Who is most responsible for college football being so screwed up?

Who is most responsible for college football being so screwed up?

  • SCOTUS

    Votes: 5 2.5%
  • NCAA

    Votes: 72 35.8%
  • ESPN

    Votes: 70 34.8%
  • Big10

    Votes: 5 2.5%
  • SEC

    Votes: 15 7.5%
  • ACC

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • FSU

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Texas + Oklahoma

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • USCw + UCLA

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Stingtalk

    Votes: 13 6.5%
  • Vad Lee

    Votes: 19 9.5%
  • other

    Votes: 2 1.0%

  • Total voters
    201
  • Poll closed .
We the fans are responsible. We keep consuming regardless of the product or culture and motives of the power brokers capable of defining and redefining the product. As long as it is profitable and the trajectory supports their desired results it will evolve to that end and only that end and the voting weight of the consumer will ONLY be recognized when we stop, in meaningful numbers , attending, watching, buying gear and stop donating. Even then it is likely that the damage is done and there is not a large enough replacement population of the hard core fan with nostalgic love of college game. I suspect the business model will become much more focused as a niche ( but large niche) tied more contractually to the NFL. Is this bad or wrong? Not saying that all. Time will tell. Football has a following. No arguing that. Just saying the eyeballs and wallets of the fans have the power. So far it appears not enough have bailed to slow down this train?
 
We the fans are responsible. We keep consuming regardless of the product or culture and motives of the power brokers capable of defining and redefining the product. As long as it is profitable and the trajectory supports their desired results it will evolve to that end and only that end and the voting weight of the consumer will ONLY be recognized when we stop, in meaningful numbers , attending, watching, buying gear and stop donating. Even then it is likely that the damage is done and there is not a large enough replacement population of the hard core fan with nostalgic love of college game. I suspect the business model will become much more focused as a niche ( but large niche) tied more contractually to the NFL. Is this bad or wrong? Not saying that all. Time will tell. Football has a following. No arguing that. Just saying the eyeballs and wallets of the fans have the power. So far it appears not enough have bailed to slow down this train?
It’s coming however. It might take a big slowdown or depression to cause it.
I am supporting GT as we find our way through the maze but I’m also pulling away from watching. I hope for the best for GT but am a realis. We are now very strong at just the wrong time.
 
Does ESPN pay the ACC the same amount they pay the SEC? If not they’re slanting the playing field.
So how is it ESPN’s fault? Oh you mean because of the golden GOR all the ACC signed in 2013 until 2036? So where is the “slanting the playing field” again? Nice rebuttal against facts.

What incentive does ESPN have to give the ACC more $$$ when they don’t have to? ESPN is laughing at that dinosaur contract that was signed by the ACC, while the B1G and sec will again be up for negotiations for more $$$ before 2036.
 
The Big10 should have made Michigan forfeit games due to Har-bum's sign stealing scandal.
NIL/portal/expansion have all done more damage than good.level playing field is unlikely if even possible.
Big10 contributed geographically grabbing Md/Rutgers then USCw/UCLA.
I hope for TSA travel delays so bad that Big10 SA's quit en masse causing cancellations in various sports.
i'm hoping for cheater Har-bum and his crappy conference to lose in natty.
maybe if TV starts losing money something will change but i won't be holding my breath.
 
The Big10 should have made Michigan forfeit games due to Har-bum's sign stealing scandal.
Big10 contributed geographically grabbing Md/Rutgers then USCw/UCLA.
1. How did the UM sign stealing thing look against PSU, tOSU and Alabama? Every single team cheats. As the saying goes, if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying.

2. Oh but the ACC raiding and destroying the Big East as a P6 conference at the time by adding Syracuse, BC, Miami (all geographically far) from most schools was OK? VT, Pitt, and maybe Louisville were the only geographic fits for the regional ACC fit or the core ACC before expansion I and expansion II. The ACC started this whole expansion nonsense (which continually gets ignored) mainly because for the most part the additions have not done much football wise (outside of VT under Beamer).
 
So how is it ESPN’s fault? Oh you mean because of the golden GOR all the ACC signed in 2013 until 2036? So where is the “slanting the playing field” again? Nice rebuttal against facts.

What incentive does ESPN have to give the ACC more $$$ when they don’t have to? ESPN is laughing at that dinosaur contract that was signed by the ACC, while the B1G and sec will again be up for negotiations for more $$$ before 2036.
I didn’t say it was ESPN’s fault. I didn’t say the ACC didn’t screw up. I said if ESPN doesn’t pay every school the same amount they are slanting the playing field. And I’m correct.
 
I didn’t say it was ESPN’s fault. I didn’t say the ACC didn’t screw up. I said if ESPN doesn’t pay every school the same amount they are slanting the playing field. And I’m correct.
So by that logic the ACC and ACC alone is “slanting the playing field“ in the wrong direction, which is why the inevitable is going to happen before 2036 when FSU leaves.

There is absolutely no reason ESPN should pay each ACC, B12, etc program the same amount when the contract in place says otherwise.
 
So by that logic the ACC and ACC alone is “slanting the playing field“ in the wrong direction, which is why the inevitable is going to happen before 2036 when FSU leaves.

There is absolutely no reason ESPN should pay each ACC, B12, etc program the same amount when the contract in place says otherwise.
No. ESPN is an equal participant. I understand why they pay different schools different amounts, but the outcome is that they are slanting the playing field.
 
