The AAAAAAAC and Advanced Marketing (or Self-Kidding)

[MullinMayhem]

If anyone needs some humor in their day, go over to the Boneyard forums. They have swung and missed on just about every major recruit they targeted. There was a small minority (including myself) that warned of their downfall after severing ties with the Big East and going all in on football. I'm not saying they are totally dead and buried, but let's just say they are limping very badly right now. I think their re-branding of the husky logo was a mistake...their other one was fine as it was. Their huge bet on football is destroying their men's basketball program, and you can't tell me for a second that once Geno is gone, their women's team won't suffer as well eventually. My, how the tables have turned. Football may still rule but for how much longer after these CTE reports? It will be very interesting to see where football is in 10+ years or so. Can the football players sue after making a claim that these schools did not accurately/fully notify them of the dangers of CTE? If so, football programs will only suck more money away from these schools. I know this is a longshot, but it may set into motion some smaller F5 schools who may not be able to keep up with everything going on in football. If that does happen, it would free up schools like Duke, BC, Wake Forest, etc. to join the best available basketball conference w/o football which is...well, us. If all of this does happen, it will be a complete 180 from the realignment madness when everyone was bailing their conferences to get in F5 conferences. They would then be knocking on our doors begging. I know it's probably far-fetched, but the CTE issue really throws a monkey wrench into the equation. I'm glad none of us will have to deal with that mess.

[ArmyVet]

Possible financial ramifications of CTE on football at all levels should have administrators very afraid in my opinion. It will cost the NFL billions of dollars for sure. At some point you'd think the former college kids would see the money the schools are making off of football and start suing them too.

[GoldenWarrior11]

If you look at the NFHS' recent study of football participation at the high school levels (http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatistics/PDF/2016-17_Participation_Survey_Results.pdf), you will see that there were 26,000 fewer participants in football in 2016-17 than 2015-16. While it is still the most participated-in sport for high schools, with over a million participants worldwide, there are pretty strong and consistent trends with where those participants are coming from. In the last 10 years, the Northeast, Midwest, Northwest and West Coast have all see consistent year-to-year declines in overall participation, while the South (Texas) and Southeast (Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, etc.) have gone up. If you take a step back, you will see that overall participation in the non-Souther portions of the United States is consistently going down each year. Lacrosse is going up and Soccer is going up.

With specific regards to UConn, they are in an area of the country that is light on football recruiting to begin with, but their region is also losing participants every year. For non-P5 schools, that have difficulty recruiting against the big boys to begin with, it will be just another hurdle to overcome in order to show that they can belong and be part of the club. For schools like Houston and Cincinnati, where there is rich football talent locally, they should be fine. However, for parts of the country that where strong prospects are essentially getting lower due to the number of overall athletes playing - like UConn - it will be a real challenge, regardless of how true die hards will argue against.

For example, here in Illinois, we are experiencing our 9th consecutive decline in state-wide participation in football at the high school level. In total, there are about 10,000 less participants than we had in 2007. In the South, conversely, there is actually growth with high school football due to its demand.

Since the AAC is Southern-heavy (minus UConn/Temple/Cincinnati), with stronger programs in Texas and Florida, they will still get exposure down there for recruits. However, whether UConn can convince them to come up North will be entirely different agenda entirely. I truly believe that UConn is committed to FBS football long-term, and will sacrifice its basketball programs to do it (as evidenced already by their athletic department decisions). That's fine, but for the basketball die-hards and fans of the basketball program, I'm sure it's a bitter bill to swallow. Forget about whether UConn can (eventually) get into a P5, I question whether they will be able to compete long-term against the likes of USF, UCF, Temple, ECU and Cincinnati in the East. Time will tell - as it always does.

