CBS - Further Disruption Coming - D. Dodd

[eyekwah]

Further Disruption Coming

Dodd raised these Questions:

• Will schools be eliminated from within more power conferences during the next round of realignment?
• Will there be a federal law governing NIL? If so, get ready for the feds to basically run college athletics. If not, can schools and collectives and boosters control themselves?
• Will athletes become employees? There are at least two National Labor Relations Board complaints filed that could affect Dartmouth and teams from the Big Ten and Pac-12.
• Will more court cases impact the NCAA? A ruling last week gave Johnson v. NCAA class-action status. If that case goes the plaintiffs' way, the NCAA could be on the hook for billions of dollars.
• Will the media rights bubble finally burst? The transition from linear to streaming as a video delivery system should occur in the next 5-10 years, potentially impacting the next round of media rights contracts.
• Will there be more third-party involvement in the sport? A recent Sports Business Journal report noted that Fox and ESPN could one day partner with the NFL to "buy" the top 40 college football teams.
• Will revenue sharing remain unequal; how much so? We're only about seven years away from the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 contracts expiring. SMU, California, Stanford, Oregon and Washington are already taking less money -- or no money -- compared to their new conference partners -- just to be in power leagues.

All of the questions are legitimate, but some of them stem from the media rights bubble bursting. In the article he writes about 40 schools making up the top level. Personally I think it gets down to about 20 schools making up a Tier One Football Level. It is pretty easy to get to 16 schools for Tier 1 before becoming more difficult to reach 20 schools. Tier 2 is basically your mid-tier schools of the current conferences, i.e. Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, UCLA, Pitt, Utah. I'll include Nebraska in Tier 1 based on history, but if relegation was in place it is likely Oregon would take their place in the new world.

Dodd seems to think this will shake out within the next 7 years.

 

[guffus]

It's a matter of time. When conferences grow to 18+ members, how soon before the big boys in the upper half of the conference try to dump the slackers in the lower half of the conference.?

 

[NCHawker]

wonder if schools could go out sell media rights individually. If the #s were compelling enought they would do it. But the conferences would not let them do it

 

[Hawkboys]

wonder if schools could go out sell media rights individually. If the #s were compelling enought they would do it. But the conferences would not let them do it

It's why ND is still independent in football. But they're going to run into scheduling problems, esp if the ACC implodes. Texas tried it but couldn't balance the extra $ inside of a conference.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Further Disruption Coming

Dodd raised these Questions:

All of the questions are legitimate, but some of them stem from the media rights bubble bursting. In the article he writes about 40 schools making up the top level. Personally I think it gets down to about 20 schools making up a Tier One Football Level. It is pretty easy to get to 16 schools for Tier 1 before becoming more difficult to reach 20 schools. Tier 2 is basically your mid-tier schools of the current conferences, i.e. Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, UCLA, Pitt, Utah. I'll include Nebraska in Tier 1 based on history, but if relegation was in place it is likely Oregon would take their place in the new world.

Dodd seems to think this will shake out within the next 7 years.

My prediction in 2012 was that in 20 years we would rue the day that Rutgers got into the Big Ten. Given that this new media rights deal expires before 2032, I think I will be proven correct. Here is what I tossed up:

SIAP - We all know cable TV revenues are driving this recent expansion. I don't know what will happen in the future, but I think some time in the next 20 years or so we will all look back on this day as one of the darkest days in the history of the conference. Cable TV is going to be toast in less than two decades.

https://forum.hawkeyenation.com/thr...-the-shortsightedness-of-b1g-expansion.53289/

I have not read the article, but I think his number of 40 is correct. It will be that simply because the big programs will need cannon fodder and they will subsidize it. Sure, Michigan, Texas and Tennessee have fallen on hard times the past decade or so, but they always had hope. If Michigan has 3 straight years of fewer than 4 wins due to a murder's row schedule, it will impair the brand equity of the program.

At the end of the day these big programs need to beat teams that sound good on paper. Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Michigan State, Stanford, Arizona, etc., all look good on paper and sound good. The big dogs realize the need to provide a subsidy to teams like that. How big the subsidy will be is yet to be seen, but I think they will have to come up with something that preserves at least the upper 2/3rds of the P5 teams just to ensure there is enough trash in the system for Ohio and Michigan to consistently put up winning records.

 

[dagdaj]

This is all very good stuff. In this article. It's articulating specific things that could result of this general unease I've felt about college football for 10 years now. And it's definitely a snowball rolling down the hill and it's now really picking up some speed and mass.

It's why ND is still independent in football. But they're going to run into scheduling problems, esp if the ACC implodes. Texas tried it but couldn't balance the extra $ inside of a conference.

