USC, UCLA to join the Big Ten in 2024

[ChiefGritty]

I've been thinking about the dire forecasting of sports economics by @ChiefGritty a lot and the more I think about it, the less I agree.

The way things are going in entertainment media, content is king, and while quality of content is up, there's a quantity problem.

Compared to 5-10 years ago it's precisely the reverse. There are ninety zillion TV shows, completely unprecedented quantity, but the golden age days of the Sopranos, Mad Men, the Wire, etc are behind us.

Sports remain the pinnacle of cheap desirable content. Cheap you say? With the Big Ten media deal expected to reach $1 billion a year? Yes.

Example:

Thor: Love and Thunder had a budget of $250 million and a runtime of almost exactly 2 hours. That's $125 million per hour of content.

When the B1G goes to 16 teams, there will be 72 regular season in-conference regular season B1G football games a season. If you say each game runs 3 hours, that's 216 hours of content. There will also be 160 in-conference regular season basketball games a season. If you say run time of 2 hours on those, that's another 320 hours, for a total of 536 hours of content, and I haven't even included non-conference games the football conference championship, the basketball conference tourney or the possibility that the conference schedule gets expanded in either sport. It also doesn't include non-revenue sports which provide further niche content. Even without all those "extras," at a $1 billion price tag that's less than $2 million per hour of content. Add in all those other games and some documentary style content and recap/highlight shows and you can easily generate a few hundred more hours of cheap content (Yes, I know additional costs go into production but with sports the rights are the bulk of the cost).

Now, is a big movie in a huge franchise like Marvel higher value content than B1G games? Absolutely. But sports deals like this are like buying content in Costco sizes at Costco prices and provide tons of value in that sense.

The other big advantage sports has is people watch it LIVE, which means commercials that your audience is actually captive for.

Lots of flip sides to that. You see Thor on opening night it's $12, you see it three weeks later it's still $12. A sports game's IP value is close to zero the moment it ends.

The cable vs streaming debate loses the fact that this content is valuable even if cable dies.

I want to be very clear how much I totally agree with this and have never said otherwise. People like sports, and they like the incumbent major sports, that have strong brands and deep, deep roots in the markets where they've operated for decades. I live near Wrigley Field and depressing, star-less pile of garbage though the Cubs may be, they descend from Naperville in their thousands day after day after day.

BUT. The enormous wealth and value of these sports teams and leagues have been built not just on the immense interest they generate, but also on charging customers for access to sports who aren't watching. 10 years ago that was an astronomical subsidy to the industry, and little by little that's bleeding away.

To me, that just means a bit of belt tightening for what remains a completely healthy, robust industry that can still generate BILLIONS in any content delivery mechanism through its deep connection to millions of passionate fans. But the owners and commissioners and AD's, drawn from the modern American business class and mindset as they are, cannot and will not accept revenue stagnation ever, under any circumstances. They will burn heaven and earth to the ground (literally, if I may get away with saying so) to squeeze one dime of growth out of the present tense, this TV contract, this fiscal year, this quarter.

All of the options to generate that growth impose tradeoffs. College and pro are different, fundamentally what the pros are doing is finding ways to water down the product to sell more of it at existing rates, whereas in college the game is to consolidate the existing value among fewer schools leaving the rest to wither. Making your existing fans pay more alienates some, and raises the bar for new entrants to fandom. All of it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I go back to my initial framing, growing interest in sports versus harvesting interest in sports you've inherited over decades.

None of it is healthy, and none of it is necessary, and I shudder to think where it ends. Because you're right, the big legacy sports are the closest thing to a golden goose the entertainment business has. But even a golden goose can be killed.

 

[sbillini]

BUT. The enormous wealth and value of these sports teams and leagues have been built not just on the immense interest they generate, but also on charging customers for access to sports who aren't watching. 10 years ago that was an astronomical subsidy to the industry, and little by little that's bleeding away.

Agree with the conclusion, but come to it from a different angle. I think the industry is in trouble because content is going to grow faster than consumption can (which hasn't been the case for a long time). The one offset the content creators have is that there's a lot more distribution options going after that content, so that's helping them bid up prices. But I fear we're hitting the natural limit of how much content can be consumed (Netflix losing subscribers being a key datapoint for this), which will have negative repercussions down the value chain.

