From my link, in parenthesis, is the number of games with high draw. Only 8 teams had 11 games or more to make the list, only fsu and Michigan had all 12 games make it.
-
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 .
Schools To Directly Pay Players
- Thread starter Mr.Bennett
- Start date
It’s not 20 million a year. More like 40 for the near future as the member schools have to pay off about 1.8 billion of the lawsuit in addition to the 20 million in revenue sharing going forward.
The more I’ve thought about this and read the many (excellent) comments and questions on this thread I simply can’t see how this will work for college athletics in general moving forward. There are so many unanswered questions and “what-if” scenarios that it may be too overwhelming, regardless of the amount of money being thrown around, to solve. And, if someway is found to create a super league with agreed upon rules to limit salaries and transfers, what will happen to the “have nots” and non-revenue sports? One thing that comes to mind is that schools may drop most sports and concentrate on being top tier in a sport without a large national following - something along the line of Nebraska with Volleyball. It’s very popular among the schools that play it but relatively unknown among others. Again, I simply can’t picture a model that will allow college football to continue with the same unique atmosphere that has made it so popular with fans. Finally, there is a question as to whether the end result of what comes out on the other end of all of the changes is something that will be something that fans still want to embrace.
Understanding markets. This is a new market. To think it can't exist means no new markets can.
Markets exist on what the market can bear, period. Its not a matter of if, its a matter of how much, and thats going to include teams that don't bring in the market share too, but is healthy for the overall market.
Take the Pac, great example. Being all west coast it was assumed it was top tier. But it was mainly a what have you done for me lately fad and their ratings showed that. They couldn't compete partly because of time zones, butts in seats and viewership.
They thought they were all that but they simply weren't. This caused the haves who have marketshare to bail. Same for Clemson and FSU in the new bigger ACC with the additions of those former Pac schools even.
Had the ACC gotten Oregon, Washington , USC and UCLA they likely would have created a market that was competitively stable.
HuskerBred
Recruit
I agree that market is exactly the correct word to use here. And I agree that this is a new market. The dilemma is how all the market participants work with one another and “cooperate” with one another. The reason why the NFL and NBA are so successful is that they have sharing/parity structures in place that promote perpetual competitiveness. And an underlying philosophy that no one team or player is more important than the league. The organizations badly want to beat each other but understand that winners draft last, salary caps apply to everyone, and penalties will be swift and exact for any competitive or other violations. College football institutions have a long history of not cooperating, not playing by the rules, and decidedly not concerning themselves with the greater whole. If college football evolves, it will need a similar “regulation” structure similar to the pro leagues, along with some enforcement or policing body. Commissioner. Committee. Something with real and absolute authority. Like a lot of things, it won’t be the “what”. It’ll be the “how”.
Each P5 school will be paying roughly $1 million per year +/- for the next 10 years to settle the lawsuit.
I certainly agree with the concept of “markets” - part of what I was alluding to in my previous post was the question of whether or not the “new market” will have the same appeal as the “old” (current) market. Only time will tell. And, yes, schools have a remarkably bad record of not cooperating with each other for the good of their conference or the game in general. I simply can’t imagine 100+ D1 schools coming up with a set of guidelines that will allow some sort of orderly transition to the new world order. As I previously mentioned, I just don’t see a way forward that will preserve what I have found attractive about college sports. I hope I’m wrong.
De Facto Super Conference? These 18 College Football Teams Account For 50% Of All TV Viewership
With the 2023 College Football season behind us and daily drama unfolding on the coaching carousel and transfer portal side of things, an interestingbrobible.com
Only 10% of total views from the bottom 71 schools (that's 53% of all schools).
This is why a P2 is 100% coming and is nearly already here. Just look at the cash payouts. The Big12/ACC just won't be able to keep up. Clemson and FSU are going to leave the ACC likely this year and ND is going to sign a scheduling agreement with the B1G and SEC.
First, most folks are watching the winners, regardless of school or conference. A couple of years ago, the country was watching TCU. The first half of 2023, Colorado was the one to watch. In the late 1990s, they were watching Miami and Nebraska.
Second, it's a bit circular reasoning that most people are watching teams on the major media outlets. Of course they are.
Time will tell how many teams will be playing pro ball. I'm not real big into pro ball - I don't think I watched a complete game last year, so I'll probably watch the programs that opted not to go pro.
Last edited:
24th is a good number considering we’ve had how many losing seasons in a row? How many seasons without a bowl game? Name of the ratings game is WINNING!! How many fans want to watch a losing team when essentially it means nothing to them? Have the Husker start the season 7-0 and then check the ratings. I would bet Nebraska could very easy be a Top 15 or better viewing if the program improves to where we all want to see it.Years of losing
We came in at 24. We start winning, become a tough out no matter who we play we move up.
Which College Football Program Is the Most Valuable? Breaking Down the Nielsen Ratings
Check out Brett McMurphy's article about which college football teams generate the highest ratings on national television.www.actionnetwork.com
And is why no one knows where the parity resides, or, which teams can bring it, then how many beyond that for a healthier but poorer market.
Which College Football Program Is the Most Valuable? Breaking Down the Nielsen Ratings
Check out Brett McMurphy's article about which college football teams generate the highest ratings on national television.
www.actionnetwork.com
What it shows is teams like Nebraska aren't a one hit wonder like Neon at the bluffs, or Navy because of a Notre Dame and Army vs them games.
Those teams are automatic qualifiers. They have cache.
Oh yea, we will get the bandwagoners others are talking about and likely be a top 15 overall.
phillycheez402
Recruit
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BIGGGGGGG RED!!!!!!!
And what people need to also consider is the NIL factor of each team beyond an agreed upon number for telly rights.
So those with big support will have their edge, but it will be smaller in proportion of overall pay to athletes.
Say if each player receives $100 grand, and you divvy up 20 more through NIL, well from the starting point it is more, just not nothing then only NIL.
So those with big support will have their edge, but it will be smaller in proportion of overall pay to athletes.
Say if each player receives $100 grand, and you divvy up 20 more through NIL, well from the starting point it is more, just not nothing then only NIL.
I post this again to help clarify a few things. The numbers in parenthesis are the number of games that moved the needle in the ratings.Which College Football Program Is the Most Valuable? Breaking Down the Nielsen Ratings
Check out Brett McMurphy's article about which college football teams generate the highest ratings on national television.
What it shows is teams like Nebraska aren't a one hit wonder like Neon at the bluffs, or Navy because of a Notre Dame and Army vs them games.
Those teams are automatic qualifiers. They have cache.
Yeah, there are some of those programs that are perennial top 15 no doubt. Then there's everyone else.
It really all boils down to what the networks ultimately want; they are in control. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Where does it end? At what point do the conferences start booting out their low performers to hog more cash? It gets a bit silly - it's just college football. Everyone is going to just keep spending what they make anyway.
We moved to the Big 10, partly because of nice paychecks, and now we are on primetime a whole heck of a lot less than we were back in the Big 12 days. In the late 1990s, I would drive to Lincoln and have to give $200 a seat for student tickets for a Big 12 game - ANY Big 12 game. Last year I went to a game for $35 a ticket. That's almost 2 generations later. So what exactly did the big money accomplish? We haven't even been to a bowl in what, 5 or 6 seasons? Seems it's all a carousel.
Last edited:
