Archive

Is ESPN the Force Behind Realignment?

  • Little Danny
    Interesting piece out of the USA Today. I think one would be fooling themselves if they don't think the "world wide leader" plays a part in dictating conference affiliation. The question is, is it ethical and legal for them to do so?


    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2011-10-27/is-espn-the-force-behind-college-conference-realignment/51019966/1?csp=34sports&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+UsatodaycomSports-TopStories+%28Sports+-+Top+Stories%29
  • thedynasty1998
    Absolutely they have a say. Is it legal? Sure it is. Is it ethical? Who cares. ESPN has money and money makes the world go.
  • dat dude
    thedynasty1998;952710 wrote:Absolutely they have a say. Is it legal? Sure it is. Is it ethical? Who cares. ESPN has money and money makes the world go.
    Who cares if it's ethical?? Do you realize how much money is involved with college football and TV contracts? I'd bet a lot of people care.
  • Tobias Fünke
    Fuck ESPN.

    That is all.
  • mucalum49
    thedynasty1998;952710 wrote:Absolutely they have a say. Is it legal? Sure it is. Is it ethical? No. However, ESPN has money and money makes the world go.
    FIFY
  • End of Line
    Of course they're behind it.
  • Little Danny
    thedynasty1998;952710 wrote:Absolutely they have a say. Is it legal? Sure it is. Is it ethical? Who cares. ESPN has money and money makes the world go.
    I am sure the alumni, donors, players, coaches and employees of the majority of the universities who are not currently "safe" care about whether this is ethical or not. I also have to think even those who are currently "okay" are a bit nervous as well about what might potentially fall out as well.

    The bottom line is with all this money now, there are basically about 20-25 teams that are on one playing field and then there is everyone else. Now I will state I am a free market kind of guy, but this is not what college athletics is supposed to be all about. The line between professional sports and amateur athletics is becoming more and more gray everyday.
  • thedynasty1998
    Little Danny;952757 wrote:I am sure the alumni, donors, players, coaches and employees of the majority of the universities who are not currently "safe" care about whether this is ethical or not. I also have to think even those who are currently "okay" are a bit nervous as well about what might potentially fall out as well.

    The bottom line is with all this money now, there are basically about 20-25 teams that are on one playing field and then there is everyone else. Now I will state I am a free market kind of guy, but this is not what college athletics is supposed to be all about. The line between professional sports and amateur athletics is becoming more and more gray everyday.
    When I said who cares if it's ethical, this is what I meant. It was poor wording, but I meant it doesn't matter if it's ethical. It's reality.

    ESPN is in bed with the NCAA as is CBS, NBC, FOX, Tostitos, All State, Nike, etc... This is all about money and ESPN has a vested interest in how things shake out.

    Honestly, with as much money as ESPN spends on college football, they should have a say. But that's because the NCAA has accepted them into bed for so long now.
  • HitsRus
    ESPN is in bed with the NCAA as is CBS, NBC, FOX, Tostitos, All State, Nike, etc... This is all about money and ESPN has a vested interest in how things shake out.
    Yeah....I've been talking about this for 6 months on this forum at least. Huge dollars are flowing to everyone but the guys who actually play the game.
    Welcome even if you are a bit late.

    And conference realignment? hahaha....more $$$$$$.


    Recently the NCAA approved an additional $2k a year to more accurately reflect "living expenses" for the players.....a little hush money to deflect the NCPA.


    Meanwhile most CFB and basketball fans think that kids should play for a free education while the talking heads at ESPN, the Universities, the sponsors, the networks....rake in hundreds of millions.
    Oh yes...it is all about money....and really, really cheap labor.

    This is NOT your grandfather's NCAA.
  • Sonofanump
    I have always thought that they need 3 levels of division 1.

    Level 1 will have B1G, SEC, ACC, B12, PAC and this composite of the better teams from the MWC/Big East/WAC.
    Level 2 will be MAC, CUSA, SUN, leftovers from the MWC/Big East/WAC.
    Level 3 will be the current 1aa/FCS minus the non scolly Pioneer, Patriot, Ivy etc...

    Let the non scolly D1 schools play in D3 football where they belong.
  • HitsRus
    but this is not what college athletics is supposed to be all about. The line between professional sports and amateur athletics is becoming more and more gray everyday.
    In all seriousness, it hasn't been 'clear' for a long time, despite the futile attempts by the NCAA to maintain the charade.
  • Pick6
    thedynasty1998;952710 wrote:Absolutely they have a say. Is it legal? Sure it is. Is it ethical? Who cares. ESPN has money and money makes the world go.
    glad to know you have morals
  • Little Danny
    Sonofanump;952887 wrote:I have always thought that they need 3 levels of division 1.

