The people who really pushed it don't really like college sports in general. I'm talking about academic side people who were some of the loudest voices for it. I just can't see this as not being anything but their goal, because I don't think they could have come up with anything that would be more effective at killing long term interest in college sports. That's how you kill it the easiest way with the least resistance, you just do things that will lead to it withering on the vine. I really hope I'm wrong. I just don't see interest staying high in an area of sports that has always been dominated by tradition and school loyalty, when you have essentially mercenary players jumping at will to the highest bidder every year. PRO sports doesn't even have that. It's the combo of the portal and NIL that is going to kill it if something isn't done, and soon. I think the end goal for some is deemphasizing all college sports across the board.
Wazzu athletics
- Thread starter Duke Humphrey
- Start date
Just to be clear I believe there will be a new entity formed and Mississippi State will be excluded. Not that we will be a non-competitive team in a league with the big boys.
A resurgence of the old CFA is coming except it will be about 30 schools that Amazon Prime wants. I think ESPN understands college football better than the other networks. We'll make it through the next TV deal. But when the streaming networks become the power player, they won't give a **** about Mississippi State.
College Football Association - Wikipedia
Here is where I see the future CFA:
South
Alabama
Florida
Tennessee
Georgia
Auburn
LSU
Southwest
Texas
Oklahoma
Texas A&M
Arizona
Arizona State
Arkansas
Pacific
UCLA
USC
Oregon
Washington
Utah
Colorado
Midwest
Nebraska
Iowa
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Michigan
Ohio State
East
Penn State
Clemson
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida State
Miami
10 game schedules. You play the other five in your division and one from the other four divisions every year. A 10th game will be a warmup game in which teams play historic rivals that did not make the cut. In a six year period, TV has seen every possible matchup.
Division winners and runners up make playoff, as well as next four in a ranking system as a nod to "historic college football"
There will be a second division of Major College Football in which the SEC will still exist. We'll be a member of the SEC, and the SEC members that play in this new CFA will be members of the SEC in other sports, but SEC football will be second tier.
Last edited:
Former Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott left some surprises for his conference.
The tenants have moved out, but the building located at 360 3rd Street in downtown San Francisco continues to be a money pit for the Pac-12 Conference.
Conference members paid more than $92 million in rent to Kilroy Realty over 11 years. That expense became an ongoing source of frustration. But the Pac-12 got 113,000 square feet of prime office space in return.
Also, it got a hangover.
At ex-Commissioner Larry Scott’s direction, the conference completely rebuilt two floors of the headquarters. It constructed a state-of-the-art television studio, production bays, meeting rooms, offices and even installed the conference’s infamous Instant-Replay Command Center, complete with etched-glass doors and hardwood floors.
Not only did that install cost a small fortune a decade ago, but per the lease agreement the office space now needs to be returned to its original condition. The expense of that is $10 million per a Pac-12 source and it’s now part of a financial migraine for members.
The conference was also overpaid by $50 million over 10 years by Comcast under Scott’s leadership. The story of that accounting fiasco and the subsequent cover-up is just beginning to become clear. But Pac-12 presidents and chancellors were presented with the bill for it at last week’s meeting of the conference’s board.
We’re just starting to hear how each Pac-12 campus is going to manage absorbing those unexpected expenses. On Monday, Washington State president Kirk Schulz issued a statement in which he announced a temporary freeze on current and future positions, non-essential travel and new professional development.
In the statement, Schulz said the Cougar athletic department exceeded its expenditures for the year due to “inadequate documentation of revenues and expenses.”
Basically, the ‘Champagne Larry’ tax.
Scott flew in a charter jet. He stayed in five-star hotels and soaked in marble tubs. When it came to picking the corporate headquarters the ex-commissioner insisted on a building that cost the conference $696,000 a month in rent. He also double-dipped on his salary, claiming to be a media executive as well as a commissioner, earning $50 million in salary for himself over the years.