- Let's assume UIUC is average in terms of Alumni base size (this site says it might actually be below average, but let's assume it's average). UIUC's site says there are 470k living alumni. Assume that there are 40k people on campus and there are non-alumni that also watch that are roughly half the size of the alumni base. All in, this results in 745k potential customers.
- Let's assume 25% of that 745k care about Illinois sports and are actually willing to pay to watch it.
- Assume that Big Ten charges $10/month for their streaming service (same as F1 TV Pro). So 120/yr
- Multiply that by 14 for all big ten schools (of course schools like Michigan, tOSU will have bigger numbers, but places like Purdue or Maryland will likely be smaller).
- All in (745k*.25*120*14)= ~$313M/yr. Compare that against the TV contracts that the Big Ten is getting now, and you get an idea of how much subsidization is going on from non-caring customers paying their cable bill. The current Big Ten contract is around 440M/yr. So a decent amount, but not crazy. But if the next contract is materially above that (which is likely going to be a function of USC/UCLA addition + TV networks getting desperate for content), the Big Ten would be crazy not to go for this.

But the longer term problem is that the Peacock's, Disney+, netflix's, AMC+, HBOMax, Paramount+, CBS+, AppleTv, Amazon Prime etc. etc. etc. of the world have the goal of just peeling a bit of cable paying people to targeted products in lieu of the a la cart model we're currently in. It doesn't take much, but as soon as that happens, the bidding wars for content like sports has a problem because it'll get unsubsidized. The backstop for the big ten is just going over the top direct like outlined above, which will likely result in less revenue. So at the very least, it'll stop getting better. In the meantime, they're squeezing as much juice from the orange as they can.

 

[spotter]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1550144155564720129

 

[spotter]

SDSU to the PAC is plausible. Why on earth would the SEC want SDSU? They don't need SDSU. The PAC needs SDSU.

Big grain of salt.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1550357567796170752

 

[Shane Walsh]

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...g-highest-paid-coach-college-football-sources

12.5 million a year.

But please, go on about how we can't pay players, and NIL is destroying college sports, and how college sports should be about tradition and loyalty.

 

[Pikeillinifan]

https://www.espn.com/college-footba...g-highest-paid-coach-college-football-sources

12.5 million a year.

But please, go on about how we can't pay players, and NIL is destroying college sports, and how college sports should be about tradition and loyalty.

It's just a microcosm of our economy/system. CEOs, University Presidents, coaches, etc. hundreds of times more than average workers.

It's great for companies (universities) to raise prices (tuition, tickets, parking, food, jerseys, etc), increase exec pay (coaches and salaried leaders) and profits (including the TV $$) because that's what the market will bear, but once it come to paying the ones making the system work, there isn't money and nobody can afford it.

Great system when you're at the top, not so great when you aren't.

 

[AutoPoster 3000]

All of the options to generate that growth impose tradeoffs. College and pro are different, fundamentally what the pros are doing is finding ways to water down the product to sell more of it at existing rates, whereas in college the game is to consolidate the existing value among fewer schools leaving the rest to wither.

It's the "leaving the rest to wither part" that I still don't totally follow. How are we defining "wither."

Let's say in ten years' time the inexorable consolidation at the top results in a CFB Premier League of roughly 32 teams with their own proprietary playoff/national championship system and near complete hegemony over the most lucrative media rights revenue streams. Illinois is thus "relegated" to a second tier, landing in a division/conference that--consistent with how non-major and comparably lower revenue athletic federations historically have tended to form--consists of peer universities that are like situated financially, culturally, and geographically (similar enrollment, endowment, athletic department budgets, facilities, academic reputation, prestige, media markets, etc.). Let's say this new non-major conference is comprised of mostly midwestern flagship universities (each who lack historically elite football programs) like Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, perhaps Michigan State and Iowa, plus Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and if you want to spread out more, maybe Virginia, Maryland, Duke, Pitt. This might even still be called the Big Ten Conference if it survives (as either a functional entity or a trademark) after Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin have bolted for the College NFL. Is this thing I'm describing unmarketable? Can it not be packaged into content that can generate at least baseline self-sustaining revenues? Is not even fun? Is there no potential with something like this to grow and not harvest?

