|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 4, 2020 8:35:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Dec 4, 2020 9:26:32 GMT -6
I believe the plan is to allow the G5 schools a place to compete with each other within a more equitable footprint, while allowing the Power 5 schools a clean split from the NCAA shackles. My guess is the only opportunity to compete will be some sort of pre-conference co-governed schedule. There will be a lot of G5 programs screaming bloody murder, but it has to happen.
Although you could see several higher budget G5 schools band together in a football only conference and gain access to whatever the highest post NCAA alignment is.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 9:53:41 GMT -6
Let me be even more pessimistic about the long term future.
In money terms, I don't see how you can separate the big schools quite as easily as it sounds. Not and keep a fiction that only FB is separate. The revenue from big time FB will give those athletic departments a huge advantage in every sport, just as it does now. The money from FB and the advantage likely will get bigger for them. The other domino is that if this works why would we not see BB inevitably next to follow. The D1 BB programs with resources from big time FB will continue to squeeze mid majors as they do now, and the incentives to expand conference schedules in big conferences will be greater and greater. Right now it is the NCAA BB tournament money that holds the schools together. If the FB revenue explodes for the big boys, that becomes less an incentive. A power conference tourney would be very lucrative. It would build on the new branding for FB and just accelerate the schism between haves and have nots. Granted a mid major can compete more easily in BB but let's be real, it is a relative handful of teams that can really do that. Even now the one and done superstars rarely go to a school that isn't a power conference school with a national audience. When the time comes, the pressure to have the big schools with the big alumni base and TV audience get more teams into the tournament will follow the new reality in FB. The TV audience and attendance is just not there to support basketball in almost all the mid major conferences or to ttract top players. We are recognizing that real force now with the new transfer rules we are seeing, it is only going to be more rare we see a top player play for a mid major for more than a season or two. It will be one and done to the high major more often... We can only pretend all the schools are at the same level long term. Is there even going to be enough incentive to include the mid major schools on major conference BB schedules for the money games to the extent we see now? With both FB and BB sharing less in the revenue from big schools that aggravates the budget problems for the mids. |
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Dec 4, 2020 10:06:10 GMT -6
Yeah but in basketball there would be far more than five conferences in the top tier, so schools (Ball State) will all be trying to change conference affiliations. You will see almost an entire restructuring of non-big-six leagues. Of course Ball State will drag their feet feet and get caught twisting in the wind.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Dec 4, 2020 10:13:23 GMT -6
As predicted years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 10:38:41 GMT -6
Yeah but in basketball there would be far more than five conferences in the top tier, so schools (Ball State) will all be trying to change conference affiliations. You will see almost an entire restructuring of non-big-six leagues. Of course Ball State will drag their feet feet and get caught twisting in the wind. Not so sure about how many BB conferences can be top tier. Not and compete with the P5 money machines which have VERY large alumni bases and TV audience.
We certainly can't draw fans like they do. The Big East is an outlier with large urban area TV market to offset alumni base.
Conference affiliation for the second tier schools without FB revenue have to be made to support other sports.
OR. Are you saying maybe it is more realistic to just drop all sports budgets down to D3 level except FB and BB? I can't go quite that far.
|
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Dec 4, 2020 10:52:45 GMT -6
In basketball I honestly don't think a split makes sense for anyone. The NCAA TV contract is gigantic and I don't see a more lucrative deal with a Power Ten break.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 12:07:52 GMT -6
It's a great deal for the little guys. But a big conference only deal, maybe including all the big schools, would bring a huge audience.
No sharing with the little conferences too...
Right now, probably not better. After we have a power conference brand in FB, and a new world order, it's going to be easier to imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Dec 4, 2020 12:30:36 GMT -6
The reason March Madness is so popular is because of the small schools upsetting the big schools. Without that it's not nearly as interesting.
The chance of a Cinderella causing chaos is what makes it so much fun to watch. Remember 16 seed UMBC beating 1 seed Virginia in 2018? That basically cleared the path for Loyola to the Final Four. 15 seeds beat 2 seeds just about every year.
