How long until unequal revenue distribution becomes the norm?

[18IsTheMan]

That's the question many are asking in light of the agreement between the ACC and FSU/Clemson. Most are talking about it terms of "if" and not so much "when".

It's not a new concept, as the Pac 12 had a similar model until other schools deemed it unfair and managed to stop it. That pissed SoCal off and they threatened to leave the conference. It took a while for that promise to come to fruition, but it did and now the Pac-12 is no more. The Utah AD admits that not conceding a greater piece of the revenue pie to SoCal was a fatal mistake.

We live in a copycat world. In this era of college football when it every single aspect of the game is looked at through the financial lens, you don't think Alabama and Texas aren't at least taking a glance at this unequal revenue distribution thing? The game is 100% about money now, in every single way. There is not one decision that is not financially based i some way. Every conference and every school is leaving no stone unturned to find ways to increase revenue. I just can't fathom those at the top of the heap from the exposure/revenue perspective in the SEC aren't at least having fleeting thoughts about this.

It's only a matter of time. Might not happen until the next decade, but it is coming. And it's probably fair.

 

[Lurker123]

Don't forget the B12 had uneven revenue before with Texas. I always felt that was the beginning of the end for a conference.

But I also agree that it's probably coming. Is it short sighted? Probably. Talk about pushing the haves and have nots further apart.

 

[Piscis]

I am sure it's coming and it isn't going to end well. All conferences will end up looking like the ACC when it comes to football. There will be two or three powerhouse programs that suck all the money out of a conference and win big every year and the rest of the teams will be "also rans". It will probably result in a snowball effect as the lower tier teams fans realize they will never win big and stop donating as much to their programs.

Eventually, college football will have to evolve into one super conference made up of 20 or so of the top tier programs. Everyone else will have to reinvent college football into something more like it used to be. Honestly, I think I'd rather be one of the programs outside of the super conference.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Don't forget the B12 had uneven revenue before with Texas. I always felt that was the beginning of the end for a conference.

But I also agree that it's probably coming. Is it short sighted? Probably. Talk about pushing the haves and have nots further apart.

I'm not familiar with the Big 12 situation and how it might have contributed to their problems. Texas is the one who would have benefitted from the unequal distribution but they left anyway b/c the SEC could just pay more.

I am sure it's coming and it isn't going to end well. All conferences will end up looking like the ACC when it comes to football. There will be two or three powerhouse programs that suck all the money out of a conference and win big every year and the rest of the teams will be "also rans". It will probably result in a snowball effect as the lower tier teams fans realize they will never win big and stop donating as much to their programs.

Eventually, college football will have to evolve into one super conference made up of 20 or so of the top tier programs. Everyone else will have to reinvent college football into something more like it used to be. Honestly, I think I'd rather be one of the programs outside of the super conference.

As long as you have the conferences, I do think it's coming and in some ways it's probably fair. Does it seem fair that Alabama and Mississippi State all get the same share? I'm not a proponent of it, but simply looking at it the way all decisions are made in college football these days, it's a no-brainer decision.

 

[Lurker123]

I'm not familiar with the Big 12 situation and how it might have contributed to their problems. Texas is the one who would have benefitted from the unequal distribution but they left anyway b/c the SEC could just pay more.

Yeah, it was a long time ago. And you're right there's a difference. The B12 and now ACC were doing it to try and let the top teams keep pace with other conferences.

At the time, I remember people talking about how it was the beginning of the end for the conference that instituted it.

But that wasn't in a conference like the B10 or SEC where the top teams weren't scrambling to get out.

 

[Piscis]

I'm not familiar with the Big 12 situation and how it might have contributed to their problems. Texas is the one who would have benefitted from the unequal distribution but they left anyway b/c the SEC could just pay more.



As long as you have the conferences, I do think it's coming and in some ways it's probably fair. Does it seem fair that Alabama and Mississippi State all get the same share? I'm not a proponent of it, but simply looking at it the way all decisions are made in college football these days, it's a no-brainer decision.

I guess my thought is; unequal revenue distribution will ultimately lead to the breakup of conferences and the formation of a new "college" football league.