ND's halcyon days have been numbered since cable TV came along.
They've been able to hang on and will for awhile. But now that you can see virtually any and every game assuming you have a decent cable package or have knitted together a subscription service via cable/stream/other to suit your particular desires, their NBC deal is no longer enough to keep them at the forefront. They have to rely on their Catholic loyalty (which in itself is in decline), Rudy, and their past glory which occasionally starts getting as dusty as Nebraska's.

Pretty much like everyone else, going forward, they are going to have to win to maintain status. Because winning is now not only VERYTHING. it's the ONLY THING. I'll say it again, this march to making the national championship so prominent and the associated ratcheting up of the money involved, will ultimately be bad for everything that makes college football so indescribably magical.

And more important to us as Hawk fans, I think it puts Iowa at an inflection point in terms of structure, coaching, and future coaching. Maybe another season or two breathing room, but the later we go, the greater the chance of missing the boat at the dock.

 

[dagdaj]

My prediction in 2012 was that in 20 years we would rue the day that Rutgers got into the Big Ten. Given that this new media rights deal expires before 2032, I think I will be proven correct. Here is what I tossed up:



https://forum.hawkeyenation.com/thr...-the-shortsightedness-of-b1g-expansion.53289/

I have not read the article, but I think his number of 40 is correct. It will be that simply because the big programs will need cannon fodder and they will subsidize it. Sure, Michigan, Texas and Tennessee have fallen on hard times the past decade or so, but they always had hope. If Michigan has 3 straight years of fewer than 4 wins due to a murder's row schedule, it will impair the brand equity of the program.

At the end of the day these big programs need to beat teams that sound good on paper. Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Michigan State, Stanford, Arizona, etc., all look good on paper and sound good. The big dogs realize the need to provide a subsidy to teams like that. How big the subsidy will be is yet to be seen, but I think they will have to come up with something that preserves at least the upper 2/3rds of the P5 teams just to ensure there is enough trash in the system for Ohio and Michigan to consistently put up winning records.

If there was a super like button, I'd smash it.

I think you're dead on about the cannon fodder.
At the time, I wouldn't have seen the Rutgers addition anything more than a geographical/philosophical head scratcher...other than rounding out an 'east/west' sitch. Linking it not just to the expansion money, but also the consideration of cable's ultimate demise is pretty tight.

This is all a very cogent read. And again, reinforces my concerns of Iowa being at an inflection point. FFS, I want them to still at least look good on paper.

 

[okeefe4prez]

If there was a super like button, I'd smash it.

I think you're dead on about the cannon fodder.
At the time, I wouldn't have seen the Rutgers addition anything more than a geographical/philosophical head scratcher...other than rounding out an 'east/west' sitch. Linking it not just to the expansion money, but also the consideration of cable's ultimate demise is pretty tight.

This is all a very cogent read. And again, reinforces my concerns of Iowa being at an inflection point. FFS, I want them to still at least look good on paper.

The absolute key is to look good on paper when the next shakeout happens, which is probably five years out (need lead time to prepare the new thing when existing rights packages terminate). If we botch the Ferentz replacement hire and put up 3 years of a .333 winning percentage, we're probably out. It will absolutely be a "what have you done for me lately" analysis for anyone outside of that blueblood club seeking admission to be a doormat.

Say it breaks down to essentially 4 divisions with ten teams each. The powers that be will anoint Ohio, Michigan and UPenn the kingmakers and tell them to find their 7 dancing partners. Assume the western teams get tasked with standing up a sort of proxy for the old Pac 10, so they're out of the picture. We would have 14 teams that we need to whittle down to 10, three of which would be guaranteed safe. And oh by the way, Notre Dame will likely take up one of the seven remaining seats. So now you're down to six seats to split amongst 11 teams. There are some easy ones to throw out, like Rutgers and Northwestern, but you have to assume Nebraska will be safe due to their extensive hardware collection. You're suddenly slicing value judgments among Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State and Illinois. It's a very uneasy situation and we may need to get used to our new conference friends Kansas, Iowa State and Oklahoma State. Iowa is a solid program with a good brand, but man it is a small state and our fanbase could evaporate really quickly if we hire the wrong guy to replace Cap'n.

 

[dagdaj]

The absolute key is to look good on paper when the next shakeout happens, which is probably five years out (need lead time to prepare the new thing when existing rights packages terminate). If we botch the Ferentz replacement hire and put up 3 years of a .333 winning percentage, we're probably out. It will absolutely be a "what have you done for me lately" analysis for anyone outside of that blueblood club seeking admission to be a doormat.

