RIP College Football

[05_never_again]

I can't like this enough. This look back with nostalgia glasses is laughable and not even remotely accurate. As you said, it's always been about 5-6 that dominated at any given time. Yeah those teams rotated...some...but it really was no different. This is basically a bunch of feelings (funny considering the types doing most of the complaining about this). Some of you guys are like kids finding out Santa isn't real and you want to go back to believing that instead of just accepting what's been true all along.

There is actually way more parity today than there was in 1970 (just a year picked out of thin air), but there is no convincing some folks of that.

It is also interesting to me that in this era of "no parity" that Clemson has become a juggernaut, and it isn't like they had periods in their history of dominance. Probably 90% of the history that program is known for has occurred within the last 5-6 years.

 

[Zues1]

That's going to take a while since there are many Native American nations.

Yep, let's play everyone of them.
We wouldn't want leave anyone out.

 

[Devo182]

So, killing the golden goose results in even more money?

Weird.

No. Consolidation of some money. Killing off the rest. This is stupid. Like taking the NFL and only having the biggest of big markets. More money PER team, but far less money and engagement across the nation.

Shortsighted greed.

 

[Devo182]

There is actually way more parity today than there was in 1970 (just a year picked out of thin air), but there is no convincing some folks of that.

It is also interesting to me that in this era of "no parity" that Clemson has become a juggernaut, and it isn't like they had periods in their history of dominance. Probably 90% of the history that program is known for has occurred within the last 5-6 years.

Completely false. Just go back and see how many times each conference was won by various teams. I won't hold my breath, but I'll just give you the answer - there is far less parity now than ever before.

 

[05_never_again]

Completely false. Just go back and see how many times each conference was won by various teams. I won't hold my breath, but I'll just give you the answer - there is far less parity now than ever before.

From 1968 until 1982, the Big Ten was won (or co-won) by Michigan or Ohio St every year. Alabama won 9 of 11 SEC titles from 1971 to 1981. Florida State won (or co-won) the ACC 12 times in 14 years between 1992 and 2005. Barry Switzer won the Big 8 title 12 times in 16 seasons while at Oklahoma; that's more often than Saban has won the SEC while at Alabama.

There isn't much parity now. There wasn't much parity then. College football has never been a sport where parity has prevailed.

 

[Devo182]

From 1968 until 1982, the Big Ten was won (or co-won) by Michigan or Ohio St every year. Alabama won 9 of 11 SEC titles from 1971 to 1981. Florida State won (or co-won) the ACC 12 times in 14 years between 1992 and 2005. Barry Switzer won the Big 8 title 12 times in 16 seasons while at Oklahoma; that's more often than Saban has won the SEC while at Alabama.

There isn't much parity now. There wasn't much parity then. College football has never been a sport where parity has prevailed.

Look broader. Look from 92-2006 then 2006-2000. It has gotten much worse.

 

[05_never_again]

Look broader. Look from 92-2006 then 2006-2000. It has gotten much worse.

That's pretty freaking broad. I hit 5 different conferences over a period of 37 years (1968 to 2005) that covers most of the modern era of the sport.

Is the parity today greater, lesser, or the same as those periods I cited? Before you reflexively answer "lesser," remember either Ohio St or Michigan won the Big Ten 100% of the time from the late 60s until the early 80s. That'd be like Alabama or LSU winning every single SEC title from 2006 to 2020. Alabama won 82% of the SEC titles from 1971 to 1981. Florida St won 86% of the ACC titles over a 14 year period.

Since Saban has arrived at Alabama, he has won the SEC "only" 50% of the time (7 times in 14 seasons). 5 different SEC schools have won it (LSU, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Alabama). Is there a lot of parity in the sport? No, but there never really has been.

Again, and I think I've asked this a bunch of times...point me to a time in history where the sport was "wide open" and dozens of schools had a chance to win a national title every year.

 

[PA Vol]

Yeah, because the days of National Champions being determined by the Polls and then BCS computers were so much better than today’s game...
College football is getting better, not worse.

For a select few teams.

Do you really think adding Texas, OU, and potentially OSU and Clemson is going to be good for Tennessee? Hell, we won’t even be able to throw the “well at least we are in the SEC” recruiting pitch around.

For a casual CFB fan this could be fun, but this format only benefits the already successful programs.

 

[rjd970]

For as long as they have been playing college football, at any given time about 6 (or less) schools dominate the sport.