Yes, I think it is fair that all conference members receive the same share. That is part of being in a conference. Carolina saw what going independent was like.

 

[will110]

What would be the leverage for Alabama or Texas to force uneven distribution? With Clemson and FSU, they've always had the threat of leaving the ACC and going to the SEC or B1G. The ACC without CU and FSU would be a pitiful shell of itself, so the conference couldn't call the bluff and see if CU and FSU would really leave.

Alabama and Texas don't have that leverage. They're not leaving the SEC.

 

[1vagamecock]

Texas has killed every conference they have been in with thier demands to be paid more.
How long will t take them to tear apart the SEC?

 

[I4CtheFuture]

What would be the leverage for Alabama or Texas to force uneven distribution? With Clemson and FSU, they've always had the threat of leaving the ACC and going to the SEC or B1G. The ACC without CU and FSU would be a pitiful shell of itself, so the conference couldn't call the bluff and see if CU and FSU would really leave.

Alabama and Texas don't have that leverage. They're not leaving the SEC.

Only my opinion - but what is the leverage? - Pride. Ego. Vanity. - Those schools and some others simply think they are better than everyone else, to the point of not making any sense.

I would be shocked if Bama and TX don't make a stink about the $$ and wanting more. Soon. One will lead, the other will follow. Pride before the fall....all that.

 

[PrestonyteParrot]

Don't forget the B12 had uneven revenue before with Texas. I always felt that was the beginning of the end for a conference.

But I also agree that it's probably coming. Is it short sighted? Probably. Talk about pushing the haves and have nots further apart.

Texas has little to no humility and are blinded by money power.

 

[will110]

Only my opinion - but what is the leverage? - Pride. Ego. Vanity. - Those schools and some others simply think they are better than everyone else, to the point of not making any sense.

I would be shocked if Bama and TX don't make a stink about the $$ and wanting more. Soon. One will lead, the other will follow. Pride before the fall....all that.

Sure, I get that. But what is the actual leverage that would make the rest of the conference go a long with it and allow uneven distribution?

 

[Greer]

I guess my thought is; unequal revenue distribution will ultimately lead to the breakup of conferences and the formation of a new "college" football league.

Yes, I think it is fair that all conference members receive the same share. That is part of being in a conference. Carolina saw what going independent was like.

I think uneven revenue sharing across conferences is inevitable. I think the next step is conferences will trim the bottom few teams in each conference and we will have 2 major conferences and then several smaller conferences. The big conferences will have maybe 24 teams each and the next tier will have 48 to 64 teams across 3-4 conferences. This will be the system for a couple decades until things change again.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Only my opinion - but what is the leverage? - Pride. Ego. Vanity. - Those schools and some others simply think they are better than everyone else, to the point of not making any sense.

I would be shocked if Bama and TX don't make a stink about the $$ and wanting more. Soon. One will lead, the other will follow. Pride before the fall....all that.

I'm going to focus on the SEC, although I know this scenario will not be exclusive
I can see when it comes time to renew media rights, schools such as Bama, Texas, UGA, Tenn, LSU and UF, will arm themselves with statistics indicating how their schools bring in the most viewership and should be compensated as such.
Do not delude yourself into thinking the SEC is immune from such action.

 

[Uscg1984]

Eventually, college football will have to evolve into one super conference made up of 20 or so of the top tier programs. Everyone else will have to reinvent college football into something more like it used to be. Honestly, I think I'd rather be one of the programs outside of the super conference.

I think there will end up being one "super conference" or a breakaway league, but I think the tent will be much bigger than 20 or so teams or they will risk turning away their target audience. One reason college football is so popular is because virtually everyone in the country has a team in the FBS fight. If you leave most of those teams on the outside looking in, don't expect their fans to have the same level of interest in what the Alabamas, Michigans, and Southern Cals of the world are doing.

 

[FootballLVR]

What would be the leverage for Alabama or Texas to force uneven distribution? With Clemson and FSU, they've always had the threat of leaving the ACC and going to the SEC or B1G. The ACC without CU and FSU would be a pitiful shell of itself, so the conference couldn't call the bluff and see if CU and FSU would really leave.