But all these programs have been riding the financial coattails of their more elite conference-mates, in the form of TV contracts with values inflated by soon-to-be obsolete cable subscriber fees. Cut off from the trough, the lesser schools will starve. I think I understand that to be your main point. But when we talk about future revenues for future non-majors, they won't be competing against the majors--they'll be competing against each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm certain you will, but the "withering" concept assumes fan interest in a program like Illinois decreases if it is not longer affixed to Ohio State and Wisconsin via conference affiliation but ... maybe the opposite is true??? The main hindrance to growth with the Illini football brand is the perception regionally that we are a bottom feeder relative to the programs we compete against. Nationally, the program has no traction anyway. Why assume that revenues are tied to engagement. Why assume Saturday afternoon eyeballs who once would have tuned in to Illinois v. Indiana on Time-Warner channel 673 will instead turn to Alabama v. Michigan because that's a "major" conference and its being conveniently streamed on Amazon Prime. I just don't understand the presumption that people all across the CFB spectrum will care less and engage less because ... because why? To say, well that's just inevitable once revenues are slashed kind of denies the existence of robust nationwide non-major CFB universe of some 500 odd teams that have managed so far.

 

[ChiefGritty]

Let's say in ten years' time the inexorable consolidation at the top results in a CFB Premier League of roughly 32 teams with their own proprietary playoff/national championship system and near complete hegemony over the most lucrative media rights revenue streams. Illinois is thus "relegated" to a second tier, landing in a division/conference that--consistent with how non-major and comparably lower revenue athletic federations historically have tended to form--consists of peer universities that are like situated financially, culturally, and geographically (similar enrollment, endowment, athletic department budgets, facilities, academic reputation, prestige, media markets, etc.). Let's say this new non-major conference is comprised of mostly midwestern flagship universities (each who lack historically elite football programs) like Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, perhaps Michigan State and Iowa, plus Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and if you want to spread out more, maybe Virginia, Maryland, Duke, Pitt. This might even still be called the Big Ten Conference if it survives (as either a functional entity or a trademark) after Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin have bolted for the College NFL.

Bless you, you have precisely described the longer-term future I see as the most likely (though lots of variation is possible).

Is this thing I'm describing unmarketable? Can it not be packaged into content that can generate at least baseline self-sustaining revenues? Is not even fun? Is there no potential with something like this to grow and not harvest?

From a big time mass attendance mass media perspective? I think it is. A shadow of its former self, at best I think.

(Football at least. But of course college football was always an illogical unicorn anyway. The most intensely followed minor league on earth by a country mile)

I just don't understand the presumption that people all across the CFB spectrum will care less and engage less because ... because why? To say, well that's just inevitable once revenues are slashed kind of denies the existence of robust nationwide non-major CFB universe of some 500 odd teams that have managed so far.

To try and reach for a comparable example here, it's my understanding that lower division soccer leagues in soccer-mad countries, which of course offer the opportunity to get promoted into the biggest league and in places like England are really large operations with literally centuries of history, are in something of an interest and revenue death spiral as all the attention is soaked up by the elite.

I appreciate your more optimistic view on it, god knows at least initially you and I would be happy to follow the Illini in that new reality. But I prefer to fight that future for as long as I can, for our sake, but also because I don't think the College Football Super League is as valuable a property as those pushing in that direction think it is.

Fun fact in that regard, the English Premier League has foreign TV rights that keep shooting through the stratosphere, in the US as much as anywhere, but their most recent domestic TV rights deal actually decreased in value from the previous cycle.

I'm a man with a hammer who always sees nails, fair enough, but the cracks are there if you look for them.

 

[illinistephen]

...but the "withering" concept assumes fan interest in a program like Illinois decreases if it is not longer affixed to Ohio State and Wisconsin via conference affiliation but ... maybe the opposite is true???

I actually like your hypothesis, but here's a really crazy thought experiment on the other side...
Let's say that the Oakland A's, being terrible this year and having a small revenue, are permanently relegated to AAA instead of moving to Vegas. How many A's fan's will
A: Be so angry that they give up on MLB for good
B: Pick another MLB team to root for like the Giants or Dodgers
C: Keep the A's as their team
D: Decide to become A's fan's because they will win more often at a lower level

Is this good for the MLB to lose total fans but maybe increase fans/team? Is this good for the SF Giants? Is this good for the A's?