Now, the handful of schools that dominate changes over time, but many schools that we all know have had multiple periods of dominance.

I don't know where this notion is coming from that "back in the day" the sport was wide open and any number of schools could win a title, and now within the last 10 years Alabama and a few others control everything. College football has never, ever, been that way. NIL and the other modern changes perpetuate the way the sport has basically always been in terms of the number of dominant teams.

I still say the "back in the day" systems made the possibility of other teams stepping up and winning higher than it is today. With the old bowl system you never really knew what it was going to look like at the end of the year. Sure, their were favorites and teams going on dominant runs, and the Boise State's of the world never had a chance in any system. But I really think this current playoff system and where everything is heading will further solidify that the days of cycling are over. It is the Bama's and OSU's from here out and the days of FSU, Miami, and Michigan's having the possibility of cycling back to the top are over.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but pointing to the past as evidence of what will happen in the future, given the future is nothing like the past isn't as iron clad an argument as you would suggest.

 

[OrangeEtBlanc]

For a select few teams.

Do you really think adding Texas, OU, and potentially OSU and Clemson is going to be good for Tennessee? Hell, we won’t even be able to throw the “well at least we are in the SEC” recruiting pitch around.

For a casual CFB fan this could be fun, but this format only benefits the already successful programs.

We are a successful program. We make 100s of millions of dollars a year, we have millions of fans, we pack-out a 100,000-seat stadium.

We are in a down swing, but we are not a destroyed program.

If we avoid playing all three of Bama, Florida, Georgia every year, realignment would benefit us tremendously.

 

[rjd970]

We are a successful program. We make 100s of millions of dollars a year, we have millions of fans, we pack-out a 100,000-seat stadium.

We are in a down swing, but we are not a destroyed program.

If we avoid playing all three of Bama, Florida, Georgia every year, realignment would benefit us tremendously.

We are not just in a downswing, we are in a historic downswing. We have never been this bad for this long.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

We are a successful program. We make 100s of millions of dollars a year, we have millions of fans, we pack-out a 100,000-seat stadium.

No, no we do not. Why even bother typing something so blatantly wrong?

"Tennessee attributed its {2020} operating deficit of $488,857, in part, to pandemic-induced revenue reductions, while noting that the financial loss was not as great as it initially expected." - Knox News

Not only did we not make "hundreds of millions" we lost money in fiscal 2020. Don't think 2020 is a good measuring stick? That's fair.

"Tennessee reported $140.3 million in revenue, a 2.4% decrease from the previous fiscal year. Notably, UT’s NCAA distribution revenue dropped from $2.9 million during the 2019 fiscal year to $737,623 during the 2020 fiscal year." - Knox News

So only a 2.4% decrease in revenue means we didn't even eclipse $150mil in revenue for 2019. It is extremely difficult to make "100s" off of $150 million, but let's check on Tennessee's profits for 2019 on that roughly $150 million in revenue.

"Tennessee’s finish in the red comes after the Vols reported a $789,730 operating surplus for the 2019 fiscal year." - Knox News

Stop just making crap up and shouting it like it is a fact.

 

[OrangeEtBlanc]

No, no we do not. Why even bother typing something so blatantly wrong?

"Tennessee attributed its {2020} operating deficit of $488,857, in part, to pandemic-induced revenue reductions, while noting that the financial loss was not as great as it initially expected." - Knox News

Not only did we not make "hundreds of millions" we lost money in fiscal 2020. Don't think 2020 is a good measuring stick? That's fair.

"Tennessee reported $140.3 million in revenue, a 2.4% decrease from the previous fiscal year. Notably, UT’s NCAA distribution revenue dropped from $2.9 million during the 2019 fiscal year to $737,623 during the 2020 fiscal year." - Knox News

So only a 2.4% decrease in revenue means we didn't even eclipse $150mil in revenue for 2019. It is extremely difficult to make "100s" off of $150 million, but let's check on Tennessee's profits for 2019 on that roughly $150 million in revenue.

"Tennessee’s finish in the red comes after the Vols reported a $789,730 operating surplus for the 2019 fiscal year." - Knox News

Stop just making crap up and shouting it like it is a fact.

Is $150 million not “100s of millions”? By very definition, it is. In fact, it’s 150 of them.

Texas & Oklahoma are coming. So, should we just throw in the towel?

That seems to be the mindset of some.

