-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
B1G-SEC Forming Advisory Committee
- Thread starter DuckTownHusker
- Start date
i’m not sure how any reasonable person, could see this any other way. I mean, college football was just as popular in 1996. Why the need to trash so much tradition? The answer is, simply, they got more money to do so. Was it all worth it? No more short road trip drives. What about all the teams who will be left behind? It was all done, for more money. It wasn’t done for higher education, that much, we’ve known forever.
What you‘ve just described, is a professional league, with money to burn, and basically, no ties to amateur college athletics. It is about the money, and you just said as much by your description. Also, we aren’t talking about Akron, Tulsa, and New Mexico here, we’re talking about Kansas State, Utah, North Carolina State, Kansas, Texas Tech. Oklahoma State. All who’ve added to college football over the generations. If you want an elite pro league, like you described, Nebraska probably doesn’t belong in it. we shall see how it all shakes out.
I think it's less about money and more about survival.
Like it or not, times are changing and you either keep up with the changes or you get left behind, and those that get left behind eventually become irrelevant.
We saw large growth in teams going to fbs level lately. The current thinking everyone in college, grow grow grow also was magnified by some schools that were always mid or lower fbs teams, your UCFs, Cincys etc.
I think many schools without strong heritage won't make the cut, the base just isn't there. I think there's other schools, like Stanford, in cfb anyways, where they've put a lot of effort and monies in to meet a competitive level, but generally their fanbase just isn't there.
I don't look at is so much as haves and have nots, but have fans or not.
I don’t disagree with you. But in the end, it is about the most money possible, at the expense of the overall health of the product. Suggesting otherwise, is ridiculous.
I'd agree money plays a part, but only in that money is needed to keep up with the others. If you don't keep up with the competition you get left behind, and that is true with everything in life. We teach our kids to compete, work hard to keep up with the competition, to be the best. But when something more is needed people need money for lessons for their kids or memberships to places where they can work out. Money will always be needed, but it doesn't necessarily mean money is evil, it just means if you want to compete you do what you need to do in order to keep up, and that's true for universities or parents.
That being said there will always be universities and kids that don't necessarily have to be the best, they understand not everyone has to try for the brass ring. There will be universities that will be happy to be at the FBS or FCS level, and there will be kids happy to play at the FBS or FCS level.
The tradition in 1996 included making millions on the backs of student athletes who artificially were prevented from getting a share of the value they created. It’s not the ‘good old days’ for everyone. What you see as greed, I see as a system where the players are getting treated more fairly. If you can’t see how a reasonable person could see things differently from you, it sounds like you are spending too much time in echo chambers. But to conclude it means you’re unilaterally right is an error.
I’m not saying we need to agree, but intolerance for intelligent opinions differing from yours is no way to engage on a forum.
We’ll see how it shakes out. The tier you’re alluding to could well end up in the top group. I think they will. But maybe not everyone. Teams won’t be able to ride the coattails of other conference partners dragging them along.
Was does the kids not getting money in 1996, and getting money in 2024, have to do with tearing college football apart at the seems? It wasn’t necessary. Everyone could have gotten money in 1996, while still residing in a general region, where its fans could travel to watch them. College football didn’t have to be gutted like this, to give kids some money, it was gutted, to get stupid rich, at the overall expense of the sport.
So, is the SEC going to kick out Vanderbilt? Will the BIG kick out Northwestern? There are others as well. I mean, Nebraska has been one of the worst power 5 teams out there over the past 7 years. Do they belong in that tier? I mean, you guys keep talking about the top tier. There are maybe 6-8, Alabama’s and Ohio State’s. It’s a drop off after that. Maybe those 8 need their own tier? I mean, they are better than everyone else, right?
Putting the top 60 in one division, will still give you uneven matchups, just like you had in 1996. None of this was necessary, except for money. Have you even considered how exciting a playoff would have been with the SWC, Big 8, SEC, PAC, BIG, ACC champs, all sending their champions, along with 6 wild cards, to a playoff? It would have been epic.
Again, there's more to it than money, even though Nebraska brings its share.
Without fans you have no money, no viewership, nada. Now you can overinvest to maintain a certain level of returns to stay at a certain level of payouts and there's the cut off.
What are you talking about. College football hasn’t been gutted. More like streamlined. And if you really think CFB could have stayed in ancient times of 30 years ago than you are sadly mistaken and are in the minority.
I'm curious about who you think is getting rich from the changes. Most of the B1G and SEC schools are profitable, but not by a lot. Extra money tends to get invested into their athletic programs for things like personnel and facilities. So it's not the universities that are getting rich. One could argue that the coaches are certainly getting rich, given the escalating salaries, but from the perspective of the universities that's also a form of investment in their athletic programs.
As @Cornjob points out, it's about prestige not monetary greed. Fans, athletic department personnel, and university administrators want their athletic programs to be successful. Money is the engine that pulls that train. If you want to stay ahead of your competitors, and keep your constituencies happy, you need the money to buy the best coaches, athletics personnel, and facilities. The B1G and SEC are acting to make sure that their universities can do that. Yes, some traditions have been destroyed in the process. But change is inevitable, in everything.
As much as the 2 big conferences seem to be about a money grab, we have to keep the other 2…. ACC n Big 12, not only viable, but successful, running them outa business is not good for CFB.