It’s ridiculous that Scott negotiated the lease for the headquarters to expire one year in front of the conference’s media-rights deal. A total misfire there. It’s almost as if Scott was thinking more about himself than the campuses he was charged with serving.
What do I make of WSU’s announcement?
Officials in Pullman declined further comment. But it’s pretty simple. WSU and the University of Washington are both bound by a state law that requires them to present a public budget. Schulz was signaling to state lawmakers and citizens that his athletic department is going to show a deficit.
The president didn’t want anyone surprised.
It’s more than Scott did for his old conference. I’ve talked with a number of frustrated conference athletic directors in recent weeks. They’ll be charged with making ends meet in their departments. One Pac-12 AD told me, “We’re basically turning over rocks these days and finding disasters Larry left for us.”
It’s a costly reminder about the importance of leadership, isn’t it?
The college conferences hire executives, pay them millions in salary and expect they’ll put the entity first. Scott failed the Pac-12. I wouldn’t blame the conference if it sued him for it. I’d love to hear his explanation. And we’re finding out this week that former Big Ten Commissioner Kevin Warren left $70 million in broken TV promises behind when he fled to the NFL. His old conference is dealing with that hiccup this week.
The hangover from Scott?
$5.7 million per Pac-12 school.
The accounting blunder, it turns out, was $50 million over 10 years. But there are two additional years on the deal where the revenue expectations have to be reset. Basically, it amounts to a 12-year problem that must now be accounted for over just two years.
The $10 million cost to return the downtown San Francisco palace back into a regular office space is being absorbed by the conference. The Pac-12 reported an uptick in revenues in its most recent fiscal filing. It also implemented a series of cost-saving measures to help mitigate the shortfall. It also has a “rainy day” fund at its disposal.
Be sure, it’s drizzling out there.
Some of the Pac-12 members may be able to easily absorb the hit. Others will have to freeze jobs, cut corners, and endure some ridicule from the academics who don’t like seeing athletics operate in the red.
The solution to all this should have been done years ago. An NFL farm league system. Of course they’ll never do it because now they have one for free. It’s why I’m hoping the USFL survives and possibly evolves into that.
This is exactly how I see it, too. I think some people can't get past the idea of conferences since that's how things have always been structured. And they look at it in the context of whether or not MSU would be kicked out of the SEC.
But that's not how it will work. The big teams (Bama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Florida, etc...) will simply leave and form a new entity. So, we'd still technically be in the SEC (assuming it didn't dissolve) but it'd be like being in what the Big 12 is turning into - a collection of lower tier schools.
I've worked on several college campuses and you are completely wrong about this. Are there people on the academic side of every single university who don't like sports? Sure. Is it a large enough group to have any real effect on the entire college sports landscape - especially given how much money is involved? Not remotely.
The people pushing for NIL are simply looking at the enormous amount of money being generated by college sports and saying more of it should go to players since they are a large part of producing it. They aren't trying to completely get rid of the giant pile of money - they just want some of it reallocated. That's it.
There's no grand conspiracy to kill college athletics.
I don't agree with that assessment at all. You know I'm in higher ed and I know a bunch of folks in higher ed and at other institutions.
The university academic bogeyman is a red herring.
Athletics is the front door for higher ed in the US and student numbers can often be tied to it.
Educators don't want employers to have drastically decreased enrollment because they want jobs.
No It's not.
Yeah there is. It's called amateurism. Amateurism does not require coaches and administrators to be amateurs as well any more than non-profits aren't forced or expected to not pay well for the people who lead and/or run them.
Also, I think you drastically discount the value of the education, full room & board & other, intangible benefits such as admiration of fellow students, poontang, getting your *** kissed, etc. And the players who can actually be pointed to that play at such a high level that they help generate revenue are the ones who also have legit shots at making it as a pro after college where their pay is very high, often exponentially higher than coaches and administrators of the pro teams they play for. For those especially their ability to play for their university, get coaching, exposure, etc., is an incredible value to them as they seek opportunities to play at the pro level.