[GoldenWarrior11]

And adding on to that, this came out today:

http://usatodayhss.com/2017/wash-youth-football-association-drops-tackle-football-the-numbers-just-havent-been-there

[MullinMayhem]

Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with the budgets for the football programs of Duke, Wake Forest, BC, etc. but I would imagine that they are at a significant disadvantage compared to a big state school like Michigan or Ohio State. College football is catering more and more to the big state schools with the massive stadiums and the powerhouse programs...though Duke and Wake Forest still get a lot from being in the ACC, can it really last? It's an odd fit from a football perspective having Duke and schools like FSU in the same conference. They are a very small private school that is 100% known for basketball. I just can't see WF, Duke, BC, etc. keeping up with the big boys long-term the way things are going. I know Duke had a few good years in football, but they will never seriously compete on a regular basis and WF, BC, and even Maryland will face even more of an uphill battle. I wonder if somewhere down the line with all the wasted money, CTE litigation, the idea of paying players, etc. some of these schools pull the plug on football or at least reduce to FCS. Can WF really afford what Ohio State can? Highly doubtful. I think there will be a breakoff eventually between MAJOR football (Ohio St., Michigan, USC, Texas, FSU, etc.) and pretenders like the small private schools I mentioned. Those schools add nothing to the equation, they just leech off the football money being in F5 conference. Eventually, the big boys will wonder why they are sharing the pie with them. I know some may say the same argument can be made for college hoops and a F5 tournament...the one major difference is that unpredictability and Cinderella runs are what make the NCAA tourney so exciting and popular. In football, Michigan will beat a team like Old Dominion 1000/1000 times but in college hoops, Old Dominion could get red hot from 3 and beat them in the tourney. That's the difference.

It's really crazy that just a handful of years ago, we were the laughingstock and told that we'd be a group of mid-majors after the football schools left. Now, schools like Pitt, Cuse (some great tourney runs but irrelevant reg. seasons), UConn are all realizing that leaving the Big East (I know we left UConn technically) was at the minimum a shot to the gut for their basketball programs and possibly a death blow to UConn. Pitt was a regular top 15 team, UConn was a blue blood right up there with anyone else, Cuse spent a lot of time in the top 10, and now they are fading. Yes, credit Cuse for the tourney runs, but no one saw those coming...as I said if you include the regular season their results have been mixed at best. You know when SJ has beat Cuse 3x in a row including at the Carrier Dome twice with some of our worst teams ever that it's not the Cuse of old. Add to that the fact that Boeheim is on his way out the door. If Cuse becomes a mediocre program after Boeheim, you may have the makings of a 30 for 30 "Life After the Big East" discussing each program's fall from grace. If you only look at tourney results as the measure of a program, then you will call me nuts regarding my Cuse remarks, but I think the regular season still matters. Anyone can get red hot in the tourney, not everyone can be a consistent winner in the regular season...that to me shows more about a team.

Of course, UConn is the one that really needs to worry...at least Pitt and Cuse are in a major conference. One more bad season from UConn (anything less than tourney) and they will be in full meltdown mode. Nothing would be more fun than to see SJ spend a week or two in the top 25 and make the tournament while UConn misses it. I'd have to think Ollie is on the hotseat if that happens.

[Savannah Jay]

Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with the budgets for the football programs of Duke, Wake Forest, BC, etc. but I would imagine that they are at a significant disadvantage compared to a big state school like Michigan or Ohio State. College football is catering more and more to the big state schools with the massive stadiums and the powerhouse programs...though Duke and Wake Forest still get a lot from being in the ACC, can it really last? It's an odd fit from a football perspective having Duke and schools like FSU in the same conference. They are a very small private school that is 100% known for basketball. I just can't see WF, Duke, BC, etc. keeping up with the big boys long-term the way things are going. I know Duke had a few good years in football, but they will never seriously compete on a regular basis and WF, BC, and even Maryland will face even more of an uphill battle. I wonder if somewhere down the line with all the wasted money, CTE litigation, the idea of paying players, etc. some of these schools pull the plug on football or at least reduce to FCS. Can WF really afford what Ohio State can? Highly doubtful. I think there will be a breakoff eventually between MAJOR football (Ohio St., Michigan, USC, Texas, FSU, etc.) and pretenders like the small private schools I mentioned. Those schools add nothing to the equation, they just leech off the football money being in F5 conference. Eventually, the big boys will wonder why they are sharing the pie with them. I know some may say the same argument can be made for college hoops and a F5 tournament...the one major difference is that unpredictability and Cinderella runs are what make the NCAA tourney so exciting and popular. In football, Michigan will beat a team like Old Dominion 1000/1000 times but in college hoops, Old Dominion could get red hot from 3 and beat them in the tourney. That's the difference.