The David vs Goliath aspect is what draws casual fans. If it was just Goliath vs Goliath, well... yay? Or yawn?
|
|
|
|
Post by halftime on Dec 4, 2020 12:32:42 GMT -6
It's a great deal for the little guys. But a big conference only deal, maybe including all the big schools, would bring a huge audience. No sharing with the little conferences too... Right now, probably not better. After we have a power conference brand in FB, and a new world order, it's going to be easier to imagine. If you look at how the tournament payouts are structured the Power 6 already get about 3/4, of the entire pool. They won't do any better if they go it on their own. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 4, 2020 16:19:46 GMT -6
It's a great deal for the little guys. But a big conference only deal, maybe including all the big schools, would bring a huge audience. No sharing with the little conferences too... Right now, probably not better. After we have a power conference brand in FB, and a new world order, it's going to be easier to imagine. If you look at how the tournament payouts are structured the Power 6 already get about 3/4, of the entire pool. They won't do any better if they go it on their own. I really don't know. But the big schools really bring in the TV audience. Early games 1 seed vs 16 seed would get more TV, maybe more attendance. As you say, if they can get a contract 3/4 as big and don't have to share they do as well. Give it 5-10 years with big time FB establishing their brand, that could easily carry over to big time BB.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Dec 6, 2020 10:39:31 GMT -6
So the question is, from the big program perspective, does the Cinderella factor added to the tourney justify the revenue syphoned off to the smaller schools?
I think there is another factor that I might call the "nationwide smorgasbord factor". this is when you look at the bracket and see a bunch of teams from all over, some of which you may never have heard of, or barely heard of. I think this is some of the appeal of the tourney also.
I know a number of non-hardcore sports fans that probably couldn't name a single college basketball player in the current season, that do get interested in March Madness and do contribute to the TV audience. These are the sort of fans I think would tend to have less interest in a big school only tourney.
I tend to think the smaller schools do pull their weight through marketing appeal, but then I've never sat down and done an intensive cost/benefit analysis with all the relevant data.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Dec 6, 2020 12:26:22 GMT -6
I tend to think the smaller schools do pull their weight through marketing appeal, but then I've never sat down and done an intensive cost/benefit analysis with all the relevant data. Hard core BB fans will love the big boys where every game is competitive and inter sectional rivals meet.
The audience base will always be partly alumni of schools who are in the tournament. Or regional fans of the big schools unlucky in not being in the draw. Big schools have bigger alumni base generally. Bigger schools are more likely to have that regional following too.
Where the Cinderella factor enters in is a good question. It obviously is interesting to see the unheralded but good team kick the big boys in the cojones.
The "who the hell is that" factor enter in is probably more a talking point than having much in the way of legs for audience and attendance. Good buzz going into the tourney, making the run up to the event a bit more novel.
The big schools benefit as long as they keep playing, so upsets hurt the big school revenue a little. The more Big Conference schools in the bigger the revenue for that conference. How all this balances out is unclear.
My thought is that as the big schools brand themselves as a "higher" quality brand in FB and squeeze out the pretenders, that carries over to the BB side at some level, and the longer they go and establish that brand, the harder it will be to avoid a "big boy" basketball tournament. Why bother with the 12-16 or so games the first round that are just not competitive or very good draw?
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Dec 6, 2020 13:33:29 GMT -6
I tend to think the smaller schools do pull their weight through marketing appeal, but then I've never sat down and done an intensive cost/benefit analysis with all the relevant data. Hard core BB fans will love the big boys where every game is competitive and inter sectional rivals meet.
Why bother with the 12-16 or so games the first round that are just not competitive or very good draw?
I think power team fans LIKE watching those games that they are highly likely to win. Casual fans and fans of other programs like those games because they occasionally produce electrifying upsets, or at least near misses. So there is something for everyone. It's not like we don't already have power-team-only tourneys. there is the ACC tourney, the Big10 tourney etc. There are reasons why these aren't the huge draw that the NCAA tourney is. |
|
|
|
Post by chirpchirpcards on Dec 7, 2020 10:25:14 GMT -6
I don't know that this means shit other than Duke is a program known worldwide and Villanova isn't, but over the last 20 years the two highest rated championship games were Duke/Wisco in '15 (16.0), and Duke/Butler in '10 (14.2), and the two lowest rated championship games were Nova/Mich (9.2) in '18 and Nova/UNC (10.6) in '16. UNC was also involved in a 10.8 rating in '09 against MSU.
|
|