Say it breaks down to essentially 4 divisions with ten teams each. The powers that be will anoint Ohio, Michigan and UPenn the kingmakers and tell them to find their 7 dancing partners. Assume the western teams get tasked with standing up a sort of proxy for the old Pac 10, so they're out of the picture. We would have 14 teams that we need to whittle down to 10, three of which would be guaranteed safe. And oh by the way, Notre Dame will likely take up one of the seven remaining seats. So now you're down to six seats to split amongst 11 teams. There are some easy ones to throw out, like Rutgers and Northwestern, but you have to assume Nebraska will be safe due to their extensive hardware collection. You're suddenly slicing value judgments among Iowa, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Michigan State and Illinois. It's a very uneasy situation and we may need to get used to our new conference friends Kansas, Iowa State and Oklahoma State. Iowa is a solid program with a good brand, but man it is a small state and our fanbase could evaporate really quickly if we hire the wrong guy to replace Cap'n.

You're articulating the unease I have felt for quite some time.

If I were a smart feller, I would pin it back to the Rutgers expansion.

But then again, I think I go back to the creation of the BCS.....and then the +1 and then etc. etc. Maybe even when they started calling that crystal football the "Sear's Trophy".

 

[okeefe4prez]

You're articulating the unease I have felt for quite some time.

If I were a smart feller, I would pin it back to the Rutgers expansion.

But then again, I think I go back to the creation of the BCS.....and then the +1 and then etc. etc. Maybe even when they started calling that crystal football the "Sear's Trophy".

The conferences have realigned since the game began. Plenty of programs have disappeared. It's a never ending arms race. So it goes way back before the Rutgers expansion, but the Rutgers expansion was the first clear money grab of a wholly unworthy program and the long term success of that expansion was entirely dependent on the perpetual continuation of the cable model. It was abundantly clear to me that this model was going to collapse and the more that an enterprise is held together by money as opposed to a common interest, shared history and a cultural fit, the more likely it is to crumble apart the moment the perpetual money machine stops.

Say what you will about our bitter rival Purdue, which has been our rival dating clear back to the Legends and Leaders days, but Iowa has plenty in common with Purdue. You drive near Purdue on I-65 and you see random farms with giant P logos painted on grain elevators, signs for the golden boy from the town who played for Purdue, corn as far as the eye can see. They're not that different from us. Nor is Nebraska. Even Penn State. But we have zero in common with Rutgers. Or USC or Oregon. There's just no shared culture. I meet a guy from Purdue and we can BS for days about Drew Brees, Kyle Orton, Joe Tiller, The Big Dog Glenn Robinson, etc. It holds us together. But with these expansions there's just no glue.

The rejiggering in the '90's when the SWC fell apart made at least some semblance of sense (except it hosed Rice, SMU, TCU and Houston), but if I had to point to one decision from that era that was potentially more responsible for the current state of affairs than Rutgers joining the B1G it was the time that the Big 12 decided to ditch the freaking OU-Nebraska game on Black Friday. That was the biggest game of the year nationally. Ohio State had fallen a hair behind Michigan and the Big Ten had some parity with Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois and Michigan State providing some ballast against the Big Two, which diminished the importance of OSU-UM. The Iron Bowl was an afterthought. Georgia-Florida was meh. IT WAS THE BIGGEST GAME OF THE YEAR AND THE DUMBASSES KILLED IT. That single decision forever impaired the value of the Big 12 and probably contributed in no small part to the demise of Nebraska football.

I think the guys running these operations vastly understate the amount of regional goodwill the sport has built. They are using MBA math to squeeze every nickel possible out of the system in the short and medium term, with absolutely zero regard for the viability of the enterprise in the future. It is really just a microcosm of modern America. We're at the point now where if you're Iowa State, Kansas State, hell, even Iowa, you have to really think long and hard about capital expenditures financed from debt because the revenue model past 2030 is so opaque. Washington State is staring down an existential crisis from that very issue.

 

[eyekwah]

Dodd didn't bring it up, but the demographics behind college football viewership is changing. Here are some trends that are happening:

1. College attendance is down, particularly male enrollees. Almost 60% of students are female .
2. Nationwide the birthrate is 1.7 children per family. More males are being raised by single mothers.
3. Without immigration the US population would be declining.
3. Culture wise foreign born male residents prefer soccer to American football.

If you haven't researched about depopulation I would encourage you to do so. Click the link for a video. Anyway, we all may have lived through the peak of college football popularity.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

wonder if schools could go out sell media rights individually. If the #s were compelling enought they would do it. But the conferences would not let them do it

I think these contracts the conferences have with the schools and networks are pretty iron clad. If schools all decided to dissolve themselves from any conference alignments and try that boy that'd be interesting..