No. ESPN is an equal participant. I understand why they pay different schools different amounts, but the outcome is that they are slanting the playing field.
The issue isn't that they pay teams different amounts. The issue is that because they invested more money in some teams than others, they use their platform to ensure the teams they spent more on give more of a return by making them seem more attractive to watch, which then has a knock on effect of slanting the playing field.

Example from earlier in the year on ESPN shenanigans https://stingtalk.com/board/threads/espn-actively-trying-to-devalue-the-acc.115136/
tweet got deleted but is just a reminder this happened.
 
The issue isn't that they pay teams different amounts. The issue is that because they invested more money in some teams than others, they use their platform to ensure the teams they spent more on give more of a return by making them seem more attractive to watch, which then has a knock on effect of slanting the playing field.
I agree, but even if they treated every school the same otherwise, giving different amounts of money still tilts the field.
 
No. ESPN is an equal participant. I understand why they pay different schools different amounts, but the outcome is that they are slanting the playing field.
The PAC conference slanted the table so much that they all fell off except for Washington State and Oregon State.
 
the voting weight of the consumer will ONLY be recognized when we stop, in meaningful numbers , attending, watching, buying gear and stop donating.

Of course you are right in what you said, but do you really believe the Bama and Dawg fans (and all other elite teams) will stop doing these things?

The problem is that in the current system the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

If this thing is going to be run like a professional sport then there needs to be a draft, and there needs to be contracts. College teams have neither, and allows a concentration of talent in the hands of the few, and prevents teams from developing depth due to the transfer at will.

The excuse given for this in the past has always been that they are amateurs and aren't being paid. Well that is no longer true, so bring on the draft and bring on contracts of at least 2 years for those being drafted.
 
CFB isn't that screwed up. These past 10ish years was its nadir b/c ESPN had a major influence over the sport, but it's about to change trajectory ... actually, I think it's already begun. Why? The expanded CFP and the portal/NIL. Hear me out ...

First, let's address the bowl-to-playoff transition and how it's an improvement. ESPN had immense influence/control in the bowl-based system because bowl placement is largely perception-based. ESPN owns the TV CFB market, so they were practically THE source of opinions on CFB. Now, ESPN will only have influence over the seeding in the CFP, which isn't nearly as much control as before. I think most fans realize this, hence nearly everyone supports a playoff and its expansion (other than maybe the major programs like Bama, Ohio St., UGA, etc.).

Next, the portal should, in theory, erode the concentration of power being held at a few major programs/conferences. Pre-portal, it was all about HS recruiting b/c it was harder to transfer. Enter ESPN's influence. As a high schooler, your perception is strongly influenced by ESPN (sure, friends/family have a say, too ... but they're also influenced by ESPN). Compare that to a portal player who is arguably less influenced by ESPN because they have personal, real experience playing at the college level. Do the math, and since a large portion of your players are coming through the portal and portal players are arguably less influenced by ESPN than HS players, then ESPN has less influence in the portal world. This is good for CFB.

Lastly, I know the arguments against the portal. Less loyalty and stability. I agree. That's a cost. Look at Florida State. But when you look at the traditions that make CFB special, most of them are being carried by the other members of the student body - the band, the dance teams, the cheerleaders, the mascots. Then you have the campus and the stadiums. The pageantry will live one. Once CFB fixes the post-season to become more compatible with the portal (i.e. moving away from bowls and towards tournaments - plural for a reason), I think we'll have a much better CFB than we've had in decades.
 
SCOTUS could have helped save the NCAA from itself had they not voted like the nine myopic öööös that they truly are. None of this:shtstir:had to happen.
 
This country needs Jesus...

Lack of faith -> moral relativism -> lack of morals -> greed -> "ends justify the means" -> "me first" attitudes -> lack of perspective that the schools provide a platform -> NIL lawsuit -> loss of amateurism -> maximization of individual value -> transfer portal chaos
 
The NFL realized at some point that the value of the league was maximized by increasing parity (outliers excepted).

The people who control college football are too stupid to figure that out. Classic case of killing the golden goose with short-sighted greed.
I’m not convinced that parity should be the goal for CFB. Underdog stories are one of the best parts of college sports, and outside of GT football, big upsets are the most intriguing thing out there. You just don’t get that in pro sports.

This probably won’t be a popular idea, but I see European soccer is a much better model for what CFB could be if we do go the capitalist route. Since the Premier League was formed in 1992, only 7 teams have won it, and only 4 teams have won it more than once. It’s still the most popular league in the world. IMO one of the biggest reasons for this is that winning the league is not the only goal. Not only are there multiple opportunities to win trophies, promotion/relegation keeps things interesting for everyone until the end, and gives smaller markets a chance to jump up and play with the big boys.

Conference titles and bowl games used to serve a similar purpose for CFB, but now we’ve severely devalued both. College football has always been about the haves and have nots, but winning the national championship wasn’t the end-all-be-all in terms of being the only goal. Teams celebrated winning conference championships or getting the opportunity to play bowl games. Now no one seems to care much about either.
 
Seriously, you convinced me. I could follow a relegation model, since everybody's roster more or less completely turns over make it so 2 or 3 good/bad years are required for a move. Maybe that is how it works, don't follow soccer.
 
Don't want to seem to obvious but I'd have to say it was the f√¢k ups that screwed it up the most.
 
Back
Top