The death of college football is upon us

[Big JC]

Only by your definition which I hate to break it to you, means nothing. The masses will continue given that viewership in 2023 was among the highest it’s ever been. But it’s ok chicken little the sky will still be up there in the morning.

The record setting viewership is as much a product of more games being televised as anything to do with interest levels in college football. Until recently, fans of a smaller school had to hope they would have a game or two televised each season. Now, with streaming, pretty much every FBS and most FCS games are able to be watched. The NFL has huge viewer numbers (at least huge relative to today's tv market) because NFL games are one of the very few things a reasonably large number of people watch today and is also one of the few live televised events. With hundreds of tv channels and all the streaming platforms like Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, etc. the tv viewing market is incredibly fractured. The NFL averages 17 million viewers per game over all platforms which is an impressive number but, again, the availability of streaming has really boosted the numbers. There are about 125 million tv households in the US, so even the NFL is only drawing about 14% of the total market. Only 5 FBS college football games drew 17 million or more viewers in 2023. With a US population of around 335 million, the percentage of people watching college football isn't really that great. Living in the South and being fans of an SEC school, I think we tend to overestimate the popularity and importance of college football. If you travel much to other parts of the country, you will find that college football is much less important to the people who live there.

Here a few things to think about regarding college sports going forward. If players become employees, have a union, etc. how will teams require them to be students? There is no requirement that any other employee of an athletic department, school, athletic association or professional sports team be a student at a school. Players will not be employees of the school, they will be employees of the athletic associations that control the sports associated with a given school. Being a college student is in no way a BFOQ for being a football player (having to maintain a certain gpa even less so). If athletes want to share in the profit will they also be willing to share in the losses if the athletic program or team loses money? Everyone wants a share of the revenue but nobody wants any responsibility for the expenses. Will the schools let these new professional sports teams use the school names for marketing and allow the teams to use the facilities owned by the schools? What reason would a school have to give a scholarship to a student who makes $100K+ a year playing a sport? Where does the money to pay the players come from? 90% of programs operate at a loss every year and rely on student fees to break even. Do regular students have to pay higher fees so some professional athletes who are employees of a separate entity who may not even be students at the school can be paid? What happens to non revenue sports that operate at a tremendous loss and those athletes have little to no NIL opportunities? Do the softball, golf, tennis, etc. athletes become employees and get paid by the athletic association too?

As with most things, the devil is in the details.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

The record setting viewership is as much a product of more games being televised as anything to do with interest levels in college football. Until recently, fans of a smaller school had to hope they would have a game or two televised each season. Now, with streaming, pretty much every FBS and most FCS games are able to be watched. The NFL has huge viewer numbers (at least huge relative to today's tv market) because NFL games are one of the very few things a reasonably large number of people watch today and is also one of the few live televised events. With hundreds of tv channels and all the streaming platforms like Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, etc. the tv viewing market is incredibly fractured. The NFL averages 17 million viewers per game over all platforms which is an impressive number but, again, the availability of streaming has really boosted the numbers. There are about 125 million tv households in the US, so even the NFL is only drawing about 14% of the total market. Only 5 FBS college football games drew 17 million or more viewers in 2023. With a US population of around 335 million, the percentage of people watching college football isn't really that great. Living in the South and being fans of an SEC school, I think we tend to overestimate the popularity and importance of college football. If you travel much to other parts of the country, you will find that college football is much less important to the people who live there.

Here a few things to think about regarding college sports going forward. If players become employees, have a union, etc. how will teams require them to be students? There is no requirement that any other employee of an athletic department, school, athletic association or professional sports team be a student at a school. Players will not be employees of the school, they will be employees of the athletic associations that control the sports associated with a given school. Being a college student is in no way a BFOQ for being a football player (having to maintain a certain gpa even less so). If athletes want to share in the profit will they also be willing to share in the losses if the athletic program or team loses money? Everyone wants a share of the revenue but nobody wants any responsibility for the expenses. Will the schools let these new professional sports teams use the school names for marketing and allow the teams to use the facilities owned by the schools? What reason would a school have to give a scholarship to a student who makes $100K+ a year playing a sport? Where does the money to pay the players come from? 90% of programs operate at a loss every year and rely on student fees to break even. Do regular students have to pay higher fees so some professional athletes who are employees of a separate entity who may not even be students at the school can be paid? What happens to non revenue sports that operate at a tremendous loss and those athletes have little to no NIL opportunities? Do the softball, golf, tennis, etc. athletes become employees and get paid by the athletic association too?