Students who receive scholarships or grants to attend college who are bound to a minimum period of service, such as an obligation to work in places that few others would even consider or a minimum commitment to serve in the military are not typically allowed to use "capitalism" as a reason to renege on their commitment.
Speaking of military, a Sergeant makes about 4 times as much as a private...a General about 9 times as much. Is there any doubt the physical demands on the typical Private are far greater than those of a General? Is there any doubt that the "lowly" infantryman or Navy Petty Officer collectively are a HUGE factor in the success or failure of military action? Are they not even willingly risking their lives in the performance of their duties when required? If so, should they not get a bigger piece of the pie of the military budget according to your logic?
And yet lower-division schools that don't even give out scholarships continue to maintain fanbases year-after-year, decade-after-decade, century-after-century. While they don't generate traditional revenue from sports the way the big dogs do, you know damn well for many of them large alumni donations are made. in part as loyalty to the sports teams. Especially true of the Ivy League schools. Funny that all these schools who can't or don't offer $1 of athletic scholarship never seem to have a problem finding players who want to play football at their school. In fact, I am pretty sure just about every one of them has to cut more players trying out every year than they can keep.
IMO, and certainly as is the case for me & many others I've spoken with, the passion for college sports comes not just from being an alumni or student, but because it is a "tribal" thing where, under-the-table payments not withstanding, we feel the players are members of our tribe...one of us. With them becoming in essence "hired gun" semi-professional athletes, the tribal. one-of-us aspect is severely weakened if not totally destroyed. Lose the fanbase...even just a significant portion kills the brand as much as losing customers can kill any brand in a free-market.
Look at the Survivor shows where, even though the participants go into it knowing they will have to engage in deception, back-stabbing, etc., to have a chance to win, still display season-after-season a real loyalty to their tribe at least to some extent. Yes, there is a strong incentive to maintain or create a numbers advantage vs other tribes, but stillm there is an element of loyalty-to-tribe that seems to become a real thing as the season progresses.
Human beings are largely tribal by nature...almost always have been. While that can & does exist in the professional realm, it is at the top level of the sport and an area where amateurism is no longer a factor, and never has been. With minor exceptions we don't support a pro team because the players shared a bond with us in the way our fellow students did in college.
Clearly the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL play at a much higher level...the best-of-the-best, yet college sports have maintained a larger, more loyal fanbase than those leagues, & have at the higher level generated tremendous revenues as well, but not for identical reasons. This is why semi-pro sports teams, Minor-league baseball, etc., don't have a fraction of the support college teams do or pro teams.
Semipro teams don't have the same tribal connections as colleges, but also don't play at the highest levels with the best athletes that are a huge part of what draws fans and revenue to the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc. Making college athletes semi-pro is and always was a terrible idea, and one I feel is destined to kill the "Goose-That-Lays-The-Golden Egg".
Sure, there are fans like you & those who contribute to NIL funds who will continue to stay as engaged as before, but it's going to be fewer and fewer every year until the Money Tree wilts & dies. Sports are only as successful financially as fan-interest (iow spending or watching commercials during broadcasts, etc.) will support.
Generally you can always follow the money. Nobody pushing this model is doing it out of kindness.
Unfortunately too few realize, though, that it’s not universities, coaches, networks footing the bill for NIL. Its not the fat cats. It’s college athletes that aren’t good enough to make any NIL that will pay. They’re the losers here.
While I could never intelligently debate the legal theory, I tend to think that the Supreme Court was correct in their ruling. I also think under the old model there were football and basketball players not getting their “fair” cut, based off of the profits their talent contributes to the school, conference, coach, etc. I think these are numbered in the hundreds, maybe low 4 figures. Numbered in the tens of thousands are the ones benefitting from that old model to a degree greater than the true value of their demonstrated talents. Education (whether they wanted it or not), healthcare, exposure to professional sports, basic needs. If we’re to be worried about the “college athlete,” their plight is objectively worse under the new model’s trajectory.
Some will get their due. I’m not sure if that makes it right or wrong. I think more talk of who stands to lose from all this is not getting enough air time, though.