It's really crazy that just a handful of years ago, we were the laughingstock and told that we'd be a group of mid-majors after the football schools left. Now, schools like Pitt, Cuse (some great tourney runs but irrelevant reg. seasons), UConn are all realizing that leaving the Big East (I know we left UConn technically) was at the minimum a shot to the gut for their basketball programs and possibly a death blow to UConn. Pitt was a regular top 15 team, UConn was a blue blood right up there with anyone else, Cuse spent a lot of time in the top 10, and now they are fading. Yes, credit Cuse for the tourney runs, but no one saw those coming...as I said if you include the regular season their results have been mixed at best. You know when SJ has beat Cuse 3x in a row including at the Carrier Dome twice with some of our worst teams ever that it's not the Cuse of old. Add to that the fact that Boeheim is on his way out the door. If Cuse becomes a mediocre program after Boeheim, you may have the makings of a 30 for 30 "Life After the Big East" discussing each program's fall from grace. If you only look at tourney results as the measure of a program, then you will call me nuts regarding my Cuse remarks, but I think the regular season still matters. Anyone can get red hot in the tourney, not everyone can be a consistent winner in the regular season...that to me shows more about a team.

Of course, UConn is the one that really needs to worry...at least Pitt and Cuse are in a major conference. One more bad season from UConn (anything less than tourney) and they will be in full meltdown mode. Nothing would be more fun than to see SJ spend a week or two in the top 25 and make the tournament while UConn misses it. I'd have to think Ollie is on the hotseat if that happens.

Borzello and Goodman wrote an article (yesterday, I think) that listed the winners and losers of the transfer season. UCONN was the "top loser." I am guessing Ollie's seat might be getting a little warm already. For those AAAAAAC fans on here, Memphis was a big loser, too (not a shock...didn't the whole team transfer???).

[Xudash]

Admittedly, I'm not too familiar with the budgets for the football programs of Duke, Wake Forest, BC, etc. but I would imagine that they are at a significant disadvantage compared to a big state school like Michigan or Ohio State. College football is catering more and more to the big state schools with the massive stadiums and the powerhouse programs...though Duke and Wake Forest still get a lot from being in the ACC, can it really last? It's an odd fit from a football perspective having Duke and schools like FSU in the same conference. They are a very small private school that is 100% known for basketball. I just can't see WF, Duke, BC, etc. keeping up with the big boys long-term the way things are going. I know Duke had a few good years in football, but they will never seriously compete on a regular basis and WF, BC, and even Maryland will face even more of an uphill battle. I wonder if somewhere down the line with all the wasted money, CTE litigation, the idea of paying players, etc. some of these schools pull the plug on football or at least reduce to FCS. Can WF really afford what Ohio State can? Highly doubtful. I think there will be a breakoff eventually between MAJOR football (Ohio St., Michigan, USC, Texas, FSU, etc.) and pretenders like the small private schools I mentioned. Those schools add nothing to the equation, they just leech off the football money being in F5 conference. Eventually, the big boys will wonder why they are sharing the pie with them. I know some may say the same argument can be made for college hoops and a F5 tournament...the one major difference is that unpredictability and Cinderella runs are what make the NCAA tourney so exciting and popular. In football, Michigan will beat a team like Old Dominion 1000/1000 times but in college hoops, Old Dominion could get red hot from 3 and beat them in the tourney. That's the difference.

It's really crazy that just a handful of years ago, we were the laughingstock and told that we'd be a group of mid-majors after the football schools left. Now, schools like Pitt, Cuse (some great tourney runs but irrelevant reg. seasons), UConn are all realizing that leaving the Big East (I know we left UConn technically) was at the minimum a shot to the gut for their basketball programs and possibly a death blow to UConn. Pitt was a regular top 15 team, UConn was a blue blood right up there with anyone else, Cuse spent a lot of time in the top 10, and now they are fading. Yes, credit Cuse for the tourney runs, but no one saw those coming...as I said if you include the regular season their results have been mixed at best. You know when SJ has beat Cuse 3x in a row including at the Carrier Dome twice with some of our worst teams ever that it's not the Cuse of old. Add to that the fact that Boeheim is on his way out the door. If Cuse becomes a mediocre program after Boeheim, you may have the makings of a 30 for 30 "Life After the Big East" discussing each program's fall from grace. If you only look at tourney results as the measure of a program, then you will call me nuts regarding my Cuse remarks, but I think the regular season still matters. Anyone can get red hot in the tourney, not everyone can be a consistent winner in the regular season...that to me shows more about a team.