 

[the juiceman cometh]

I actually like your hypothesis, but here's a really crazy thought experiment on the other side...
Let's say that the Oakland A's, being terrible this year and having a small revenue, are permanently relegated to AAA instead of moving to Vegas. How many A's fan's will
A: Be so angry that they give up on MLB for good
B: Pick another MLB team to root for like the Giants or Dodgers
C: Keep the A's as their team
D: Decide to become A's fan's because they will win more often at a lower level

Is this good for the MLB to lose total fans but maybe increase fans/team? Is this good for the SF Giants? Is this good for the A's?

I think one problem with this comparison is that college sports fandom is inherently less tied to competing at the top level. If that's what you care about, you'd already be more of an NBA or NFL fan. A more apt comparison may be, let's say you live in a town with a AAA team, and you're a huge fan, you buy season tickets and everything. Then the MLB club decides to switch up its minor league organization and your team gets demoted to AA. How much does that impact your fandom?

 

[AutoPoster 3000]

I actually like your hypothesis, but here's a really crazy thought experiment on the other side...
Let's say that the Oakland A's, being terrible this year and having a small revenue, are permanently relegated to AAA instead of moving to Vegas. How many A's fan's will
A: Be so angry that they give up on MLB for good
B: Pick another MLB team to root for like the Giants or Dodgers
C: Keep the A's as their team
D: Decide to become A's fan's because they will win more often at a lower level

Is this good for the MLB to lose total fans but maybe increase fans/team? Is this good for the SF Giants? Is this good for the A's?

OK, but in this analogy, the Mariners, Angels, Rangers, Royals, Twins, Tigers, Orioles etc.--the small market teams without winning histories--are also "relegated to AAA" along with a dozen more AL and NL teams. The haves--i.e., the Dodgers, Giants, Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals, Cubs, etc.--are splitting off to form a new elites-only eight team super league. As an A's owner, do you like that? Of course not. But if you're an A's fan, is it necessarily so bad? it's not like you're now in the Pacific Coast League with Fresno and Albuquerque. You're still playing your rivals (minus a few). And maybe in some ways its more fun. You can win a pennant more than once every thirty years (or never again). Ticket prices are cheaper. Teams, somewhat drained of top talent, might be forced to play a more traditional, strategic, and entertaining style of baseball than the distorted big-money free-agent home-run-derby slog-fest version of the game that MLB has become now. From the standpoint of what is enjoyable as a consumable entertainment product, opposed to what generates the most revenue, which is better?

I understand why superconferences are horrifying to the athletic directors at non-elite schools who have to somehow balance their checkbooks on a fraction of the income. But as a follower of the program, and not its administrator, I'm not that upset by the prospect of landing in some kind of flagship midwestern public university Ivy league. I think we'd be more competitive. And we might see a better on-the-field product. I'm not sure what we'd be missing that we aren't already.

 

[mattcoldagelli]

Honest question for anybody - I know we are talking about people watching football, but how does that intersect with people playing football? We're at a point where 50% of Americans think tackle football is not a safe sport for kids. Setting aside some of the Super League-ish scenarios above - won't there necessarily be some contraction anyway if we have less kids playing football across the board? Or will the effects of that remain pretty far into the future?

 

[The Galloping Ghost]

OK, but in this analogy, the Mariners, Angels, Rangers, Royals, Twins, Tigers, Orioles etc.--the small market teams without winning histories...

Yo, the O's have 6 World Series appearances and 3 World Series wins since 1954. If you're counting the O's as a team without a winning history, you sure as heck better be counting the Cubs*, too. Peter Angelos is a bastard, but the franchise has a winning history and, for a time, was dominant.

*Is this being said in jest? I mean, yes, but the O's used to be good, dangit!

 

[ChiefGritty]

Honest question for anybody - I know we are talking about people watching football, but how does that intersect with people playing football? We're at a point where 50% of Americans think tackle football is not a safe sport for kids. Setting aside some of the Super League-ish scenarios above - won't there necessarily be some contraction anyway if we have less kids playing football across the board? Or will the effects of that remain pretty far into the future?