Just curious, are you suggesting what I posted is BS, or that your clip is a microcosm of what I was saying in response to FQDawg? Either way, it's funny.
More the latter.
I agree more with FQ but while reading your thoughtful and detailed post I couldn’t help but think of Vinny’s opening statement.
We could go around and around but......McDs is a good example. Just like the store workers, players were getting paid. Scholarships, housing, food and tutors. Stipends. Also McDs fry cook isn't paid a 6firgue salary even though McDs makes billions. And people mostly certain stop at McDs because of the restaurant's reputation and not for the workers.
Anyways.... in response to other post in this thread. The whole force behind NIL was politics. Politics told the NCAA what to do. The ncaa had policies in place and warned what would happen and it is happening before us. High school kids being auctioned.
Anyways, just like many other issues in our country those with actual knowledge and with experience tell the politicians no, the politicians push and push and open Pandora's box.
I was doing it on the fly in my head and was just going through the conferences. You are right - Put Notre Dame in there instead of Michigan State.
But yeah, everyone is locked in the silo of "We're in the SEC and we are a charter member." We will not be kicked out of the SEC, there will be a new association playing at a higher level without NCAA oversight. And think about this. In college basketball, all but one returning mid-major conference player of the year and 78% of first team all-mid major conference players entered the transfer portal.
If a Mississippi State were to pick up a top tier player in this new era, they would transfer. The era of "school pride" is completely over. It's going to be about getting paid. The group of 30 will start regulating NIL and transfers but the NCAA will be so tied down by precedence that it will not be able to regulate it.
I appreciate a long, extended post more than most but I'm out of pocket most of the day today, so forgive me for a relatively short reply. But I did want to respond to a few of your points.
ETA - OK, maybe it wasn't that short of a reply.
I think I said this in response to another post (or maybe I just thought it and didn't post it) but it bears repeating. The idea that players getting a cut of revenue is what's going to kill college athletics and not that revenue going to increasingly exorbitant sums spent on coaches salaries or administrator salaries or facilities just doesn't make any kind of sense.
ETA - OK, maybe it wasn't that short of a reply.
Yes, the idea that there's some conspiracy or driving force to kill college athletics is nonsensical.
Don't get me wrong. I wish amateurism was still a thing. But it isn't - not in the real world - and hasn't been for decades. It's OK to update our view of things based on reality. Also, non profits have to pay their employees. And just like in the corporate world, if you want better employees, you have to pay them.
Those intangible benefits you mention are nonsense. Sure, I guess they exist but they're not a reason not to pay someone who helps create revenue. And the "we're not going to pay you now because you'll probably make more money in the future" is a dumb argument.
Yes, those people who are on the front line, risking their lives for our freedom on a daily basis, should absolutely be paid more. I don't think that's a controversial take. If we have to spend less on jets that don't actually work to raise the pay of enlisted service members, I'm fine with that.
The important part of your response here is "they don't generate traditional revenue from sports the way the big dogs do." Also, if we didn't give scholarships or NIL money to our players, we'd still find players who wanted to play here, but they wouldn't be SEC quality players. Probably not even C-USA quality players.
I don't even disagree with this part in theory. I want to believe that our players chose MSU for many of the same reasons I chose MSU. But that's an antiquated, idealistic view of things that, again, doesn't match with the real world. As I said before, I like Dak but I like him because he played here. If he'd played anywhere else, I wouldn't care about him. So I understand the point about tribalism. I still think he and other MSU players should get a bigger cut of the revenue they help generate.
I think I said this in response to another post (or maybe I just thought it and didn't post it) but it bears repeating. The idea that players getting a cut of revenue is what's going to kill college athletics and not that revenue going to increasingly exorbitant sums spent on coaches salaries or administrator salaries or facilities just doesn't make any kind of sense.
Last edited:
Truth. Still cannot believe that didn't happen. I think I would have liked that more.
This is kinda dumb L4. There's no group of boogeymen, just greed overall. Most of whom do not even realize they are doing damage. It just happens over time. Like Saban.