Of course, UConn is the one that really needs to worry...at least Pitt and Cuse are in a major conference. One more bad season from UConn (anything less than tourney) and they will be in full meltdown mode. Nothing would be more fun than to see SJ spend a week or two in the top 25 and make the tournament while UConn misses it. I'd have to think Ollie is on the hotseat if that happens.

Great post.

Abstract point: change happens and it happens constantly, and even in highly unlikely places. I"m not a big baseball fan, but I know Cincinnati to be home to the first professional baseball team; the Cincinnati Reds were first (that's why opening day always started in the Queen City for many years). The point? Cincinnati is a baseball town. Yet Cincinnati now has a pro club soccer team: FC Cincinnati is a United Soccer League club that began play in 2016. The Reds are terrible right now, so attendance is down in large measure to being in the cellar in the NL Central. But this soccer team is blowing the doors off attendance and fan interest and is generating a lot of energy within its ever expanding fanbase. Had you told me 10 years ago that soccer would be making noise within the boarders of I-275 to this degree and relative to the Reds, I would have politely nodded and walked away.

And now to some of your points.

There truly are "haves" and have nots" within the Power 5 (from the NCAA):

Only 24 FBS schools generated more revenue than they spent in 2014, according to the NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report. That figure jumped from 20 schools in 2013, but it has remained relatively consistent through the past decade.

Though the number of athletics departments reporting positive net generated revenues has increased slightly, the average of their net generated revenue has dipped in the past year. Those 24 schools, at the median, generated about $6 million in net revenue, compared to just over $8 million in 2013 and a little more than $2 million a decade ago.

But those 24 schools are a minority. Many more schools saw their expenses exceed their revenue, requiring their colleges and universities to cover the shortfall. The median FBS school spent $14.7 million to help subsidize its athletics department in 2014, up from a little more than $11 million in 2013.

To your point, even those numbers are skewed. The Ohio State's of the world are essentially cash registers, given their 100k+ stadiums and massive alumni bases.

Could schools like BC, Wake and Duke be jettisoned from the P5?

We've mostly agreed that it's terribly difficult to kick out existing and established members of a conference. Present scheduling calls for about 12 regular season games at the FBS level. The P5 could shrink a little and still have enough inventory to pull off such a schedule, but at a higher rate of grind, given the better competition involved across the board relative to scheduling options that exist today. The 'kick out' thing probably will not happen.

Would schools like that eventually exit on their own?

More to your point, do the less advantaged (grand irony - relatively better academic schools) with smaller stadiums and budgets succumb to budget pressures and competition gaps over time and throw in the towel? Probably not, so long as TV money under the existing media model feeds them sufficiently in order to keep their institutional subsidies manageable.

BUT that, that right there - the future of sports media and the monetizing of its content - is what must be watched and ultimately addressed, including by the Big East. It's as if some of these schools are still chasing the best horse drawn carriages out there, even though Henry Ford is beginning to establish the process through which he'll sell millions of Model T's.

[gtmoBlue]

The age of record football content contracts is dying. With the beginning of the shift from cablecasting to online streaming video the formula for pay for content will change.
Cablecasting is based on subscribership and streaming video is based on advertising revenues (based around viewers, not subscribers). Both Facebook and Disney are reported to be looking at building a streaming platform.
The viewing of the majority of streaming sites is free, only netflix and a couple of other have subscribers. Amazon, YouTube, the major streamers are free. Facebook will probably be free, as advertising will pay for the services. The pricing (pay) for content will be much lower as (if 50k watch Illinois vs Rutgers football) pay will be based on viewership, not package deals. There will be a major reset and reduction of pay for content - as there is an over abundance of content available. Only the top tiers will be streamed. I envision gross pay per content to be 0.01 to 0.001 per view. It will become Quality over quantity.