As with most things, the devil is in the details.

Share in losses? I don’t share the losses with my employer. I still get my contract regardless. Why would they share in the losses that’s not logical. They are simply employees not management or owners. The tv contracts will pay for the players. That’s why it’s profit share. As to the other question, that’s the reason the talk has been a 40-50 team conference. Those teams absolutely run a profit on football. Both major universities in this state do. They don’t have to have tuition if they are employees. They are no longer students. If you want say it’s a university owned team that uses their logo, fine I’m ok with that. I don’t have to have this virgin purity of student-athlete or what some think that means. To me it hasn’t been about the student party in 30 years. It was just a hoop the team and athletes had to jump through.

 

[will110]

The forward pass seismically changed football on the field.

NCAA v. Oklahoma seismically changed college football off the field (TV contracts, etc.)

There have been massive changes and upheavals in college football its entire history. Just because we have more seismic changes coming, this time with player eligibility and amateur status, doesn't mean college football is dying. At this point the end game is unknown. Could it so change college football that it's no longer college football? Sure. But it also could just create a better situation for fans, with players contractually bound to their school/team without fans being asked to pay them through NIL collectives without any guarantee those players will even stay because of the unrestricted transfer portal.

The toothpaste is out of the tube. College football is NEVER going back to the old amateur model of play. If that's what you want to see, you need to watch D2 football. Otherwise, look for the positives and enjoy the product on the field!

 

[Sparklecity]

Our federal government is a joke. Why is this even their concern?

They will put Kamala in as College Football Czar and she will fix everything! No worries!

 

[Deleted11512]

The record setting viewership is as much a product of more games being televised as anything to do with interest levels in college football. Until recently, fans of a smaller school had to hope they would have a game or two televised each season. Now, with streaming, pretty much every FBS and most FCS games are able to be watched. The NFL has huge viewer numbers (at least huge relative to today's tv market) because NFL games are one of the very few things a reasonably large number of people watch today and is also one of the few live televised events. With hundreds of tv channels and all the streaming platforms like Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, etc. the tv viewing market is incredibly fractured. The NFL averages 17 million viewers per game over all platforms which is an impressive number but, again, the availability of streaming has really boosted the numbers. There are about 125 million tv households in the US, so even the NFL is only drawing about 14% of the total market. Only 5 FBS college football games drew 17 million or more viewers in 2023. With a US population of around 335 million, the percentage of people watching college football isn't really that great. Living in the South and being fans of an SEC school, I think we tend to overestimate the popularity and importance of college football. If you travel much to other parts of the country, you will find that college football is much less important to the people who live there.

Here a few things to think about regarding college sports going forward. If players become employees, have a union, etc. how will teams require them to be students? There is no requirement that any other employee of an athletic department, school, athletic association or professional sports team be a student at a school. Players will not be employees of the school, they will be employees of the athletic associations that control the sports associated with a given school. Being a college student is in no way a BFOQ for being a football player (having to maintain a certain gpa even less so). If athletes want to share in the profit will they also be willing to share in the losses if the athletic program or team loses money? Everyone wants a share of the revenue but nobody wants any responsibility for the expenses. Will the schools let these new professional sports teams use the school names for marketing and allow the teams to use the facilities owned by the schools? What reason would a school have to give a scholarship to a student who makes $100K+ a year playing a sport? Where does the money to pay the players come from? 90% of programs operate at a loss every year and rely on student fees to break even. Do regular students have to pay higher fees so some professional athletes who are employees of a separate entity who may not even be students at the school can be paid? What happens to non revenue sports that operate at a tremendous loss and those athletes have little to no NIL opportunities? Do the softball, golf, tennis, etc. athletes become employees and get paid by the athletic association too?

As with most things, the devil is in the details.

