BullShirt

McNeese State got $500,000 to play at Florida. Ball State got $1.6 Million to play at Georgia and another $1.6 Million to play at Kentucky the week before so the SEC appears to be willing to write some pretty big checks for some “one and done” games. I presume the BiG, ACC, etc. would also be willing to write some pretty big checks for a 1 and done game.

Remember, nothing this big, this complicated and with this much money at stake ever goes as planned. Too many schools, too many egos, too much money, too many corporate entities (Network, Cable, Streaming, etc.) too many fiefdoms, too many unforeseen / unplanned for results and on and on and on. In other words TOO MANY MOVING PARTS. For example, there are only 64 teams in March Madness (forget the play ins). Most people's brackets are busted after the first weekend. And that's with a lot of high seed versus low seed games that should be "gimmes". And yet, after just 1 or 2 games some big teams inevitably fall (I'm looking at you Purdue). Conference realignment is so much bigger than that. I just don't see how it turns out the way most people expect. I guess we'll see in a few years. Remember, the pendulum swings both ways.

Yes, I'm sure it has been updated several times as any textbook should be that is related to an industry or business that continues to grow and evolve. But I slightly disagree with "football is the driving force of realignment". TV $$$ is the driving force. When that comes crashing down (and by many accounts it will) things will change dramatically all over again. The whole big money, long term TV contract, over the air, cable, streaming, etc. business is being turned on it's ear and right now BIG $ is being thrown at a few conferences and everyone wants a piece of the action for fear of being left behind and left with nothing. IN MY OPINION in a few years football will still be around but there are going to be some big winners and some big losers financially and the current model will prove to be unsustainable. At that point I think you'll see some "de-consolidation" in the big 2 or 3 conferences as people start saying "what were we thinking". And since football will still be king you can't say football will be driving them apart, it will be less revenue and the higher expenses incurred by many of these programs. I'm not blazing any new trails here I'm just parroting what some of my contacts in sports and media are saying. The "slash and burn" destruction of conferences along with the big money is not sustainable. We'll see.

I do think it makes a difference. Back when I played there were "old timers" stopping by now and then and it was really cool and inspirational to hear some of their stories. A long, deep rooted history is probably more important than most people realize.

Oh yeah. No doubt things have changed since the days of the "leather heads". But it's a pretty interesting backstory to college football. The NFL has a really interesting backstory too. Pete Rozelle made the league what it is today. He ran the league from 1960 to 1990 if I recall correctly. But I digress. A good or great on campus experience is hard to beat but I do wonder how many schools would choose to play in an NFL caliber stadium if they could (forget the revenue sharing and financial aspects). Obviously most can't because they are not close to one.

And please don't overlook the "A good AD" part. It's vital.

You may be right but "momentum" and "positioning" have more influence than you might suspect. A good AD can sell a program that's on an upswing as evidenced by recent success and the (then) current position in the polls. I actually don't think you'd replace anyone that got "called up" inasmuch as I think USF & UCF would have been viewed as a "2fer". The Florida market has value and in the current climate the deeper the Big "whatever" could sink their teeth into the Florida market the better.

"College football is meant to be played on campus". Not originally. In fact, in the early days of college football a lot of teams were fielded with non-students. The Economics of Sports by Leeds & Allman (college textbook, not intended for casual reading) goes into this. Some fascinating info. Football was considered an extra curricular activity and frowned upon by many colleges because it took away from other "more worthy" (mainly Olympic sports) activities. Hence a lot of teams played off campus. Believe it or not players moved from school to school (sound familiar?) just to play sports (mainly football) and many never even bothered to enroll in classes. This is one of the things that led to the creation of the NCAA (in a roundabout way). If you can find a used version it's a great read if you're into economics, finances & sports. As just a "sports" book it's pretty dry though. Lot's of math and numbers but some cool "back stories" none the less. Someone with an Economics and/or Finance background would find it pretty "spicy". Someone just interested in some sports history and/or stories will find it painfully boring. Even though in most people's opinions football players are just "dumb jocks" I'm in the former category. I always liked long travel away games as it gave me time to study.

Sorry to disagree but "being #2 in the Nation didn't get it done" 10+ years ago when there wasn't a major seismic shift going on in the big money big conference landscape doesn't cut it. No one outside of USF remembers that. It's too long ago. If USF was having that kind of success last year or the year before and was ranked #2, USF would NOT be in the AAC right now. Also, you presume Other People don't mind spending their Money but you don't even know who those Other People are. Nobody knows. I'm not talking about the banks that might LOAN the money or bonds that might be floated to RAISE the money. Ultimately someone has to pay the piper. If the projected revenue to service the debt does not materialize (and it frequently does not) then the money will have to come from somewhere, usually fees and surcharges.

I never ventured anywhere near the subject of giving or stepping up giving so I'm not sure where that's coming from. You brought up your donations in a reply to one of my previous posts so I replied back what I thought you would take (and was intended as) a compliment.

Good for you (and I mean that sincerely). It's a very rare person that is influenced more by their donations than by their job. The fear of losing one's job has influenced many a person to say and/or do things that they otherwise would never have done.

True and I admit that. Anything that presumes future events is based on "might". The difference is I'm not advocating spending $300 million of Other People's Money on an OCS that apparently won't be good enough / big enough to attract big time opponents on the off chance that it "Might" change in the future. The only thing that would make that change is if USF starts winning and winning BIG. If / when that starts happening the big time programs will sit up and take notice and want to take their shot at USF. And if / when that happens what comes next? A bigger program takes a run at hiring Goach away from USF because the school spent all their money on an OCS and doesn't have the $$$ to keep him. And yes, that's based on a MIGHT too but it's a very positive might and doesn't require USF to back itself into a $300 Million corner financially.

I presume you are referring to my reply to John. As I stated, my intent was not to be "mean" to John but as an employee of USF (athletics no less) he knows on which side his bread is buttered so I think that influences his opinions on things.

Exactly! If USF gets "knee deep in debt" there may not be enough money left over to try and keep him.

Does anyone confuse Michigan with Michigan State? What about Florida with Florida State? How about North Carolina with North Carolina State? Win. Win Convincingly. Win Often. Do that and NO ONE will confuse USF with UCF. NO ONE! I feel your pain on that one Brother. Trust me.