    Level 1 will have B1G, SEC, ACC, B12, PAC and this composite of the better teams from the MWC/Big East/WAC.
    Level 2 will be MAC, CUSA, SUN, leftovers from the MWC/Big East/WAC.
    Level 3 will be the current 1aa/FCS minus the non scolly Pioneer, Patriot, Ivy etc...

    Let the non scolly D1 schools play in D3 football where they belong.
    The problem with your system is that there are many schools in the B1G, ACC, Pac12, and SEC who deserve to be level 2 or 3 and some teams in level two who probably deserve in level 1.

    For example, I don't think Minnesota, Indiana, Duke, Wake, Washington State, Kansas and Vandy belong in level one. I might also make the case for Oregon State, Cal and Baylor also (they have been good this year but are historically bad). C-USA programs like East Carolina, UCF and Houston and Boise, AF in the Mountain West likely have an argument they should be included over those schools.

    Finally, the other flaw in your tiered system is that things are fluid. Different Teams get better over time and some teams get worse due to coaching hires/firings, probation, population shifts, academic missions and evolution of the game. For instance, if there was this system in place back in the early part of this 20th century, teams like Army, Navy, Harvard, Yale and Princeton would be included in the conversation.
  • lhslep134
    Little Danny;952939 wrote:
    Finally, the other flaw in your tiered system is that things are fluid. .
    This isn't a flaw if you have relegation. Have the bottom tier 1 schools and top tier 2 schools vying every (or every few) year(s) to be upgraded or downgraded based on various criteria.

    Not saying the tier system is the best, but relegation should solve the problem of fluidity.
  • thedynasty1998
    Little Danny;952939 wrote:The problem with your system is that there are many schools in the B1G, ACC, Pac12, and SEC who deserve to be level 2 or 3 and some teams in level two who probably deserve in level 1.

    For example, I don't think Minnesota, Indiana, Duke, Wake, Washington State, Kansas and Vandy belong in level one. I might also make the case for Oregon State, Cal and Baylor also (they have been good this year but are historically bad). C-USA programs like East Carolina, UCF and Houston and Boise, AF in the Mountain West likely have an argument they should be included over those schools.

    Finally, the other flaw in your tiered system is that things are fluid. Different Teams get better over time and some teams get worse due to coaching hires/firings, probation, population shifts, academic missions and evolution of the game. For instance, if there was this system in place back in the early part of this 20th century, teams like Army, Navy, Harvard, Yale and Princeton would be included in the conversation.
    That's the thing most don't understand. It's not about the talent level or competitiveness of said team, it's how many alums and fans will tune in to watch the games and buy merchandise. Minnesota has a bad football program, but a huge alumni base.
  • HitsRus
    ^^^ihslep....great! More government making arbitrary decisions.
  • Sonofanump
    Little Danny;952939 wrote:For example, I don't think Minnesota, Indiana, Duke, Wake, Washington State, Kansas and Vandy belong in level one. I might also make the case for Oregon State, Cal and Baylor.
    Disagree on all of those teams except maybe Vandy who brings nothing at the major sport level.

    Little Danny;952939 wrote:C-USA programs like East Carolina, UCF and Houston and Boise, AF in the Mountain West likely have an argument they should be included over those schools.


    Then they need to be part of the super conference like I stated above.
    Little Danny;952939 wrote:Finally, the other flaw in your tiered system is that things are fluid. Different Teams get better over time and some teams get worse due to coaching hires/firings, probation, population shifts, academic missions and evolution of the game. For instance, if there was this system in place back in the early part of this 20th century, teams like Army, Navy, Harvard, Yale and Princeton would be included in the conversation.


    You're talking about 70 years ago?
  • krambman
    I don't think that ESPN is THE force driving conference realignment, but I do think that the TV Networks that cover college football (ESPN, Fox, CBS, NBC), but especially ESPN, are definitely a major factor. Whether or not they are telling conferences which schools to choose, conferences are certainly considering, if not consulting with ESPN, about who they can add to increase TV revenue. You only expand if you can increase revenue for everyone involved.
  • HitsRus
    You're talking about 70 years ago?
    ... and yet we still hang on to the notion that top tier D1 is "amateur athletics". We expect the kids to play for the same thing or less they did 70 years ago, yet the administration of top tier college athletics is hardly amateur in nature. Its a big money game with everyone getting a payday but the players who have been subject to more and more restriction and regulation. Step outta line and you get a suspension.
    Recently the NCAA approved an additional $2K stipend to bring scholarships more in line with the "full cost of attendance". That is nothing more than a reinstatement of what full scholarship athletes got prior to 1972.