Legally you cannot prevent a person from owning and making profit off of their name, photos/images of themselves, or things that look like them. Colleges cannot own that. Employers cannot own that. We unlawfully restricted that for years with college atheletes.
The problem is the abuse with "above reasonable market rates" of using the brand of a college athelete. You would not pay a person what you are paying these atheletes to work around the "pay for play" amateur athletics.
Here is a thought: how many TV commercials have you seen of SEC QB's selling things on TV? That would be the most expensive spend of actual money for NIL. That is not happening because the atheletes are pocketing the money.
The problem is the abuse with "above reasonable market rates" of using the brand of a college athelete. You would not pay a person what you are paying these atheletes to work around the "pay for play" amateur athletics.
Here is a thought: how many TV commercials have you seen of SEC QB's selling things on TV? That would be the most expensive spend of actual money for NIL. That is not happening because the atheletes are pocketing the money.
It amounts to it whether it is intentional or not. They could not have contrived a better way to kill it.
The group of people who hate college athletics aren't going to take it down by making them richer.
The conferences figured out they had the power with the TV contracts and ESPN in the late 80s and early 90s. ESPN boomed from a struggling network showing obscure sports to what it is today with college football. There are three things happening right now that are going to cause a second revolution.
1. Streaming services are now commonplace. ESPN will be a part of it, but do we remember how big it was to get an ABC game or a CBS game - those days are over. Oh, we're playing on Amazon Prime this week? Next week its ESPN plus and in two weeks its Hulu. Cool!
2. The universities are starting to figure out that they actually have the power, not the conferences.
3. Legalized sports gambling is going to play a factor in the next generation of college sports. Which is ironic because 20 years ago, the NCAA wouldn't hold an event in Las Vegas and a low level staffer could be fired for filling out a March Madness bracket.
Again, I think nostalgia will get us through the mid 2030s, but that contract negotiation is going to cause 30-32-maybe 40 schools to do their own thing in football.
The conferences figured out they had the power with the TV contracts and ESPN in the late 80s and early 90s. ESPN boomed from a struggling network showing obscure sports to what it is today with college football. There are three things happening right now that are going to cause a second revolution.
1. Streaming services are now commonplace. ESPN will be a part of it, but do we remember how big it was to get an ABC game or a CBS game - those days are over. Oh, we're playing on Amazon Prime this week? Next week its ESPN plus and in two weeks its Hulu. Cool!
2. The universities are starting to figure out that they actually have the power, not the conferences.
3. Legalized sports gambling is going to play a factor in the next generation of college sports. Which is ironic because 20 years ago, the NCAA wouldn't hold an event in Las Vegas and a low level staffer could be fired for filling out a March Madness bracket.
Again, I think nostalgia will get us through the mid 2030s, but that contract negotiation is going to cause 30-32-maybe 40 schools to do their own thing in football.
This. This is going to change the landscape dramatically.
SEC deal currently runs to 2034, I believe.
I feel like L4 is envisioning a bunch of Dean Wormer types sitting around a private library in tweed jackets with pipes and elbow guards lamenting about how 50,000 people never crowd into a stadium to listen to a lecture on Grace Hopper's influences in the realm of Supercomputing (which were many and profound, btw) or Irreducibility Criteria and how college should be about education and not 'extracurricular club activities' like 'American football'.I don't agree with that assessment at all. You know I'm in higher ed and I know a bunch of folks in higher ed and at other institutions.
The university academic bogeyman is a red herring.
Athletics is the front door for higher ed in the US and student numbers can often be tied to it.
Educators don't want employers to have drastically decreased enrollment because they want jobs.
One professor meekly asks "But how do we reverse the trend?"
Then some graybeard in the corner puffs his pipe and loudly exhales a billow of gray smoke. When this loud exhalation gets the attention of the other intellectuals in the room, the graybeard leans forward and adjusts his round rim glasses and says matter-of-factly:
"Pay the players. We'll destroy that house of cards within a year. Then when people think of the great Miami University of Ohio, they'll no longer think of Redhawks. They'll again think of us as the alma mater of theoretical physicist Benjamin W. Lee and the 3rd best research university in the state of Ohio! Now, call our contacts in the media and the trade unions and let's put athletics where they belong... beneath the soles of academia."