 

[05_never_again]

I still say the "back in the day" systems made the possibility of other teams stepping up and winning higher than it is today. With the old bowl system you never really knew what it was going to look like at the end of the year. Sure, their were favorites and teams going on dominant runs, and the Boise State's of the world never had a chance in any system. But I really think this current playoff system and where everything is heading will further solidify that the days of cycling are over. It is the Bama's and OSU's from here out and the days of FSU, Miami, and Michigan's having the possibility of cycling back to the top are over.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but pointing to the past as evidence of what will happen in the future, given the future is nothing like the past isn't as iron clad an argument as you would suggest.

The future is never anything like the past. Things are always changing.

In 2014, if you said "Clemson's possibility of cycling into the top is zero; it's too hard to get there now and they don't have a history of being there in the past" I probably would have believed you. Yet here they are. UCF has kind of supplanted Boise St as the emergent mid-major (although Boise is still a pretty good program), so there is even some cycling that goes on at that level.

I think Tennessee fans fixate on this argument primarily because of a frustration with Alabama's dominance. Let's be real - we don't care that Ohio St dominates the Big Ten or Oklahoma dominates the Big 12. What we really don't like is Alabama's dominance of the SEC (and therefore the sport, because the SEC is the premier conference). Alabama is incredibly dominant, but they have been dominant before. This is not a new phenomenon. Like I was citing above, there was a period they had under Bryant where they won the SEC 9 times in an 11 year period. Not even Saban has won the SEC that frequently. It's the reason why there are things like scholarship limits today.

I'm sorry, but I think this argument is based on a nostalgia for the past (when there was even less parity than today, ironically enough) and doesn't really hold up if you look at the history of college football.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Is $150 million not “100s of millions”? By very definition, it is. In fact, it’s 150 of them.

Texas & Oklahoma are coming. So, should we just throw in the towel?

That seems to be the mindset of some.

That's revenue, not profit. I didn't say anything about throwing in the towel. I merely said your statement about UT's profitability is ludicrous.

 

[05_never_again]

That's revenue, not profit. I didn't say anything about throwing in the towel. I merely said your statement about UT's profitability is ludicrous.

To his point though, it is unbelievable to me how football has been a black hole on the field for almost 15 years yet our athletic department revenue is still 16th nationally, and according to Forbes is the 12th most valuable program, ahead of schools like Penn St and just fractionally behind much more successful programs like LSU and Florida. Check the bar chart - Tennessee's 3-year average profit number is just $2m less than Alabama's.

College Football’s Most Valuable Teams: Reigning Champion Clemson Tigers Claw Into Top 25

 

[OrangeEtBlanc]

That's revenue, not profit. I didn't say anything about throwing in the towel. I merely said your statement about UT's profitability is ludicrous.

Don’t remember saying that we made a profit of 100s of millions of dollar a year.

I said: “We are a successful program. We make 100s of millions of dollars a year, we have millions of fans, we pack-out a 100,000-seat stadium.”

You just made my point that we do, indeed, make $150 million of revenue a year.

Nothing I said was incorrect. You are picking a fight in order to win some negativity contest.

We are still a top college football program even though we haven’t seen it on the field in some years.

 

[05_never_again]

Don’t remember saying that we made a profit of 100s of millions of dollar a year.

I said: “We are a successful program. We make 100s of millions of dollars a year, we have millions of fans, we pack-out a 100,000-seat stadium.”

You just made my point that we do, indeed, make $150 million of revenue a year.

Nothing I said was incorrect. You are picking a fight in order to win some negativity contest.

We are still a top college football program even though we haven’t seen it on the field in some years.

Usually the phrase "make" implies profit (i.e., revenue minus expenses).

Tennessee's program brings in hundreds of millions per year. It doesn't not make hundreds of millions per year. No college program does.

To your point - Tennessee's program brings in a lot of revenue, particularly when you consider how bad the cash cow (football) has been for an extended period of time. Tennessee's program is also quite profitable, especially relative to the revenue that it brings in.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

Don’t remember saying that we made a profit of 100s of millions of dollar a year.

I said: “We are a successful program. We make 100s of millions of dollars a year, we have millions of fans, we pack-out a 100,000-seat stadium.”

You just made my point that we do, indeed, make $150 million of revenue a year.

Nothing I said was incorrect. You are picking a fight in order to win some negativity contest.

We are still a top college football program even though we haven’t seen it on the field in some years.