It's a good question and I see no reason to think that trend will abate (not to mention there being fewer school age kids just in general as the population ages), but I think one has to acknowledge football's existing dominance among fans who never played.

The NFL is not immune to some of the broader trends of the industry, but it sure seems more immune than anyone else.

I do think as I said earlier in the thread that that growth of playing football in various foreign markets combined with contraction in the US is eventually going to become more visible in the player pools at the college and pro level.

 

[pruman91]

Yo, the O's have 6 World Series appearances and 3 World Series wins since 1954. If you're counting the O's as a team without a winning history, you sure as heck better be counting the Cubs*, too. Peter Angelos is a bastard, but the franchise has a winning history and, for a time, was dominant.
View attachment 18937
*Is this being said in jest? I mean, yes, but the O's used to be good, dangit!

For a while they had a dominant starting rotation with Jim Palmer , Mike Cuellar , Dave McNally , and Pat Dobson..............All 20 game winners in 1971.........

WOW..........................

edit :.........also had Frank Robinson , i believe the only player to win MVP's in both leagues.......Brooks Robinson wasn't too bad either .....16 gold gloves....

 

[mattcoldagelli]

It's a good question and I see no reason to think that trend will abate (not to mention there being fewer school age kids just in general as the population ages), but I think one has to acknowledge football's existing dominance among fans who never played.

The NFL is not immune to some of the broader trends of the industry, but it sure seems more immune than anyone else.

I do think as I said earlier in the thread that that growth of playing football in various foreign markets combined with contraction in the US is eventually going to become more visible in the player pools at the college and pro level.

Right, there will always be enough people to fill 32 (or more) NFL rosters. And high-level CFB.

Will there always be enough to fill FCS rosters? I dunno.

 

[Shane Walsh]

Honest question for anybody - I know we are talking about people watching football, but how does that intersect with people playing football? We're at a point where 50% of Americans think tackle football is not a safe sport for kids. Setting aside some of the Super League-ish scenarios above - won't there necessarily be some contraction anyway if we have less kids playing football across the board? Or will the effects of that remain pretty far into the future?

I used to think that this would have a serious effect on the game, especially back when the Will Smith movie Concussion came out. Now I know better.

There are too many places both rural and urban that idolize the game and by extension the players. It is still seen as a way out of impoverished and isolated communities, and some people (like Bill Goldberg explained in his recent A&E Biography) just need the ability to be physically violent without getting in trouble for it.

 

[illinistephen]

To clarify, being an alum, I'm all in regardless of what league the illini are in and whether they can pay a coach 100K, 1M, or 10M. Is it really that bad? Maybe not to me personally, considering if a relegation happens I'd guess you keep the hardcore fans and lose some bandwagon fans. But honestly, we've been bad for so long that I doubt there are many fair weather fans left. If you drop a level those fair weather/bandwagon fans are gone, maybe for good. I won't lose sleep over this either way (though I do like speculating), but having people jump on the bandwagon for basketball in 2005 was really fun.
The calculus might change with other schools who are in a little brother situation like OK State or Oregon St, or it might be different with someone living in KC who would normally pick Mizzou or K. State to root for. The reaction is probably different with each fanbase.

 

[GForce]

I used to think that this would have a serious effect on the game, especially back when the Will Smith movie Concussion came out. Now I know better.

There are too many places both rural and urban that idolize the game and by extension the players. It is still seen as a way out of impoverished and isolated communities, and some people (like Bill Goldberg explained in his recent A&E Biography) just need the ability to be physically violent without getting in trouble for it.

Freshman football was something of a rite of passage when I was a kid (small town), and still was when my nephews were in school not that long ago (big city suburb).

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

the participation in youth tackle football is way down since the early - mid 2000's - 2010. I would say that in towns with stagnant population levels, about 1/2 as many kids today are playing vs 2005. I dont know if the high schools are seeing less kids coming out, but parents of boys aged 3rd grade to 8th grade are concerned. That will eventually lead to less high schoolers playing the game. Not sure if that means the talent level in high school and will be noticeably worse, but it sure is possible.

