

[SC95]

I like Chip Kelly's suggestion (64 team league). Football is different and should not affect field hockey. The 28-team premier league is too small.

 

[Big JC]

Kelly makes a lot of sense. Have 4 16 team football conferences that are geographically oriented and let the 4 conference champions play for the national championship. Leave all the other sports in the current (i.e. 2022) conferences.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Kelly's suggestion is sensible, but don't see it working from a TV revenue standpoint.

TV revenue is THE driving force behind all realignment.

 

[Big JC]

Kelly's suggestion is sensible, but don't see it working from a TV revenue standpoint.

TV revenue is THE driving force behind all realignment.

I think having 64 teams in the top level of college football would be a much bigger tv draw than 18-20 team conferences with a bunch of bad teams playing each other or getting mauled by the best teams in the conference. How big of a tv audience would the Clemson/Stanford game draw?

 

[18IsTheMan]

I think having 64 teams in the top level of college football would be a much bigger tv draw than 18-20 team conferences with a bunch of bad teams playing each other or getting mauled by the best teams in the conference. How big of a tv audience would the Clemson/Stanford game draw?

Just wonder you you divvy it up among the networks and who makes the call?

I like Kelly's suggestion (more than I like what's going on now anyway), but there seems to be be way too much momentum towards two super-conferences with the Big 10 and SEC to ever stop it.

 

[KingWard]

Never say never...clemson wasn't a power until 2015. UF was an all time .500 program until HBC showed up. All it takes is the right guy with the right vision to get it rolling. If Clem can doing, there's no reason we can't. And we need to start holding folks accountable to that.

UPC was top-tier in the 70s. Although they only won the one national championship, they went to nice bowls throughout that time and beat some name programs. The only mitigator is that, during the 1970s, Fla. State and Georgia were also good and UPC played one or the other - or both - almost every year. I'm just saying is that Dabo is not he first person to have them among the elite.

 

[KingWard]

Is this the long-term goal of expansion?​

There is no long-term goal of expansion. There is no central authority setting such a goal or causing all of this movement to happen. Whatever that eventual product is will have been arrived at through a spontaneous process of several entities working independently.

 

[18IsTheMan]

There is no long-term goal of expansion. There is no central authority setting such a goal or causing all of this movement to happen. Whatever that eventual product is will have been arrived at through a spontaneous process of several entities working independently.

I'm not naive enough to believe that.

 

[KingWard]

I'm not naive enough to believe that.

Well, then, that answers the question. This thing is just hurtling through space on its way to crash-landing somewhere - unless the big conferences get together at some point to divide the teams. But someone will have to make that happen. As it is, it's each conference for itself and each school for itself.

 

[will110]

I'd like to think you're right, but I think you're probably not. Fans are largely mindless drones who will fork over their dough for whatever product is sold to them as "college football". Even if it's a total shell of what it used to be. This is what the powers-that-be are banking on. Thus far, they've been right in their thinking. Fans have stuck around in spite of many anti-fan decisions (seat licensing??). Fans moan and groan about how bad it is for the game, but ADs and networks know that, ultimately, the fans will always show up or tune in. They are exploiting the fans' unavoidable compulsion to sentimentalize the game

Fans COULD get back the game we want in one year if we did one thing: avoid the game for one season. Just one season. 12 Saturdays of our lives. Mostly empty stadiums and almost no eyeballs on TV. But they know fans largely can't do that. They know most fans identify emotionally with their team of choice. In spite of so many changes which fans decry as "not good" for the game, ratings are still sky high.

This is why I don't think college football is dying. It's going to be very different, but ultimately the product on the field is still college football. When the games start and the talking stops, it's football.

USC is larger now than it's ever been. Sure, the majority of students probably don't end up being diehard football fans, but it only takes a percentage to continue growing the fanbase.

 

[will110]

The administrator's quote is what I've been thinking lately too. The money difference is huge, so logistics or wins and losses haven't been considered. But give it a few years, and something will have to give. The thousand mile flights for weeknight volleyball matches don't make sense.

 

[Big JC]

The administrator's quote is what I've been thinking lately too. The money difference is huge, so logistics or wins and losses haven't been considered. But give it a few years, and something will have to give. The thousand mile flights for weeknight volleyball matches don't make sense.

Part of what is going to give is fan interest.