Iowa one of the Big Dogs

guffus

guffus

Well-Known Member
https://247sports.com/college/oklah...ama-Michigan-SEC-Pac-12-Big-10-ACC--118642101

In this article, it suggests that tv/streaming contracts in the future will be negotiated with individual schools instead of conferences. Instead of power conferences you will just have 30 or 40 power schools.

I don't know if I buy all that, but here is their list of Big Dogs they expect to get the big tv/streaming deals.

Most likley to make the 'Big Dog' list, (according to Top Programs by Value - WSJ ):

In order: Ohio State; Texas; Oklahoma; Alabama; Michigan; Notre Dame; Georgia; Tennessee; Auburn; Florida; Penn State; Texas A&M; Nebraska; South Carolina; Iowa; Arkansas; Wisconsin; Washington; Florida State; Oregon; Michigan State; Mississippi; Clemson; Southern California; Arizona State; UCLA.
 
guffus said:
https://247sports.com/college/oklah...ama-Michigan-SEC-Pac-12-Big-10-ACC--118642101

In this article, it suggests that tv/streaming contracts in the future will be negotiated with individual schools instead of conferences. Instead of power conferences you will just have 30 or 40 power schools.

I don't know if I buy all that, but here is their list of Big Dogs they expect to get the big tv/streaming deals.

Most likley to make the 'Big Dog' list, (according to Top Programs by Value - WSJ ):

In order: Ohio State; Texas; Oklahoma; Alabama; Michigan; Notre Dame; Georgia; Tennessee; Auburn; Florida; Penn State; Texas A&M; Nebraska; South Carolina; Iowa; Arkansas; Wisconsin; Washington; Florida State; Oregon; Michigan State; Mississippi; Clemson; Southern California; Arizona State; UCLA.
Click to expand...

I didnt read the article but this seems problematic when the Big 10 and other conferences have their own membership rules. Hard to see how schools can start negotiating their own TV rights.
 
The rich get richer I guess.. That sounds like capitalism and innovation but would also destroy what little parity there is in college football. Now that I think about it, there is zero parity in CFB, it's always the same teams at the top with a small cycle in there for some of the blue bloods.
Doesn't the B1G have a revenue sharing policy that would prohibit this?
 
Last edited:
I don't know where the WSJ came up with their value, but It loses credibility for having Iowa ahead of Wisconsin. By what performance or popularity / viewership metric does that make sense?

Here is how the source defined the likely "big dogs", in the first article:

"we would want to identify 30 or 40 teams that command the biggest audience. That may be by reputation or location, but generally we all know that there are members in every one of these conferences that frankly don’t move the needle."

Does anybody believe Iowa is close to #16 by that definition?

Oh, and "others of note": Clemson down at 24, USC at 25. They barely beat out #28 Kentucky & #32 Minnesota.
 
I don't doubt that Netflix, Amazon or other tech companies could start competing for these TV rights.

And current TV rights seem to overvalue small school rights. Northwestern gets more TV money than Notre Dame. With the cord cutting pressure on ESPN, you'd think we'd start to see some correction there.

As things stand, while traditional TV companies are offering a huge premium for rights to an entire conference, tech companies will need to follow suit.

But if TV money dries up, and big school athletic departments are forced to accept that pain or jump ship and try to preserve their revenue by leaving the conference to negotiate a solo tv contract... I guess it only takes 1 school to do something like that to cause a lot of headaches for a conference.

But the article wasn't about TV money drying up. Just the opposite.
 
Interesting concept. Doubtful it flies. At least until the schools figure out what to do with the next round of expansion and expanding the playoff.

I watched the Cardinals on Facebook Live. So the idea of Amazon or Netflix buying games is really cool. I would love to see the expansion into those areas.
 
guffus said:
https://247sports.com/college/oklah...ama-Michigan-SEC-Pac-12-Big-10-ACC--118642101

In this article, it suggests that tv/streaming contracts in the future will be negotiated with individual schools instead of conferences. Instead of power conferences you will just have 30 or 40 power schools.

I don't know if I buy all that, but here is their list of Big Dogs they expect to get the big tv/streaming deals.

Most likley to make the 'Big Dog' list, (according to Top Programs by Value - WSJ ):

In order: Ohio State; Texas; Oklahoma; Alabama; Michigan; Notre Dame; Georgia; Tennessee; Auburn; Florida; Penn State; Texas A&M; Nebraska; South Carolina; Iowa; Arkansas; Wisconsin; Washington; Florida State; Oregon; Michigan State; Mississippi; Clemson; Southern California; Arizona State; UCLA.
Click to expand...
Good lord.