Platforms will pick and choose what content they are willing to carry as there is a global glut of content both professional and amateur (soccer, baseball, Am football, rugby, basketball, amateur sports, track n field, wrestling, Am Ninga, reality based entertainment and "sports", golf, tennis, etc., etc.) - it will not be bundled as "the B1G package" or the "ACC package". No longer will the weak sisters of the poor in major conferences be bundled along with the premium schools.
The platform will set the standards/rules and only content deemed/evaluated to meet the minimal platform standard viewership levels will be picked up (unless you own the streaming platform - BEDN).

Lesser streaming platforms may carry packages in order to attempt to compete with the Big platform streamers, but with less viewership when carrying less desirable content (Nebr vs Rutgers, WF vs Clemson, etc.)

The subscriber-based, cable-based format will die like the horse and buggy. Streaming will be the new king (Model T, mass production, etc.).


Some of you, including XUDASH are framing the correct questions...

Would schools like that eventually exit on their own?

More to your point, do the less advantaged (grand irony - relatively better academic schools) with smaller stadiums and budgets succumb to budget pressures and competition gaps over time and throw in the towel? Probably not, so long as TV money under the existing media model feeds them sufficiently in order to keep their institutional subsidies manageable.

BUT that, that right there - the future of sports media and the monetizing of its content - is what must be watched and ultimately addressed, including by the Big East. It's as if some of these schools are still chasing the best horse drawn carriages out there, even though Henry Ford is beginning to establish the process through which he'll sell millions of Model T's.

BC and Wake Forest don't offer top 2 or 3 tier content (maybe baseball). Is Duke Basketball alone worth $20+ million a year? The short answer is no. Without bundling of conference packages none of the football five middling and bottom schools get a check from online streaming - Quality over quantity. The big check heyday is over. Duke may have 10 men's basketball, 4 baseball, 3 tennis, 5 LaCrosse, 1 football game. School a) may have 4 top football and 7 top basketball, 3 top baseball, and track & field play. School b) may have 4 ice hockey, 4 LaCrosse, 3 Tennis, 2 gymnastics, and 4 Baseball games. School c) may have 2 football, 6 basketball, 4 Volleyball, 10 women's basketball, and 2 women's soccer, Creighton might have 6 men's soccer, 4 volleyball, 3 women's soccer, 8 men's basketball, 2 baseball, 4 women's basketball and so on. Quality over quantity. A Wake Forest, BC, DePaul would have to seek lower level streamers even to enter the field as top level and mid level streamers still seek quality 1st (quality = viewership = advertising dollars). It will be a new day for sports media and the weak will no longer be carried by media platforms. Conference membership will not save the weak as it currently does.

Bundling of conference packagesand the media model as we now know them will die. If it survives at all, bundling will be vastly smaller quantities as again...we are talking quality over quantity. No more overvalued pricing on a glut of content, much of which is substandard. The streaming model will re-level the content dollar playing field.

[MullinMayhem]

http://www.businessinsider.com/more-you ... -tv-2016-7

Very interesting article essentially backing the great points made above. TV watching is dying. I can tell you myself as a 28 year old, the only time I turn on my TV is when A) the Mets/Jets/Knicks/SJ/Big East teams are playing B) there is some really interesting interview or C) if there was a major event in the news (but even then, XM radio/Twitter is just as good for that). Otherwise, I don't really have reason to watch. YouTube offers more than anyone could ever imagine. You can instantly find documentaries regarding your interests and you can easily find full episodes of shows to stream. Why do you think they are now making smart TV's? It's because people want access to YouTube, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc. Many kids are now watching (yes rather than playing themselves) professional gamers play videogames live online. The future is clearly digital...some big names like Joe Rogan, Adam Corolla, Dave Rubin, etc. have massively popular podcasts. There's just so much more freedom and flexibility. Many of these podcasts also have side menus that tell you which topic the host is discussing at which times. In other words, with regular TV you have to wait until 55 minutes into programming after tons of commercials and unwanted material to get to the part you are interested in. With podcasts, you can simply click on the segments you are interested in. I'm certain that the Big East realizes this new wave and will act accordingly. If TV continues on this trend and people get to pick and choose the content they want instead of paying for TV bundles, you can rest assured Wake Forest, BC, Duke, and Maryland football will not be on the high-demand list.

[paulxu]

In football, Michigan will beat a team like Old Dominion 1000/1000 times

App State on the other hand...