I love your first point...It's not that there's more interest, it's that it's more available. As if ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC are in the business of televising things people have no interest in. They are televising more games bc that's what people want...ie, INTEREST IS INCREASING.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

I love your first point...It's not that there's more interest, it's that it's more available. As if ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC are in the business of televising things people have no interest in. They are televising more people that's what people want...ie, INTEREST IS INCREASING.

Mic drop.

 

[Guy in the Back]

If NIL is going to exist, the transfer portal should be adjusted to eliminate as much tampering as possible (never will be of it).

As I have stated before, I never bought into NIL. These athletes have access to better and more stuff than the typical college student (housing, food, clothing, medical care, tutoring, etc). If it was about money, pay them a working wage for the hours they put in like a normal college kid with a job. Cut coaching salaries, reduce ticket prices for the common fan, and require schools to put a percentage of profits into academics, infrastructure, etc in an effort to build a better education system. Heck, could they even at some places use the money to lower tuition.

I know this is a far stretch, but what about the students that are involved at these major research facilities that invent things that make millions of dollars off of finds or creates a patent. How many of these folks get anything other than experience?

 

[Yard_Pimps]

If NIL is going to exist, the transfer portal should be adjusted to eliminate as much tampering as possible (never will be of it).

As I have stated before, I never bought into NIL. These athletes have access to better and more stuff than the typical college student (housing, food, clothing, medical care, tutoring, etc). If it was about money, pay them a working wage for the hours they put in like a normal college kid with a job. Cut coaching salaries, reduce ticket prices for the common fan, and require schools to put a percentage of profits into academics, infrastructure, etc in an effort to build a better education system. Heck, could they even at some places use the money to lower tuition.

I know this is a far stretch, but what about the students that are involved at these major research facilities that invent things that make millions of dollars off of finds or creates a patent. How many of these folks get anything other than experience?

Far stretch? That’s fantasy land. None of that will ever happen nor will the legal system allow it. Everything you just listed doesn’t give the players what they deserve while the schools make millions.

 

[Big JC]

Share in losses? I don’t share the losses with my employer. I still get my contract regardless. Why would they share in the losses that’s not logical. They are simply employees not management or owners. The tv contracts will pay for the players. That’s why it’s profit share. As to the other question, that’s the reason the talk has been a 40-50 team conference. Those teams absolutely run a profit on football. Both major universities in this state do. They don’t have to have tuition if they are employees. They are no longer students. If you want say it’s a university owned team that uses their logo, fine I’m ok with that. I don’t have to have this virgin purity of student-athlete or what some think that means. To me it hasn’t been about the student party in 30 years. It was just a hoop the team and athletes had to jump through.

I have to say I admire your honesty. You really don't care if "college" teams are made up of students or not, you are perfectly fine with a new professional league with college naming rights.

I guess we'll wait and see if the majority of today's college football fans agree with you. The success (or lack thereof) of other lower level professional football leagues leads me to think the fans won't stick with the new professional model.

 

[Guy in the Back]

Far stretch? That’s fantasy land. None of that will ever happen nor will the legal system allow it. Everything you just listed doesn’t give the players what they deserve while the schools make millions.

You and I will have to agree to disagree. I was not blessed with the God-given ability to be an D1 athlete. However, I have coached a few and worked with a few that were. To a man, all of those would’ve thoroughly enjoyed having the money, but they all also agreed that those schools didn’t hesitate to pour money back into them. they all consistently said they never hurt or wanted for anything.

I have a cousin who attended Duke University. Very smart guy, much smarter than I ever was, or will be. He had full ride to a few other schools around the state. However, for his choice of profession, he wanted to go to Duke. They did not offer him very much money, and he ended up leaving owing a couple hundred thousand dollars. Not one kid that attends a division one school leaves owing money. Pretty good payday in my opinion.

It also happens that his dad created a dialysis machine that is patented. However, when he signed on to the company, he signed an agreement that stated anything that they created or discovered was property of the company. His name is on the patent, but he gets no money from it.

I would be curious to know on average what a five year player has spent on them during their time at the university of South Carolina. All meals, tuition, books, tutors, clothing, housing, medical care, trainers, travel, and anything else associated with their time at the school.

 

[Big JC]

I love your first point...It's not that there's more interest, it's that it's more available. As if ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC are in the business of televising things people have no interest in. They are televising more games bc that's what people want...ie, INTEREST IS INCREASING.