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Dodd didn't bring it up, but the demographics behind college football viewership is changing. Here are some trends that are happening:

1. College attendance is down, particularly male enrollees. Almost 60% of students are female .
2. Nationwide the birthrate is 1.7 children per family. More males are being raised by single mothers.
3. Without immigration the US population would be declining.
3. Culture wise foreign born male residents prefer soccer to American football.

If you haven't researched about depopulation I would encourage you to do so. Click the link for a video. Anyway, we all may have lived through the peak of college football popularity.

Dang.... All of this is eye catching.

Soccer getting more popular is wild to me. It's the most boring ass spectator sport out there. To play or watch both I could never do it.

Football popularity amongst kids playing it I think has gone down some. Injuries, CTE knowledge and other options for them to do I think has a lot of younger kids not getting into football till later then they used to. I remember back when everybody wanted to be a running back. All the popular names of the 80s and 90s we all know. The way RBs have such short careers and make such a lower fraction of the salary cap to other positions is wild. Really athletic guys that could be great RBs are going to play other positions so both prolong their careers and make more $....

I think CMC is underpaid and he's the highest paid RB in the game atm. I don't see this trend doing a 180 anytime soon.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Dodd didn't bring it up, but the demographics behind college football viewership is changing. Here are some trends that are happening:

1. College attendance is down, particularly male enrollees. Almost 60% of students are female .
2. Nationwide the birthrate is 1.7 children per family. More males are being raised by single mothers.
3. Without immigration the US population would be declining.
3. Culture wise foreign born male residents prefer soccer to American football.

If you haven't researched about depopulation I would encourage you to do so. Click the link for a video. Anyway, we all may have lived through the peak of college football popularity.

I think we have lived through the peak of a lot of things. Boxing, college ball, NASCAR, cable, Beanie Babies. Another issue for the college game is that a whole bunch of schools have taken in a massive number of Chinese exchange students because they pay full freight. Illinois has gone so hard after that market that they have an enrollment office in China. But then those kids get to America and have no interest in football. Northwestern had to basically force the kids to go as part of orientation. They would go for the first half and then leave and that would be the only game where the student section would even get to half full except for a few outlier games like against Ohio State the day Gameday was in Evanston.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Dang.... All of this is eye catching.

Soccer getting more popular is wild to me. It's the most boring ass spectator sport out there. To play or watch both I could never do it.

Football popularity amongst kids playing it I think has gone down some. Injuries, CTE knowledge and other options for them to do I think has a lot of younger kids not getting into football till later then they used to. I remember back when everybody wanted to be a running back. All the popular names of the 80s and 90s we all know. The way RBs have such short careers and make such a lower fraction of the salary cap to other positions is wild. Really athletic guys that could be great RBs are going to play other positions so both prolong their careers and make more $....

I think CMC is underpaid and he's the highest paid RB in the game atm. I don't see this trend doing a 180 anytime soon.

I will not let my son play football unless he morphs into an absolute freak athlete, but he's almost 8 and average in every way athletically, maybe even below average, so I don't see that happening.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

I will not let my son play football unless he morphs into an absolute freak athlete, but he's almost 8 and average in every way athletically, maybe even below average, so I don't see that happening.

Bet you're not alone... I bet a lot of kids between 8-13 that could be playing football just aren't. Kids develop so much between 12-15. Many that don't get started early may not ever go into football later because they just get into other stuff instead. Things are definitely evolving

 

[dagdaj]

Dodd didn't bring it up, but the demographics behind college football viewership is changing. Here are some trends that are happening:

1. College attendance is down, particularly male enrollees. Almost 60% of students are female .
2. Nationwide the birthrate is 1.7 children per family. More males are being raised by single mothers.
3. Without immigration the US population would be declining.
3. Culture wise foreign born male residents prefer soccer to American football.

If you haven't researched about depopulation I would encourage you to do so. Click the link for a video. Anyway, we all may have lived through the peak of college football popularity.

Oooohhhh...
excellent points!
Don't get me started on the population bomb. That's something I'm kind of obsessed with thinking about. The massive changes that will come in 15 years when ration between young/old does a near complete flipflop. And then another 20ish years when the population starts dropping. Massive issues we will have to address.

But....yes. In terms of college. Didn't think about the flip in male/female students.
More importantly, the effects of fewer kids in high school playing football.
And what's going to happen to smaller schools that have been using athletics to bolster enrollment, when athletics are a loss leader. Smaller colleges are already failing. And in theory with fewer football players coming out of college, it could get really really rough for smaller schools and D3. Grinnell dealt with this a few years ago when they had to forfeit their season. But at some point that can filter up to D2 and beyond.