    Is ESPN the force?...Money is the force.
  • Sonofanump
    HitsRus;953102 wrote:...we still hang on to the notion that top tier D1 is "amateur athletics".
    Not this guy.
  • Little Danny
    thedynasty1998;953027 wrote:That's the thing most don't understand. It's not about the talent level or competitiveness of said team, it's how many alums and fans will tune in to watch the games and buy merchandise. Minnesota has a bad football program, but a huge alumni base.
    Here's where you might not understand-- certain schools like East Carolina and UCF outdraw more attendance than Minnesota, IU, Wake Forest, Duke and some other schools in power conferences. The Pirates play in front of 50K plus and are currently expanding their stadium. Ditto for UCF. Minnesota and IU on the other hand only draw those types of crowd when they play the better teams in the Big Ten. How many do you think showed up to watch them get their butt handed to them by South Dakota State?

    Speaking of attendance, the other thing that would have to be "regulated" (not that I necessarily agree to regulation as another poster suggested) is the fudging of numbers. I watched Pitt play UCONN the other night in front of no more than 15,000 people. The university released the attendance as 40K. Kentucky also had a game where they grossly exaggerated attendance. They claimed to have 54,000 in attendance when there was no way they had half that many people.
  • gorocks99
    Little Danny;953295 wrote:Here's where you might not understand-- certain schools like East Carolina and UCF outdraw more attendance than Minnesota, IU, Wake Forest, Duke and some other schools in power conferences. The Pirates play in front of 50K plus and are currently expanding their stadium. Ditto for UCF. Minnesota and IU on the other hand only draw those types of crowd when they play the better teams in the Big Ten. How many do you think showed up to watch them get their butt handed to them by South Dakota State?
    Minnesota is top 25 in football profit (middle of the B1G), and in 2010 drew 99.03% capacity to their stadium, and is the only major college football team in a state of 5.3 million people. Plus it is consistently one of the top 5 schools in terms of enrollment. There is a lot of money there, despite the team sucking.
  • queencitybuckeye
    Where one draws the line in terms of ethics can vary from person to person. I'm more curious where ESPN's possible involvement in the process would or could be illegal.
  • Little Danny
    gorocks99;953318 wrote:Minnesota is top 25 in football profit (middle of the B1G), and in 2010 drew 99.03% capacity to their stadium. Plus it is consistently one of the top 5 schools in terms of enrollment. There is a lot of money there, despite the team sucking.
    But, I would argue the university is not using the money wisely. Sure, they just built a new stadium, but they hired Jerry Kill from the MAC and are paying him $800K a year. They botched the terms of the contract and it was finalized up to about a week ago, but despite the fact Kill has health issues and the team has played as poorly as they have they signed him to a seven year deal. Why? Because he was cheap. Minnesota is collecting the 20M from the Big Ten Network and pocketing all the rest. Prior to Kill, they hired Tim Brewster also on the cheap. Aside from the Glenn Mason years where they were somewhat competitive (they still wear not that great, just competive) , they have done nothing in the modern era.

    Regarding their attendance, the point I tried to make before is their attendance is great because they are playing Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State, etc. People are turning out to see those games and those teams travel well. Don't you think most schools in the country could draw as well as Minny if they were playing that lineup? Schools like East Carolina bring in 50K plus playing against Conference USA teams. Imagine the turnout if the Buckeyes came into town. I am not impressed wth them selling near capacity (in the first year of their new stadium by the way).
  • gorocks99
    Second year of the new stadium, but that's beside the point. Not using the money wisely is certainly valid, and a reason why the leadership of the university should change but not a reason why the university shouldn't be considered a decent "get" in terms of conference (or in this case, division) affiliation. UCF is in a state with 6 other D-1 teams. ECU shares NC with 4 other D-1 teams.

    If the U of M didn't make a bunch of boneheaded decisions with regards to institutional support and staffing (which I won't argue they haven't) they would be a great "get" (see: top 15 basketball profits, top hockey profits) since they sit in a populous state and are the only major college show in town. UCF and ECU have made good decisions regarding their programs, and they are in good shape now, especially for lower-conference teams. But I'd argue their ceiling is much lower than a school like Minnesota's, in terms of what they could add to a conference or division.