(01-07-2020 01:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2020 12:56 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I think if CFB goes to a top heavy situation where the B1G & SEC make 30M more than every other league's teams, it will be the beginning of the decline of CFB. You can't have 2 leagues making that much more than everyone else and not destroy the overall national viewership of the sport. The NFL will continue to take more and more fans, as CFB will just become more niche and goofy with the way they pick and choose a 4 team playoff field out of 65 teams and continue to run their post-season exhibition season. I know this has already made me lose a lot of interest in watching the sport outside of the two teams in my state and I have no desire to watch exhibition bowls whatsoever and very limited interest in the playoffs. I use to watch the sport all day long, now I realize how engineered the outcome is and I liken to watching it to WWE

I think CFB will be better served if they look at the makeup of the sport strategically for the long run not one more huge 7-8 year contract.

The sport would be a lot smarter to realign into 4 leagues and negotiate the tv contract as one.

You use the world league. We don't have leagues, we have conferences. The issue with college football is demographic. There is one region of the country where most high school boys still try to play the sport, the Southeast. It is why there are more recruits in the Southeast and why (including Clemson and Florida State) a Southeast Team has won all but 1 CFP and most of the last 10 BCS games before that.

Popularity of college football on the Pacific coast is the lowest anywhere. Upper middle class people in along the Eastern seaboard and in the Northern Midwest don't encourage their kids to play. Look at the key recruits on Ohio State, Michigan, and even Minnesota's roster this year and you will see many of them came from the South.

I agree about TV contracts and collective bargaining, but if they are creating a Big 10 and SEC which will be 30 million ahead of everyone else it's because they are trying to save the national appeal of the game. How? By actually creating a league, actually two leagues. The monetary difference would be the lure for the top programs in the PAC and ACC to merge with those two conferences to form leagues.

Get your top 64 schools into two leagues of 4 school divisions each and you have a natural way to play the champion off without polls and committees.

And while what you say about the NFL is true, it is not true in the Southeast. In the Southeast College football is king and that is why the SEC is worth so much money. If advertisers want to reach sports fans in the Southeast College Football is the best way to reach them.

There might not be one Power College football league but you have one CFB Power Conference level sport. I am well aware of where the recruits come from as I have looked over Rivals state ratings and know the descrepancy between the South and northern midwest. I think recruiting is a reason that some miss for adding Rutgers & Maryland to the B1G. Those are now the 2nd & 3rd best recruiting areas in the conference footprint. I don't think there is any coincidence in those additions and PSU improving and having monster ratings game again.

I know where the recruits are coming from and where participation rates are falling among high school students. But you also need those viewers from those areas and if you make CFB two conferences that dominate everyone else financially and from a competitive standpoint your going to lose overall viewers.

I think if you eliminate too many teams you will lose viewers also.

I may be in the minority but the sport needs to figure out a way to have 64-72 teams and have balanced leagues financially and competitively. Otherwise I think the NFL is just going to gain more viewers.