Then again, we'll see colleges fail. Mergers. Etc. There can be a soft landing to this. But I think there's a lot coming down the road due to societal and demographic changes that are going to be way bigger than people imagine. Most people are still worried about overpopulation. Not realizing that yeah, the math is there. We will continue to grow in population worldwide. For maybe another 10-20 years. But then after that? Mathematically, there's virtually no way we don't see population begin to fall. And when it starts, it will just get faster.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Then again, we'll see colleges fail. Mergers. Etc.

I know a guy in the administration at a small college. Dude has a word for something coming in a couple of years. It's called the "Enrollment Cliff." The birthrate totally collapsed from 2010-2013 due to the Great Recession and this guy is insistent that at least 10% of small colleges will be gone by 2035 absent some sort of gargantuan government action like a steady subsidy or bailout because the population, particularly among people with college educated parents who are way more likely to attend college, is so small.

 

[dagdaj]

I know a guy in the administration at a small college. Dude has a word for something coming in a couple of years. It's called the "Enrollment Cliff." The birthrate totally collapsed from 2010-2013 due to the Great Recession and this guy is insistent that at least 10% of small colleges will be gone by 2035 absent some sort of gargantuan government action like a steady subsidy or bailout because the population, particularly among people with college educated parents who are way more likely to attend college, is so small.

Oh surely. Something like 40% of smaller private colleges are in the red and have been for awhile.
There are a few that have pivoted and become more 'tech' school. Even the healthy ones have pivoted. My oldest son was looking at a small private here in the Lou that offered "cyber security" degree. Having been in the tech biz, I thought it was kinda silly. Because even at a large company there's really only one "cyber security" person, and he/she came from MIT or that place in Omaha that feeds people to Offitt and the military.

But it wasn't really a cyber security degree. It was just a label that sounded good. They taught what I call real world button pushing. How to configure routers/switches and actually set up real networks like I worked on in another life. How to deploy firewalls and databases. Java counted as a 'language credit'. HTML or 3D cad design counted as a "fine arts" credit. And because of all this, you came out of this program with a college degree in 'computer-y' stuff. The degree name was irrelevant. You have the skills. On top of that, they had classes that taught common tech certs like CCNA and whatnot. And further, because they were smart in combining stuff, you came out 75% of the way to an MBA. This kind of college will survive.

STL Community College system is capitalizing. Come get your AA in something while we teach you something as random, yet in demand such as butchering basic industrial engineering. And take a few extra classes and we can turn that into a business BA. I think Iowa Central CC is doing some similar things too. Capitalizing on their flexibility and cost of operation to attract students.

MacMurray College in Illinois just tried to bump along being a 'small college' like the good old days. Kaput in 2020. They weren't the first and many more are coming.

I've thought about all this before in relation to football. I guess I just saw it as "enrollment" dropping. Which it is. But I didn't really think too much the population bomb until a few months ago. I didn't realize how fast it was moving.

Mix in head injuries, which has clearly changed the dynamic. It's a new paradigm that football isn't THE thing in high school anymore. The number of families who tell little Johnny he's gonna grow up like his pop and be the captain of the football team is shrinking as fast as the number of people who are still having kids.

I think Grinnell's season a few years back is when I started worrying about the long term of football. People say it's too big to fail. Well? Boxing was THE sport. Worldwide. Every single nation paid attention. Champion boxers were known by the entire world. And now? It's even second fiddle to MMA et. al. I just hope for a soft landing.

But I'm concerned at the money in football now. So massive. More than ever. What happens when the TV networks decide they're not getting the return? And the next round of contracts are for less money. I fear a sky-is-falling panic. And panic just generates bad decisions. So...yeah. I pray for the soft landing. But I fear a dramatic collapse.

 

[okeefe4prez]

But I'm concerned at the money in football now. So massive. More than ever. What happens when the TV networks decide they're not getting the return? And the next round of contracts are for less money. I fear a sky-is-falling panic. And panic just generates bad decisions. So...yeah. I pray for the soft landing. But I fear a dramatic collapse.

Dramatic collapse is way overstated, but it will cause some pain and hardship. I have long said that Japan is the canary in the coalmine for the entire industrialized West. It is still a great place. The rural areas are going through a bad spell and people there have to basically give away real estate now, but the day to day life is fine. Everything is built on Excel files that have perpetual growth. No one's model assumes anything ever going down. That mindset has to change. Trees don't grow infinitely into the sky. The biggest issues will be taking care of retirees and maintaining infrastructure across a smaller population base. It ends up costing more on a per capita basis.