That said , tackling at the college and pro levels is about the worst that I can remember. And part of the reason is they just dont practice it as much, I believe for fear of injuries to body and head. Im not saying that terams should do oklahoma 1on 1 or 2 on 2 full speed drills every practice, but dont expect players to hit hard all the time in games when they rarely do it in practice.

 

[ChiefGritty]

Will there always be enough to fill FCS rosters? I dunno.

Surely that's a question on a long, long time horizon, but it's a good one.

If the participation level gets THAT bad, does the game change to make it lower-impact to assuage the Moms of the world? Does that make it less attractive as a TV product?

It took a lot of convincing for my Mom to let me quit soccer and take up football as a kid. But of course to both her and me it was understood that it was ditching a sport that didn't "matter" for one that did. That was like 1999. A very different world now. I certainly feel differently about soccer vs football than I did then.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Surely that's a question on a long, long time horizon, but it's a good one.

If the participation level gets THAT bad, does the game change to make it lower-impact to assuage the Moms of the world? Does that make it less attractive as a TV product?

It took a lot of convincing for my Mom to let me quit soccer and take up football as a kid. But of course to both her and me it was understood that it was ditching a sport that didn't "matter" for one that did. That was like 1999. A very different world now. I certainly feel differently about soccer vs football than I did then.

I've seen the extreme proposal that football ditch pads and modern helmets, under the theory that the false sense of security these provide causes players to fling themselves at each other which abandon, which paradoxically results in more injuries. This seems to be borne out in the increase in injuries over time, which has accompanied the increase in padding and protection. I think there's at least some truth to the theory. Think about how rugby is played - football would look more like that. Would such a change make football a less attractive TV product? Unequivocally yes.

 

[FreshlySqueezed]

If I had access to information from the future I would hope I'd be too rich to spend my time around here, lol.

Anyway, here's an interesting chart

The audience is stagnant to declining as it is.

This was another one that grabbed my eye using older data.

Last year's Rose Bowl drew an 8.2 rating, well below the X axis on this chart. The 90's Rose Bowl average was well above last year's National Title Game.

(And for the record, Nielsen ratings do include internet streaming TV options)


Those services can do a quality job (and let's not pretend game production quality at ESPN hasn't declined btw), but the problem with putting your games there is the subscriber base is way, WAY smaller than an ESPN2 or Fox Sports 1.

Apple wants sports content so it can grow its subscriber base with the captive audience of sports fans. It may yet work, but in the short term, you're blacking out the vast majority of your audience going exclusive there.

This is why the NFL is simulcasting its Amazon games on broadcast networks in the local markets (and leaving tons of money on the table to do so), putting their games behind a streaming paywall locally is still just unthinkable for a product whose brand is mass appeal. We'll get there when they can't afford to leave the money on the table anymore, even though that's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Stagnant to a slight decline is a WIN in today's environment. If you don't understand or can't admit that, then there is no point in any further discussion. 25.6M viewers in 2021 >>>>>> 26.1M viewers in 1999.

 

[the juiceman cometh]

Stagnant to a slight decline is a WIN in today's environment. If you don't understand or can't admit that, then there is no point in any further discussion. 25.6M viewers in 2021 >>>>>> 26.1M viewers in 1999.

To this point, the highest rated TV show by total viewers in the 2021-2022 season was NCIS with 10.9 million an episode. In 1998-1999, the year Gritty's chart starts, ER averaged 25.4 million an episode.

 

[wpr]

It's the "leaving the rest to wither part" that I still don't totally follow. How are we defining "wither."

Let's say in ten years' time the inexorable consolidation at the top results in a CFB Premier League of roughly 32 teams with their own proprietary playoff/national championship system and near complete hegemony over the most lucrative media rights revenue streams. Illinois is thus "relegated" to a second tier, landing in a division/conference that--consistent with how non-major and comparably lower revenue athletic federations historically have tended to form--consists of peer universities that are like situated financially, culturally, and geographically (similar enrollment, endowment, athletic department budgets, facilities, academic reputation, prestige, media markets, etc.). Let's say this new non-major conference is comprised of mostly midwestern flagship universities (each who lack historically elite football programs) like Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue, perhaps Michigan State and Iowa, plus Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, and if you want to spread out more, maybe Virginia, Maryland, Duke, Pitt. This might even still be called the Big Ten Conference if it survives (as either a functional entity or a trademark) after Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin have bolted for the College NFL. Is this thing I'm describing unmarketable? Can it not be packaged into content that can generate at least baseline self-sustaining revenues? Is not even fun? Is there no potential with something like this to grow and not harvest?

