Probably not a popular idea on a football thread, but maybe time to rethink the conference model

[bigsirspur]

Sorry, but unless B1G picked up Clemson and ND, there is no real answer to OU and TX to the SEC. But there are a lot of moving parts right now. It remains to be seen whether (and where) college football retains its popularity once the players really start flouting their newfound wealth and clout. The portal was a "game changer," NIL is a "game changer," and now realignment is a "game changer." Maybe it's time to decide not to play on that field. The B1G's baked in advantage, that the SEC cannot (and seemingly is not trying to) overcome, is research $$, wealth, markets, and highly-successful alum. Good private schools are struggling and only the best will survive, which opens up opportunities for more scholars and research $$. Sports could easily be a $$ black hole soon with only football making money. But colleges have to look at the bottom line for the whole department, and not just how the cash cow is doing. Is it time to move our chips to the area where we have the durable strategic advantage? I know it is not a total zero sum game, but would you rather focus on producing the world's best engineers, scientists, and executives, or borrow and spend $$ on facilities for what is now, at best, a speculative endeavor long term. I know the B1G is the largest money maker of the conferences up til now, but if you look at ROI for all sports, is it where you want your chips? And no, this is not Rodney Erickson posting Football has been a huge part of my life, but moreso when it really was the amateur/JoePa model.

 

[PSU Mike]

You ok?

 

[bigsirspur]

You ok?

Think about it in the context of the massive spending on these facilities plans. At the end of the day, you only have so much $$ to spend and so much bond exposure you can tolerate. Where do you allocate those resources? If you are in business, you say you allocate them to the things that allow you kick everyone's ass -- your durable competitive advantage. The college sports model right now is based on the notion that alumni will just continue to increase their spending and giving. Schools like PSU keep asking people to give, ostensibly to fund scholarships (which face it was always a farce since there has to be enough endowment to cover those). Do you expect alumni to keep giving when the recipients can make far more $$ than any other student and perhaps the donors themselves? And if people lose interest and ad time on the B1G network decreases in value, those huge payouts can shrink very quickly. I'm not saying football is going to dry up and blow away. But a 10-15% change in football revenue over the course of a few years could be cataclysmic given the amount of borrowing and spending going on and the fact that the spending is justified on projections of increased revenue. And football is what props up everything else. MLB and the NBA have proven that nothing can be taken for granted in terms of fan support. Even the NFL suffered hugely, although perhaps temporarily, when fans said "enough."

 

[chalkstream1]

🏈

 

[LemonEars]

Besides the conference model being rethought, the whole idea that every college has to have a sports program needs to be rethought. At many schools the sports programs lose money. Money is tight. Perhaps many colleges should not have sports programs at all. Maybe they shouldn't have intramurals or phys ed either. Some colleges should be there just to educate the students, period. This is especially true with many students no longer living in a traditional campus setting but commuting and taking classes online.

 

[RGWhirly]

To the “enough” comment. I think NIL is going to freight train this forward for a lot of people. That being said, there are enough fans at enough big schools that just won’t care. They just want wins…no matter what.

Maybe NIL combined with major realignment would bring more to the “enough” table. However, doubt it will result in half empty stadiums.

 

[HailToPitt725]

Sorry, but unless B1G picked up Clemson and ND, there is no real answer to OU and TX to the SEC. But there are a lot of moving parts right now. It remains to be seen whether (and where) college football retains its popularity once the players really start flouting their newfound wealth and clout. The portal was a "game changer," NIL is a "game changer," and now realignment is a "game changer." Maybe it's time to decide not to play on that field. The B1G's baked in advantage, that the SEC cannot (and seemingly is not trying to) overcome, is research $$, wealth, markets, and highly-successful alum. Good private schools are struggling and only the best will survive, which opens up opportunities for more scholars and research $$. Sports could easily be a $$ black hole soon with only football making money. But colleges have to look at the bottom line for the whole department, and not just how the cash cow is doing. Is it time to move our chips to the area where we have the durable strategic advantage? I know it is not a total zero sum game, but would you rather focus on producing the world's best engineers, scientists, and executives, or borrow and spend $$ on facilities for what is now, at best, a speculative endeavor long term. I know the B1G is the largest money maker of the conferences up til now, but if you look at ROI for all sports, is it where you want your chips? And no, this is not Rodney Erickson posting Football has been a huge part of my life, but moreso when it really was the amateur/JoePa model.

I think there’s a compromise to made. IMO, football could/should be a separate entity from the rest of a school’s athletic department, similar to how hockey operates. There’s no reason why, for example, West Virginia should be sending their soccer teams to Lubbock, or Maryland playing a conference volleyball game in Lincoln. It’s become logistical nightmares and produces unnecessary expenditures.