Again, there's nothing intentional because there isn't any organized "they."
I still haven't seen a good explanation for why players making money is going to kill off college sports but coaches making millions and universities sinking hundreds of millions into facilities isn't.
The people who pushed for it are the players, and then the people who side with the players, who are, let's face it, the left-leaning folks. One needs to look no further than the people in this thread. All this talk about 'the labor' tells you all you need to know, as if playing football/basketball (revenue producing sport in other words) in exchange for a scholarship and stipend is in some way "free labor".
Did the stipends maybe need to increase? Sure. The fact that there was such a big black market tells you that. That's just the reality of life. The coaches and the demand from fans helped push, even if it was unknowingly. I mean look how many people want us to just blow money on firing our baseball coaches right now, and that's not even a revenue-producing sport.
Bottom line, we should have done one of two things - NIL should have been a part of things years ago, and now it would be normal, or two - we should have increased stipends somehow. Since an abrupt change into NIL now has happened, that's just what we have to deal with. This tells me the players won't be unionizing anytime soon, or becoming 'employees'. I do think, over time, the players who don't get much NIL will get pissed and we will see something like that, but it's 20-25 years away. For now, we're stuck.
While I hate the immediate eligibility portal, I hope we don't change that back. It's one of the things saving MSU football right now.
Maybe I'm the exception, but I would say that I'm admittedly pretty left leaning and I'm against paying college players. I think the idea of NIL makes sense and would support it if that's what it was used for, but I knew from its inception that NIL would be basically 'pay to play' and that's what it's turned into. I'm for increasing scholarship limits and cost of living stipends in all sports outside of maybe football and basketball. I think every sponsored sport should be able to have a fully formed team on scholarship.
That being said... I think of college sports more along the lines of an internship. You're getting college credit, training, paid tuition, room, food, etc., but in return you have to put in the work. You're also getting experience and exposure that you can put on a game film (like a resume) when you're talking to potential employers.
If you don't like that, go try out for the XFL or the G-League or any one of a thousand minor league and semi-pro leagues across the country.
Also, that being said, I don't think NIL or the transfer portal are going to destroy college football. If somebody puts on a Mississippi State uniform, I'm going to root for them whether they've been here since their freshman year or they're a one and done merc we picked up out of the portal. Maybe I'm in the minority here, but what the 17 else is new?
No, I'm not talking about that many people at all. Go back and look at some of the lobbying for this.I feel like L4 is envisioning a bunch of Dean Wormer types sitting around a private library in tweed jackets with pipes and elbow guards lamenting about how 50,000 people never crowd into a stadium to listen to a lecture on Grace Hopper's influences in the realm of Supercomputing (which were many and profound, btw) or Irreducibility Criteria and how college should be about education and not 'extracurricular club activities' like 'American football'.
One professor meekly asks "But how do we reverse the trend?"
Then some graybeard in the corner puffs his pipe and loudly exhales a billow of gray smoke. When this loud exhalation gets the attention of the other intellectuals in the room, the graybeard leans forward and adjusts his round rim glasses and says matter-of-factly:
"Pay the players. We'll destroy that house of cards within a year. Then when people think of the great Miami University of Ohio, they'll no longer think of Redhawks. They'll again think of us as the alma mater of theoretical physicist Benjamin W. Lee and the 3rd best research university in the state of Ohio! Now, call our contacts in the media and the trade unions and let's put athletics where they belong... beneath the soles of academia."
I just don’t see that happening and for one reason. There is just not enough interest in college football in some places. Mississippi routinely has more viewers than Arizona, Colorado, Washington… college football is largely a regional sport. The top tv markets are all in the south, except for Columbus, OH. The sec viewership would go down quite a bit with your idea above. I’d quit watching college football.Just to be clear I believe there will be a new entity formed and Mississippi State will be excluded. Not that we will be a non-competitive team in a league with the big boys.