I'd say the interest is relatively constant. The increase in numbers of viewers is a function of more of the product being available to the interested public. As in all things affected by basic economics, the increase in supply with demand remaining constant will result in lower prices for the product. We are already seeing networks have problems with the huge contracts they have given conferences (i.e. cost of goods sold) and being unable to increase cable rates or ad cost to increase revenue to cover the increased cost. It isn't a secret that ESPN is having financial issues and one of the causes of those issues is the cost to ESPN of all the contracts to conferences for college football.

Also, ESPN, Fox, CBS and NBC already televise many things people have little interest in.

 

[cockyferg]

He's not a college football fan.

Incorrect. I am a college football fan, and I'm a SC fan. I'm also tired of our mediocrity. I don't see any of this as being good for college football, and we can agree to disagree like adults without name-calling.

 

[frank.bank]

The players already had a good deal before NIL and unlimited transfers.

 

[KingWard]

Not at all. I strongly believe in the things I said. I am all for profit sharing.

Not gonna work for people who already have no profits to share. Ergo, it will bifurcate schools not be conference affiliation but by financial statement, and further stratify the very top tier by specific profitability. In such a financial tussle, even if we wind up in the upper division, we will not be able to compete - ever. And that's before you get down to the question to Title IX and the possibility of having to drop sports.

 

[Uscg1984]

I love your first point...It's not that there's more interest, it's that it's more available. As if ESPN, Fox, CBS, and NBC are in the business of televising things people have no interest in. They are televising more games bc that's what people want...ie, INTEREST IS INCREASING.

That's one possible conclusion. Another is that in the era of streaming and DVRs, the value of commercials for live-event sports programming has increased relative to other types of programming.

If in-person attendance is a measure of interest, it's worth noting that attendance has dropped virtually across the board among major college programs over the last 10 years or so.

 

[Uscg1984]

Not gonna work for people who already have no profits to share. Ergo, it will bifurcate schools not be conference affiliation but by financial statement, and further stratify the very top tier by specific profitability. In such a financial tussle, even if we wind up in the upper division, we will not be able to compete - ever. And that's before you get down to the question to Title IX and the possibility of having to drop sports.

True. Nothing will diminish interest in college football faster than relegating large numbers of FBS programs to a level lower than the one they currently enjoy. If all of this is moving toward an eventual 40-50 team product, then there will be about 70 fan bases around the country who suddenly care less about the highest level of the sport when they have no dog in the fight.

 

[Patriot321]

With the direction this country is heading, college football is the least of our worries.

The record setting viewership is as much a product of more games being televised as anything to do with interest levels in college football. Until recently, fans of a smaller school had to hope they would have a game or two televised each season. Now, with streaming, pretty much every FBS and most FCS games are able to be watched. The NFL has huge viewer numbers (at least huge relative to today's tv market) because NFL games are one of the very few things a reasonably large number of people watch today and is also one of the few live televised events. With hundreds of tv channels and all the streaming platforms like Youtube, Hulu, Netflix, etc. the tv viewing market is incredibly fractured. The NFL averages 17 million viewers per game over all platforms which is an impressive number but, again, the availability of streaming has really boosted the numbers. There are about 125 million tv households in the US, so even the NFL is only drawing about 14% of the total market. Only 5 FBS college football games drew 17 million or more viewers in 2023. With a US population of around 335 million, the percentage of people watching college football isn't really that great. Living in the South and being fans of an SEC school, I think we tend to overestimate the popularity and importance of college football. If you travel much to other parts of the country, you will find that college football is much less important to the people who live there.