Alabama and Texas don't have that leverage. They're not leaving the SEC.

Alabama, Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma (I know but...), LSU have every bit of motivation that CU and FSU had. The eyes on the TV are making the difference in the money that all SEC teams enjoy.

 

[FootballLVR]

Sure, I get that. But what is the actual leverage that would make the rest of the conference go a long with it and allow uneven distribution?

You think the top 4/5 teams don't have all the power?

 

[will110]

You think the top 4/5 teams don't have all the power?

Sure, they're the most important, but you can see the bottom teams have power too. Kentucky and Mississippi State, from what I understand, kept the conference slate at 8 games.

The top 4/5 teams don't get more say when the conference is voting.

 

[Lurker123]

I think there will end up being one "super conference" or a breakaway league, but I think the tent will be much bigger than 20 or so teams or they will risk turning away their target audience. One reason college football is so popular is because virtually everyone in the country has a team in the FBS fight. If you leave most of those teams on the outside looking in, don't expect their fans to have the same level of interest in what the Alabamas, Michigans, and Southern Cals of the world are doing.

This. You make a super league with 20 or 30 teams, and I could see that second tier suddenly becoming a lot more popular. Make the super league 40 or 50? Different story, imo.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Only my opinion - but what is the leverage? - Pride. Ego. Vanity. - Those schools and some others simply think they are better than everyone else, to the point of not making any sense.

I would be shocked if Bama and TX don't make a stink about the $$ and wanting more. Soon. One will lead, the other will follow. Pride before the fall....all that.

Yeah, I think the only leverage they need is that they're Alabama.

College football is purely a money game now. With schools being able to openly pay recruits, with no upper limit, the main competitive factor now is how much money you have. Who can pay recruits more? Schools will absolutely be looking for anyway to get that competitive edge over their conference counterparts.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Sure, I get that. But what is the actual leverage that would make the rest of the conference go a long with it and allow uneven distribution?

For the lower tier teams in the league, survival. Put of super conference formation as long as possible.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I'm going to focus on the SEC, although I know this scenario will not be exclusive
I can see when it comes time to renew media rights, schools such as Bama, Texas, UGA, Tenn, LSU and UF, will arm themselves with statistics indicating how their schools bring in the most viewership and should be compensated as such.
Do not delude yourself into thinking the SEC is immune from such action.

As much as I hate most everything about college football now, if you look at things the way they are are, it only makes sense for them to take that approach. Every decision is made with a financial bottom line now. Those teams unquestionably generate more revenue for the league than the Mississippi States (and, sadly, the South Carolinas) of the world.

 

[Piscis]

I think there will end up being one "super conference" or a breakaway league, but I think the tent will be much bigger than 20 or so teams or they will risk turning away their target audience. One reason college football is so popular is because virtually everyone in the country has a team in the FBS fight. If you leave most of those teams on the outside looking in, don't expect their fans to have the same level of interest in what the Alabamas, Michigans, and Southern Cals of the world are doing.

If you travel to other parts of the country, there is much less interest in college football than in the Southeast and Ohio and Michigan. Even in the state of NC interest in college football is much lower than in SC and the interest level in VA is even lower than NC. I spent some time in Indiana a few years ago and there was almost no interest in college football outside of some Notre Dame fans. IU basketball and Pacers basketball were the big sports draws. Once you get past Texas going west, the interest in college football falls off very quickly. The Northeast is a college football desert. Sports fans in the Northeast are all about the NFL and MLB.

We are victims of seeing the world through SEC goggles. College football is like a religion here but it isn't like that many other places.

 

[FootballLVR]

This is probably the end of Conferences as we have known them in my 50+ years of life. I have made posts over the last couple of years about this and the issue of "relegation" as we see in soccer leagues. Many here thought I was stupid for suggesting it. I predicted then that the top 4-6 teams from SEC and B!G, FSU and CU, ND, etc would break off and control college football and we would be left in the cold. Do you really think Bama and Texas and LSU and Oklahoma and Georgia and maybe Tennessee wouldn't try to get uneven monetary distribution? They would be stupid not to. We will be OK but it will cripple teams in the lower part of our conference - which will likely result in the dissolution of our conference too. Sadly, as we have seen from the transfer portal and NIL, it's all about the money. (And no, I don't think CU should be in the group but their success over the last 10 years suggests they should - even if it pisses me off).

