Honestly, I barely watch college football, but I'm fascinated by this re-alignment story. I read every article I am able. In this interview Feldman mentions losing older fans (i'm 57) and the Old Big East. If I may tell my story: The Big East in the 80's was the greatest basketball product on earth. Better than the NBA. I loved it and watched weeknights on ESPN. When football and football rights money broke up that perfect system, I was outraged! Whatever you Pac-12 folks are feeling today, 10x the power of the sun was my anger and frustration. They took the most beautiful thing in the universe and smeared feces on it and kicked it out on the street. Now, we are here. It is the same thing. There is nothing wrong with wanting more money- but with no checks or balances? With no regulation? With no connection to history?! It feels like Greek Tragedy. The hubris of the people in charge will lead to collapse, sooner than stability and peace. The people in charge see short term profits/goals. I can envisage the day when sports fans have more disgust than fascination with their game. 10 y time scale? If the ACC implodes? I'm done with college hoop and won't bother watching any of the games. The Tourney itself would drop off my radar.
@@martinphillips7886 Shane is mostly right. TV executives run college football now when it used to be University presidents and Athletic Directors. That’s not good.
@@deadeye4520 Viewership will decreased big time in the future if the big 2 of Big 10 and SEC break away from the rest of FBS. There are a lot of people who watches Oklahoma State vs Oklahoma. Oklahoma State fans will not come over to watch the SEC. TV execs do not see that a school like Boise State is one of the top G5 schools that draws eyeballs for tv better than a bunch of schools in the P4 now.
Can't afford to pay teachers in this country a decent wage and for the average kid, tuition is astronomical high, and now we are talking about private equity firms running college sports? 🤦♂️
Please help me understand your comment? If more teams, from more conferences were invited to compete there would be less revolution/disatisfaction? Current teams in transition are leaving because they want to be in big conferences that are favored in the NC/Bowl system? That there was plain bias against smaller schools and smaller/less powerful conferences? I am actually not a big college football fan, but I find this current story fascinating as a sports fan.
How? This seems to be more about yearly payouts from networks. The PAC died because USC wanted a larger payout in the B1G. The same is happening to the ACC with Florida State.
OP is right. The 12 team playoff would have kept the conferences pretty much the same because all the conferences would have had a chance to get teams in the playoffs.
I think you’re right, 4 team playoff concentrated all the power at the very top. Recruiting becomes really hard when only one team in your conference has a shot at the playoffs per year. When recruiting gets hard quality of play goes down and then tv numbers go down. This is the conference death spiral.
Wazzu grad here. Many college football fans are wondering if FSU and Clemson can get the courts to let them leave the ACC, to presumably join a truly nation-wide conference like the Big-10. Once 4-6 schools from the ACC join Big10/SEC, a few more will join the Big-12….and then it becomes a fight to build the 4th-best conference from the remnants. …Or the Big10 and SEC join together to make their super conference, and then no one else matters.
Now we know why Brett Yormark/Big12 made sure there was a “Look in Clause” in the new media deal. My guess is that by adding FSU, Clemson and others, it triggers the Look in Clause.
Wouldn’t it be crazy to see the PAC make moves to bring in Boise state, SD State, Fresno, Colorado st. bring back a few teams that left, and change the landscape of college football?
If you've NEVER EVEN SUITED UP, then you have NO IDEA what it means, to play on the day that "We're gonna get after those BAST*RDS FROM" (fill in the blank)... and you want to take that from me so you can have even more millions ?🤮
They're both basically playing a Mountain West schedule this year. I'd guess they'll probably join the Mountain West at some point. Maybe they're holding out for the Big 12 but that doesn't seem likely.
@@ISpitHotFiyaa True.Believe they can survive on this scale for a a bit. If they can get enough eyeballs osu/wsu can have a buzz and be institutions above the Boise and App States. It is a very delicate situation if they sacrifice the stability of the Mountain West to chase iffy Power conferences.
@@GoatedAtNFS They've already been downgraded. The Pac-2 isn't a power conference; it's on life support. The AD has missed his chances. There's a last attempt desperation move he could make, but it's unlikely he'd do it. The Pac-2's best bet is to just join the Mountain West with the attitude that they're going to help _upgrade_ the MWC into a P5 conference.
The conferences in college football dont mean anything any more and that has completely destroyed the tradition and regionally rivalries. College football justvfeel empty now.
Probably not. The Big Ten only wants teams that will bring in more money on average than their current teams. That's why they were kind of on the fence about adding UW and UO. There are only a couple teams they could possibly add that would really do that. And the SEC probably looks at it the same way. So the ACC may lose their biggest brands but the conference itself isn't going anywhere. There just isn't anywhere better for most of those teams to go. Plus the ACC is a million times better run than the Pac12 was. That was the real impetus for the re-alignment of the last year. Had the Pac-12 been able to get a half decent media deal then the conference would still be around (albeit without UCLA, USC and possibly UO and UW).
@@ISpitHotFiyaa "then the conference would still be around (albeit without UCLA, USC and possibly UO and UW)" -- without those 4, there is no PAC 12 (regardless of who you might add), which is why the other schools bailed once UO and UW grabbed the parachutes.
@@RD-jc2eu They bailed because they didn't have a media deal or any hope of getting one worthy of their brand names. With competent management the Pac-12 secures a media deal in the same ballpark as the Big12, adds a couple teams, and survives as a diminished version of itself - basically what the Big12 was/is after loosing all their big names (Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, and Colorado). Because the management was terrible the conference instead imploded.
I don’t wanna hear the masses crying. As an Iowa state grad we were left for dead TWICE and nobody said anything nobody cried for the flyover truck stop conference. End of the day the big 12 who was left for dead has fans that care about football and that is why they are in the 3rd position and primed to potentially become #2 soon
Big 12 has viable possibilities for raising its profile a bit higher again, but "potentially become #2 soon"? Come off it, dude. Crack is deadly... walk away.