Do you people know what click bait is? This rag is written by an Oklahoma message board user with no connections to anything sports-related. Even I could write an article with fake sources and call him "my friend at Amazon." He even goes as far as using magazine articles he read as citations...without mentioning the name or location of the article for F's sake. Guys, you're smarter than this.

This garbage is written by hacks who get $0.0043 per click and churn out these "articles" more often than they change their underwear.

I've got a poop burrito for sale if you guys want to buy one. Judging by the discussion here it looks like some of you may be willing to pay quite a bit for one.
 
Last edited:
Fryowa said:
Good lord.

Do you people know what click bait is? This rag is written by an Oklahoma message board user with no connections to anything sports-related. Even I could write an article with fake sources and call him "my friend at Amazon." He even goes as far as using magazine articles he read as citations...without mentioning the name or location of the article for F's sake. Guys, you're smarter than this.

This garbage is written by hacks who get $0.0043 per click and churn out these shit "articles" more often than they change their underwear.

I've got a poop burrito for sale if you guys want to buy one. Judging by the discussion here it looks like some of you may be willing to pay quite a bit for one.
Click to expand...
El Rey has been selling those for years.
 
Fryowa said:
Good lord.

Do you people know what click bait is? This rag is written by an Oklahoma message board user with no connections to anything sports-related. Even I could write an article with fake sources and call him "my friend at Amazon." He even goes as far as using magazine articles he read as citations...without mentioning the name or location of the article for F's sake. Guys, you're smarter than this.

This garbage is written by hacks who get $0.0043 per click and churn out these shit "articles" more often than they change their underwear.

I've got a poop burrito for sale if you guys want to buy one. Judging by the discussion here it looks like some of you may be willing to pay quite a bit for one.
Click to expand...

Well, to be fair. I came to a message board. So I wasn't expecting to read award winning journalism.
 
Ree4 said:
The rich get richer I guess.. That sounds like capitalism and innovation but would also destroy what little parity there is in college football. Now that I think about it, there is zero parity in CFB, it's always the same teams at the top with a small cycle in there for some of the blue bloods.
Doesn't the B1G have a revenue sharing policy that would prohibit this?
Click to expand...


Compare team revenues with those who usually dominate in CF, the blue bloods. There is a direct correlation with their success and revenue they get.
 
hawkeyes87 said:
I don't know where the WSJ came up with their value, but It loses credibility for having Iowa ahead of Wisconsin. By what performance or popularity / viewership metric does that make sense?

Here is how the source defined the likely "big dogs", in the first article:

"we would want to identify 30 or 40 teams that command the biggest audience. That may be by reputation or location, but generally we all know that there are members in every one of these conferences that frankly don’t move the needle."

Does anybody believe Iowa is close to #16 by that definition?

Oh, and "others of note": Clemson down at 24, USC at 25. They barely beat out #28 Kentucky & #32 Minnesota.
Click to expand...

I do believe that. Without a major professional team between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, the University of Iowa is THE big sports program in the state, not only for those living there but for others of us who have left the acclaimed No. 1 state in the country and now reside in other environs. We still follow Hawkeye sports when we can.
 
tweeterhawk said:
I do believe that. Without a major professional team between the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, the University of Iowa is THE big sports program in the state, not only for those living there but for others of us who have left the acclaimed No. 1 state in the country and now reside in other environs. We still follow Hawkeye sports when we can.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There's a reason we were popping up in the Outback Bowl, even when it was a bowl or two "above our pay grade". It's why Florida Citrus Sports STILL talks about the Hawks vs. LSU in the 2005 Cap One/Citrus Bowl. Iowa fans travel well. Those that don't watch a crap-load of Hawkeye-themed TV. And my guess is that advertisers know that, too.
 
This paragraph from the article gave me a grin:

But these teams are unlikely to be willing to play a 12 team schedule against each other; meaning there will still be a need for teams like Washington State, Wake Forest, Kansas State, Boise, Purdue, Iowa State, Vandy, Baylor, Georgia Tech and Northwestern.
 
And for the record, I believe a lot of what that author says will come true. FAANG has more money to spend than any country in the world. By the time the TV contracts expire, streaming will not only be an option - it will likely be the primary option for most viewers. Just look at how many people stream Netflix, Hulu and Prime now.... then compare it to 5 years ago. This article is talking about what will happen in 5-10 years. Streaming will only become more reliable as fiber options become less expensive and BPL will dominate in rural areas. I have fiber and it was not any more than I was paying for cable modem prices but is 5 times faster. I installed BPL for my neighbor so he could get internet in his detached garage; the entire system cost less than $90. Who knows what tech will be perfected in the near future to allow even more signal saturation. Broadcast TV and cable TV will die slow deaths but will eventually die. Options like SlingTV will
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top