But all these programs have been riding the financial coattails of their more elite conference-mates, in the form of TV contracts with values inflated by soon-to-be obsolete cable subscriber fees. Cut off from the trough, the lesser schools will starve. I think I understand that to be your main point. But when we talk about future revenues for future non-majors, they won't be competing against the majors--they'll be competing against each other. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm certain you will, but the "withering" concept assumes fan interest in a program like Illinois decreases if it is not longer affixed to Ohio State and Wisconsin via conference affiliation but ... maybe the opposite is true??? The main hindrance to growth with the Illini football brand is the perception regionally that we are a bottom feeder relative to the programs we compete against. Nationally, the program has no traction anyway. Why assume that revenues are tied to engagement. Why assume Saturday afternoon eyeballs who once would have tuned in to Illinois v. Indiana on Time-Warner channel 673 will instead turn to Alabama v. Michigan because that's a "major" conference and its being conveniently streamed on Amazon Prime. I just don't understand the presumption that people all across the CFB spectrum will care less and engage less because ... because why? To say, well that's just inevitable once revenues are slashed kind of denies the existence of robust nationwide non-major CFB universe of some 500 odd teams that have managed so far.

Your comment got me to thinking. First let me say I have not read the posts for the past week or so. It’s possible someone has already mentioned this. If so I apologize for repeating it.
A 32 team super league is intriguing. Who would be in it? Your list of teams that will NOT be including it what really sparked my curiosity.

I looked at the final AP top 25 for the past 5 seasons. There are 16 teams that finished on the list at least 3 of the past 5 years. More than likely these teams a re a lock to be in the super league.


Alabama
Clemson
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
LSU
Michigan
Northwestern
NC State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Oregon
Penn State
Texas
The teams I am not sure about are Boise State, Cincinnati and UCF. I am sure their records would be slightly worse if they played a B1G and SEC schedule.

There are 14 more teams that were in the top 25 twice.
Auburn
Baylor
BYU
Kentucky
Louisiana
Memphis
Miami
Michigan State
Texas A&M
Wisconsin
USC
Utah
Utah State
Washington

That’s 33 teams so obviously someone would be left out. Memphis, Louisiana, Utah and Utah State.




There are 26 teams that have been ranked once in the past 5 seasons.
Air Force
Appalachian State
Arkansas
Army
Coastal Carolina
Fresno State
Houston
Indiana
Iowa State
Minnesota
Mississippi (Ole)
Mississippi State
Navy
North Carolina
Pittsburgh
San Diego State
San José State
South Florida
Stanford
Syracuse
TCU
Tulsa
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
Washington State
West Virginia
There will be some interest in the service academies Army, Navy and to a lesser extent, Air Force as they have national appeal. Arkansas, North Carolina, Pitt, Stanford, Syracuse and West Virginia will be in the discussion as well.

Others who have not been mentioned include:
Florida State, (It doesn’t seem like it was that long ago when they were a team that was mentioned every year. Where have you gone Bobby Bowden?)
Arizona
Arizona State
Cal
Missouri
Virginia
UCLA
For the most part, I am ignoring Conference USA, Mid-American and Sun Belt.

In a power league were money talks my guess is:

Alabama
Auburn
Baylor
Clemson
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
Kentucky
LSU
Miami
Michigan
Michigan State
Missouri
Northwestern
North Carolina
NC State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Oregon
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Stanford
Syracuse
Texas
Texas A&M
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
UCLA
USC


If the league is going to take shape 10 years from now, Illinois would have a lot of work to do to get on to the list. It’s possible for them to push past a of the few teams on the list but they must start now. They can’t wait and begin 5 years from now.

I suppose what prompted this exercise is, if Northwestern, MSU, Iowa, Mizzou and Pitt don't make your super league, who is a more likely candidate? I have UCLA not because of their record but because of the huge market the represent. While Chicago is a large market, too many other teams already share that market so the Illini can't bring it to the table as a bargaining chip.