Anyone who says "makes" and means revenue and not profit is an utterly clueless individual. Tennessee does not make anywhere near $150 mil per year.

 

[Probably_in_Class]

To his point though, it is unbelievable to me how football has been a black hole on the field for almost 15 years yet our athletic department revenue is still 16th nationally, and according to Forbes is the 12th most valuable program, ahead of schools like Penn St and just fractionally behind much more successful programs like LSU and Florida. Check the bar chart - Tennessee's 3-year average profit number is just $2m less than Alabama's.

College Football’s Most Valuable Teams: Reigning Champion Clemson Tigers Claw Into Top 25

SEC money helps with that A LOT. TV money, revenue sharing from bowls, etc. We'd be even more profitable over the last few years if we weren't constantly accumulating buyouts.

 

[rjd970]

The future is never anything like the past. Things are always changing.

In 2014, if you said "Clemson's possibility of cycling into the top is zero; it's too hard to get there now and they don't have a history of being there in the past" I probably would have believed you. Yet here they are. UCF has kind of supplanted Boise St as the emergent mid-major (although Boise is still a pretty good program), so there is even some cycling that goes on at that level.

I think Tennessee fans fixate on this argument primarily because of a frustration with Alabama's dominance. Let's be real - we don't care that Ohio St dominates the Big Ten or Oklahoma dominates the Big 12. What we really don't like is Alabama's dominance of the SEC (and therefore the sport, because the SEC is the premier conference). Alabama is incredibly dominant, but they have been dominant before. This is not a new phenomenon. Like I was citing above, there was a period they had under Bryant where they won the SEC 9 times in an 11 year period. Not even Saban has won the SEC that frequently. It's the reason why there are things like scholarship limits today.

I'm sorry, but I think this argument is based on a nostalgia for the past (when there was even less parity than today, ironically enough) and doesn't really hold up if you look at the history of college football.

Look at your first and last statements.

And in 2014 if you told me there was going to be a legitimate playoff system and we would move to super-conferences and players could be legally paid, I wouldn't have believed you.

Is there frustration with Bama? Of course. There also is with OSU, to me anyway. Same with OK. But what does that have to do with the position that the current landscape of college football makes it far less likely for team to cycle back to the top? Hell, for all we know with the way things are going not even the Kansas's and OKSUs and mid-level conference teams will even be on the radar of a championship possibilities. It is very likely they get left out of the super-conference sweepstakes. The top is getting smaller and smaller and the big dawgs are getting richer and richer. That is a FACT. I'm not saying that is bad or good, what I'm saying is that any parity that existed 50 years ago to today is eroding and will likely be completely gone in the near future. The teams that cycled to the top in the current landscape timed it just right.

And that makes it less and less likely anything will change that decreases their current stranglehold. And pointing to the past and Bear Bryant and what happened since 1968 is completely irrelevant to what is happening now and in the future.

 

[05_never_again]

Look at your first and last statements.

And in 2014 if you told me there was going to be a legitimate playoff system and we would move to super-conferences and players could be legally paid, I wouldn't have believed you.

Is there frustration with Bama? Of course. There also is with OSU, to me anyway. Same with OK. But what does that have to do with the position that the current landscape of college football makes it far less likely for team to cycle back to the top? Hell, for all we know with the way things are going not even the Kansas's and OSUs and mid-level conference teams will even be on the radar of a championship possibilities. The top is getting smaller and smaller and the big dawgs are getting richer and richer. That is a FACT. I'm not saying that is bad or good, what I'm saying is that any parity that existed 50 years ago to today is eroding and will likely be completely gone in the near future. The teams that cycled to the top in the current landscape timed it just right.

And that makes it less and less likely anything will change that decreases their current stranglehold. And pointing to the past and Bear Bryant and what happened since 1968 is completely irrelevant to what is happening now and in the future.

What existed 50 years ago, that does not today, that isn't allowing a program like, say, Illinois football to cycle to the top?

When you make this argument, you speak in generalities or say things that have always been true, like "the rich are getting richer." What Alabama did 50 years ago is absolutely relevant because you keep pointing to Alabama/Ohio St/Oklahoma's contemporary dominance like it is unprecedented. I keep trying to point out that it isn't, but it's like speaking to a brick wall.

 

[OrangeEtBlanc]

Anyone who says "makes" and means revenue and not profit is an utterly clueless individual. Tennessee does not make anywhere near $150 mil per year.