I’d be in favor of a return to regional conferences in Olympic sports while letting football do their own thing, which seems to be trending towards the European “super league” model.

 

[LemonEars]

I think there’s a compromise to made. IMO, football could/should be a separate entity from the rest of a school’s athletic department, similar to how hockey operates. There’s no reason why, for example, West Virginia should be sending their soccer teams to Lubbock, or Maryland playing a conference volleyball game in Lincoln. It’s become logistical nightmares and produces unnecessary expenditures.

I’d be in favor of a return to regional conferences in Olympic sports while letting football do their own thing, which seems to be trending towards the European “super league” model.

Great points, Hail to Pitt. And there is no reason that the Pennsylvania taxpayers should be paying to send the pitt football team to Florida or paying $5M to their coach when there is little fan interest in the team anywhere in Pennsylvania. pitt football should be treated just like college field hockey or fencing and should be relegated to club sports status.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Seriously, the Pegula's of the world put their money where they want to put it. The University solicits endowments supporting excellence all in aspects of academic endeavor at PSU.

Granted smaller universities with thin alumni groups in wide spread markets have big decisions to make. But deep pockets are already and will dictate the future of college sports and university investments elsewhere just as it has for a long time.

 

[BobPSU92]

Besides the conference model being rethought, the whole idea that every college has to have a sports program needs to be rethought. At many schools the sports programs lose money. Money is tight. Perhaps many colleges should not have sports programs at all. Maybe they shouldn't have intramurals or phys ed either. Some colleges should be there just to educate the students, period. This is especially true with many students no longer living in a traditional campus setting but commuting and taking classes online.

Sandy laughs at tight.

 

[JoeBatters1]

You touch upon some interesting points. Regarding the “where” college football may continue to be popular I think you can argue it’s pretty much becoming NASCAR. Also, Psu does not have the institutional culture (eg, booster culture) to compete with the likes of an Alabama where the QB is closing in on $1 million due to NIL nor should it ever try to engage in such insanity. I believe Anthony Lubrano spoke of engaging in an arms race that can’t be won when he explained why he voted against Lasch funding and he is spot on. I fully agree with de-emphasizing major sports at Psu and most colleges, as it is not worth supporting any longer. And as you noted, the transfer portal and NIL have been game changes and have basically turned the college game into the junior version of the NFL, so as an alum/fan you really need to ask yourself what reason is there to follow college football.

Sorry, but unless B1G picked up Clemson and ND, there is no real answer to OU and TX to the SEC. But there are a lot of moving parts right now. It remains to be seen whether (and where) college football retains its popularity once the players really start flouting their newfound wealth and clout. The portal was a "game changer," NIL is a "game changer," and now realignment is a "game changer." Maybe it's time to decide not to play on that field. The B1G's baked in advantage, that the SEC cannot (and seemingly is not trying to) overcome, is research $$, wealth, markets, and highly-successful alum. Good private schools are struggling and only the best will survive, which opens up opportunities for more scholars and research $$. Sports could easily be a $$ black hole soon with only football making money. But colleges have to look at the bottom line for the whole department, and not just how the cash cow is doing. Is it time to move our chips to the area where we have the durable strategic advantage? I know it is not a total zero sum game, but would you rather focus on producing the world's best engineers, scientists, and executives, or borrow and spend $$ on facilities for what is now, at best, a speculative endeavor long term. I know the B1G is the largest money maker of the conferences up til now, but if you look at ROI for all sports, is it where you want your chips? And no, this is not Rodney Erickson posting Football has been a huge part of my life, but moreso when it really was the amateur/JoePa model.

 

[Midnighter2]

Besides the conference model being rethought, the whole idea that every college has to have a sports program needs to be rethought. At many schools the sports programs lose money. Money is tight. Perhaps many colleges should not have sports programs at all. Maybe they shouldn't have intramurals or phys ed either. Some colleges should be there just to educate the students, period. This is especially true with many students no longer living in a traditional campus setting but commuting and taking classes online.

This is a good point but note not every school (non BCS anyway) looks at its athletics program as a money maker; they’re there to add to the quality of life and student experience (and maybe promote some school pride). It’s an investment in the student experience and one you can accomplish without coaches making millions of dollars or huge expenditures on locker rooms and player lounges.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

Sandy laughs at tight.

Probably hasn't experienced tight in decades or maybe has always experienced it?

 

[BrucePa]

I loathe ND and its sanctimonious subway alumni, but knowing that the best they would do in the B1G would be about 6-6 would be enjoyable.