 

[Piscis]

This is probably the end of Conferences as we have known them in my 50+ years of life. I have made posts over the last couple of years about this and the issue of "relegation" as we see in soccer leagues. Many here thought I was stupid for suggesting it. I predicted then that the top 4-6 teams from SEC and B!G, FSU and CU, ND, etc would break off and control college football and we would be left in the cold. Do you really think Bama and Texas and LSU and Oklahoma and Georgia and maybe Tennessee wouldn't try to get uneven monetary distribution? They would be stupid not to. We will be OK but it will cripple teams in the lower part of our conference - which will likely result in the dissolution of our conference too. Sadly, as we have seen from the transfer portal and NIL, it's all about the money. (And no, I don't think CU should be in the group but their success over the last 10 years suggests they should - even if it pisses me off).

I hate to see it but I have to agree with you. As with so many things, the unbridled pursuit of money is going to ruin college football. I'd say 10 years from now college football will be unrecognizable compared to what it was 5 years ago. I could see one super conference made up of 32 teams in 4 geographically divided divisions. The model will closely follow the NFL as far as crowning a champion. 3 teams from each division plus two wild card team will make a 14 team playoff. The rest of college football will have to figure out how to populate the current conferences.

I don't see South Carolina making it into the super conference. The Southeast division would probably be Bama, UGA, Tennessee, LSU, Clemson, Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma. South Carolina and the remaining current SEC members would be the "new" SEC.

 

[Uscg1984]

If you travel to other parts of the country, there is much less interest in college football than in the Southeast and Ohio and Michigan. Even in the state of NC interest in college football is much lower than in SC and the interest level in VA is even lower than NC. I spent some time in Indiana a few years ago and there was almost no interest in college football outside of some Notre Dame fans. IU basketball and Pacers basketball were the big sports draws. Once you get past Texas going west, the interest in college football falls off very quickly. The Northeast is a college football desert. Sports fans in the Northeast are all about the NFL and MLB.

We are victims of seeing the world through SEC goggles. College football is like a religion here but it isn't like that many other places.

You aren't wrong, but that still makes the argument for a bigger league, not a smaller one. I live in Montana, a state with no FBS teams. The local ABC affiliate has literally pre-empted ND vs Ohio State to broadcast Montana State vs Weber State or whoever the crap they were playing that week. They do it virtually every week, much to my supreme aggravation. Why? Because people here would rather see their local teams play than the teams on the national broadcasts. If you extrapolate that phenomenon out over 50 current FBS teams that end up on the outside looking in, the TV contract for a new 20-team super league won't be very valuable.

 

[Lurker123]

I could see one super conference made up of 32 teams in 4 geographically divided divisions.

One small hope is the super conference develops small, regional "pods" and suddenly, you may end up with something that has a lot of the old classic rivalries.

I once jokingly said the the super conference could grow so big, that we end up with 8 team pods or divisions, and have close to the old conferences again.

But whatever super conference won't be that big. I'm torn between wanting it large enough to include us, and wanting it small enough that the rest of us can go back to some level of sane football competition.

I could almost long for us being a second division team that actually competes over a bottom feeder of the "super 30" or whatever.

 

[I4CtheFuture]

One small hope is the super conference develops small, regional "pods" and suddenly, you may end up with something that has a lot of the old classic rivalries.

I once jokingly said the the super conference could grow so big, that we end up with 8 team pods or divisions, and have close to the old conferences again.

But whatever super conference won't be that big. I'm torn between wanting it large enough to include us, and wanting it small enough that the rest of us can go back to some level of sane football competition.

I could almost long for us being a second division team that actually competes over a bottom feeder of the "super 30" or whatever.

When I realized what you realized, I had a similar thought. In my mind it would be Div. I and and Div. Ib.

Div. 1, would be Bama, TX, So. Cal, Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St.......the traditional handful of prom queens......and then everyone else. That's just fine by me at this point if I'm being honest.

You just worded it better than I would have.