What is your problem, friend? Does it make you feel good to literally insult some random poster on a message board over a minor quibble of details? I didn’t know that I needed to qualify my statements so precisely to fit what you feel I should have said. Get over yourself.

The clueless one is the fool who attacks someone for no reason.

You can keep your low view of UT football. I, however, shall keep the view that UT football is still a historical power in a down slump.

 

[rjd970]

What existed 50 years ago, that does not today, that isn't allowing a program like, say, Illinois football to cycle to the top?

The correct question to ask is what exists today that DIDN'T exist 50 years ago that isn't allowing a program like Illinois to cycle to the top. The answer to that question is things like TV revenue, BCS, playoff, and now we have the possibility of super-conferences where teams like Illinois, if they aren't a charter member of the conference sucking in other teams could very well be left out and it is now legitimately impossible for them to win it. They would be no different than UCF or BSU.

You keep insisting this is all emotional and nostalgic and there is no basis for this opinion which couldn't be further from the truth. If you think the landscape of college football is the same and the playing field is the same as it was 50 years ago and keep using that as some sort of basis for what you are saying then I don't know what to say, other than the FACT that you are wrong.

When you make this argument, you speak in generalities or say things that have always been true, like "the rich are getting richer." What Alabama did 50 years ago is absolutely relevant because you keep pointing to Alabama/Ohio St/Oklahoma's contemporary dominance like it is unprecedented. I keep trying to point out that it isn't, but it's like speaking to a brick wall.

Well yeah the rich are getting richer and the top teams are generally the same throughout history, but never before have they been getting THIS much richer and separating themselves this much. I don't care if you admit it or not, but the the top is getting smaller and smaller and richer and richer. And now with super-conferences and and NIL it is accelerating faster and faster. This isn't meant as an insult, but you have to be blind or an idiot not to see this.

 

[05_never_again]

The correct question to ask is what exists today that DIDN'T exist 50 years ago that isn't allowing a program like Illinois to cycle to the top. The answer to that question is things like TV revenue, BCS, playoff, and now we have the possibility of super-conferences where teams like Illinois, if they aren't a charter member of the conference sucking in other teams could very well be left out and it is now legitimately impossible for them to win it. They would be no different than UCF or BSU.

You keep insisting this is all emotional and nostalgic and there is no basis for this opinion which couldn't be further from the truth. If you think the landscape of college football is the same and the playing field is the same as it was 50 years ago and keep using that as some sort of basis for what you are saying then I don't know what to say, other than the FACT that you are wrong.



Well yeah the rich are getting richer and the top teams are generally the same throughout history, but never before have they been getting THIS much richer and separating themselves this much. I don't care if you admit it or not, but the the top is getting smaller and smaller and richer and richer. And now with super-conferences and and NIL it is accelerating faster and faster. This isn't meant as an insult, but you have to be blind or an idiot not to see this.

Forget it. You're now just simply asserting that the "top is getting smaller" and not really providing any backup. There have always been a handful of dominant programs than run the sport, and I've tried to show that via some statistics, but you just will never buy it. At the moment, we are seeing programs like Alabama, Ohio St, and Oklahoma, who have had periods of extreme dominance in the past, have yet another period of extreme dominance. It isn't unprecedented.

There have been big differences between the haves and have nots that have always existed. Back in the day those differences were caused more by things like stadium size (huge stadium = more money) or the size of the university (large university = bigger alumni base of support). Differences in TV revenue have always existed as long as the games have been broadcast on TV; again, not a recent phenomenon. Some schools would have TV revenue of zero, because none of the games were on TV, and some schools like Michigan would have multiple nationally televised games per year. It was a big differentiator then, it is a big differentiator today. You're looking at the recent proliferation of the conference TV networks and thinking it's something totally different. It isn't. Used to be that there were some schools that had zero TV revenue and some schools that had some...today some schools have some and some schools have a lot.

In the really early days of the sport, when independence was the norm and the conferences were this newfangled idea, if you got left out of a conference you got left in the dust. Except Notre Dame. I mean think about it...all of the big programs in a particular geographic area organized themselves into a club and kept all the money for themselves. This was occurring as early as the 1910s. A bunch of those schools who were left out of the initial founding of the conferences ended up de-emphasizing varsity sports and eventually became DII and DIII schools (even some small schools that got in the conferences eventually left them). Today's superconferences are just a continuation of that.