A resurgence of the old CFA is coming except it will be about 30 schools that Amazon Prime wants. I think ESPN understands college football better than the other networks. We'll make it through the next TV deal. But when the streaming networks become the power player, they won't give a **** about Mississippi State.
College Football Association - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Here is where I see the future CFA:
South
Alabama
Florida
Tennessee
Georgia
Auburn
LSU
Southwest
Texas
Oklahoma
Texas A&M
Arizona
Arizona State
Arkansas
Pacific
UCLA
USC
Oregon
Washington
Utah
Colorado
Midwest
Nebraska
Iowa
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Michigan
Ohio State
East
Penn State
Clemson
Virginia
North Carolina
Florida State
Miami
10 game schedules. You play the other five in your division and one from the other four divisions every year. A 10th game will be a warmup game in which teams play historic rivals that did not make the cut. In a six year period, TV has seen every possible matchup.
Division winners and runners up make playoff, as well as next four in a ranking system as a nod to "historic college football"
There will be a second division of Major College Football in which the SEC will still exist. We'll be a member of the SEC, and the SEC members that play in this new CFA will be members of the SEC in other sports, but SEC football will be second tier.
Its not about viewers, its about subscribers. Mississippi is a low population state and losing population. Its a poor state. It isn't attractive to what is coming down for sports viewing. Its a different world.
Amazon and Hulu/ESPN are going to offer crazy money and make huge demands.
I understand subscribers and potential tv screens are a big deal… but if the amount of people viewing didn’t matter, why can’t the pac 12 get a decent tv contract right now? Still a ton of subscribers, population and big schools without the 2 Los Angeles schools. I believe Birmingham has more viewers of college football than phoenix, Seattle and LA combined.
With PAC-12 traditionally playing a lot of night games and the time zone, it's just too late for most East and Central zone viewers. And that's 77% of the US population. Plus, without USC and UCLA, what compelling teams are there? Washington, Oregon and Stanford is about it, and they're 2nd tier at best.
All of that may be true and probably is but this can also be true. Most college athletes will end up suffering bc of the changes.
I agree with regarding there not being a lot of compelling teams in the pac 12… and people that live in the pac 12 footprint agree too because they don’t watch it. But I was responding to a post that 8 of the pac 12 teams in this new top tier of college football.
I do disagree with you in terms of the population that would watch college football. I have not done the math but I’d bet the population of the pac 12 states is comparable to that of the sec states. I understand the US population is heavy on the east coast but I don’t think sec football is drawing many eyeballs from DC, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago and Detroit… or any other population centers in the Midwest and east coast.
I'd bet SEC states have at least twice the population as PAC-12 states. And most of the PAC-12 population is California where most people have little or no connection to any of the PAC-12 schools.
Quick check:
PAC-12 population - 63 million (39 in CA)
SEC population - 95 million
For what it's worth, the combined estimated population of the six Pac 12 states is 67.6 million. The combined population of the 11 SEC states is 101.8 million. If you include Oklahoma, the SEC population moves to 105.9 million. Data is from this page, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt.
But you're right that it's not about pure population anymore. Otherwise teams in New York (19.7 million people) and New Jersey (9.3 million) would attract more attention when it comes to realignment. It's all about brands. So there might not be as many people watching college football in DC, New York, Philadelphia, etc... as there are in Birmingham, Atlanta, New Orleans, etc... but when they do watch, they're watching big name teams like Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Ohio State. But they are also more likely to watch Oregon, Washington and Stanford than they are to watch us, South Carolina or Kentucky.
ETA - I don't know how accurate this is but it's a look at the week-by-week TV ratings for the 2022 season. Obviously ratings depend on things like day, time and network but still some interesting stuff here.
Last edited:
That’ll teach me to at least quickly verify a thought I had… I figured Arizona, Washington and Colorado had populations more in line with Georgia.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.