Here a few things to think about regarding college sports going forward. If players become employees, have a union, etc. how will teams require them to be students? There is no requirement that any other employee of an athletic department, school, athletic association or professional sports team be a student at a school. Players will not be employees of the school, they will be employees of the athletic associations that control the sports associated with a given school. Being a college student is in no way a BFOQ for being a football player (having to maintain a certain gpa even less so). If athletes want to share in the profit will they also be willing to share in the losses if the athletic program or team loses money? Everyone wants a share of the revenue but nobody wants any responsibility for the expenses. Will the schools let these new professional sports teams use the school names for marketing and allow the teams to use the facilities owned by the schools? What reason would a school have to give a scholarship to a student who makes $100K+ a year playing a sport? Where does the money to pay the players come from? 90% of programs operate at a loss every year and rely on student fees to break even. Do regular students have to pay higher fees so some professional athletes who are employees of a separate entity who may not even be students at the school can be paid? What happens to non revenue sports that operate at a tremendous loss and those athletes have little to no NIL opportunities? Do the softball, golf, tennis, etc. athletes become employees and get paid by the athletic association too?

As with most things, the devil is in the details.

Well stated! College football should no longer be tied to a college, it is no longer college football. These are now semi-pro farm teams, let the NFL take them over like MLB, let them pay for all of it. The players have absolutely no allegiance to the schools, the only tie-in now is that they just happen to be playing in the stadium built by the college football fans.

 

[Patriot321]

Do you work for free? When you get paid do you call that a "redistribution of wealth," or do you call it "getting paid?"

When did playing amateur sports get to be work? And why isn't getting a free education, housing, meals and a monthly spending stipend, all to the tune if $150K to $200K over 4 years, not called getting paid. And on top of all that, their free education gives them the opportunity to make an unlimited amount of money for the rest of their lives.

 

[Deleted11512]

That's one possible conclusion. Another is that in the era of streaming and DVRs, the value of commercials for live-event sports programming has increased relative to other types of programming.

If in-person attendance is a measure of interest, it's worth noting that attendance has dropped virtually across the board among major college programs over the last 10 years or so.

Attendance was up this year. This article was pretty good.

College Football 2023 Trends & Tech: A Season in Review

As the echoes of sold-out stadiums linger in the air, the College Football 2023 season recap unfolds with a resounding message: the demand for college football isn't just back; it's stronger and more vibrant than ever.Amidst the electrifying cheers and nail-biting moments, 83% of colleges...

www.paciolan.com

 

[Atlanta_Cock]

Not at all. I strongly believe in the things I said. I am all for profit sharing.

How about risk and cost sharing?

 

[Yard_Pimps]

How about risk and cost sharing?

Idk about you but I don’t share in my employers risk and cost. I get my contract regardless. Sharing in risk and cost is more of an owner/management role. Of which they are neither.

 

[Atlanta Cock]

Idk about you but I don’t share in my employers risk and cost. I get my contract regardless. Sharing in risk and cost is more of an owner/management role. Of which they are neither.

Easy, there Comrade. If you want profit sharing, that’s how it works. Put your name on the dotted line and sweat it out like a real man. Straight UBI, which is what you’re talking about, is for lazy losers.

 

[Deleted11512]

Easy, there Comrade. If you want profit sharing, that’s how it works. Put your name on the dotted line and sweat it out like a real man. Straight UBI, which is what you’re talking about, is for lazy losers.

Are you high?

Edit: I see it. He said profit sharing, which would be after expenses. He probably means revenue sharing, which is the term most are using in this scenario….similar to a commission.

 

[Atlanta_Cock]

Are you high?

Edit: I see it. He said profit sharing, which would be after expenses. He probably means revenue sharing, which is the term most are using in this scenario….similar to a commission.

I know exactly what he's saying. He wants to share the profits with zero risk. It's a classic Marxist talking point. I'll bet he owns a unicorn and lives where it's always sunny and 72, with no bugs, and everyone gets a trophy and an equal pension.

 

[Yard_Pimps]

Easy, there Comrade. If you want profit sharing, that’s how it works. Put your name on the dotted line and sweat it out like a real man. Straight UBI, which is what you’re talking about, is for lazy losers.

I meant revenue but said profit. They being held accountable for the loses will never happen and nor should it.

 

[Big JC]

Idk about you but I don’t share in my employers risk and cost. I get my contract regardless. Sharing in risk and cost is more of an owner/management role. Of which they are neither.

You most certainly do share in your employers risk and costs. If the risks and costs get too high you will experience the pain associated with them in the form of unemployment due to layoffs. Unless you have a government job, which I suggest might be the case judging from your seeming attitude towards revenue sharing, you share in the risks, costs and profits of your employer every single day.