This article's from somebody who says their in media and that TV money and expectations will lead to separate divisions for power 5 and group of 5 conferences. (And that there will only be four of each type.) Also says there could be some shuffling between conferences like the MAC and Big 10.

Interesting offseason read at least.

http://www.thechaosindex.com/cest-la-tv-college-football-... /

Interesting reading about the #MACtion part.

Also, very interesting to hear this guy talk about surprise winners and surprise losers. Ohio is a state with multiple major TV markets. OSU is obviously controlling most of it, but the state is big enough to support more than one program.

I would agree with the article that the realignment isn't done, and that there will be more surprises to come. As for what those surprises might be, his guesses are as good as anyone's, but I don't think anyone's guesses are going to be very good.

One place I disagree is that he seems to presuppose an ever increasing pot of money for college football, and I'm not convinced that will be the case. With the head-injury information that keeps becoming a part of the picture, it's certainly possible that we will see a decreasing pot of money in future years, How would changing that assumption change his predictions?

I think the older, more established schools are well-enough entrenched with their fan base that they don't have to worry about being relegated to "lower" conferences, no matter how poorly they do or how big the TV market. I think TV market is largely a factor in lateral moves among conferences -- which is exactly why MD and Rutgers are in the Bigtenfinity -- and is the major factor in moving up, which is probably why Boise isn't getting invites to join the Pac 12 or Big 12.

College football in general and the big schools in particular also will need to deal with declining attendance at games. Part of the reason is TV; with every game being on TV somewhere (over-the-air, satellite/cable, or Internet) there's less reason for fans to show up. Nevertheless, the price of tickets at big schools is skyrocketing. Even if the TV money makes up for lost revenue, lots of empty seats on a Saturday afternoon is downright embarrassing to the bigger schools and their snob conferences (e.g., MiamiF [http://coachingsearch.com/article?a=Rick-Neuheisel-rips-M... ]).

Gotta give this guy credit for enthusiasm. Not only is he proposing a whole new model for college sports, he is also positing that all the major players (and they're the only ones that count) get behind a single "fix". The only way this system is substantially reformed is by legislation at the federal level and even I don't want to see that.

Yep. But why do the conferences need Fox or ESPN affiliations? Why not cut out the middle man distributor? Ad money will go will the viewers are. Viewers will go wherever the big games are. In about 5 years, the whole viewing model for college sports will change.

Interesting to think about the statements made in this article again after reading the article about our bowl game $$$.

I view Ohio State as more of a peer than Eastern Michigan.

I have to agree with you in principle. We have lost the arms race and it's become more professional. Probably better to play for a championship among equals.

Confirming that you are an Optimist.


And need glasses.

Optimist: Let me correct my use of "peer institution". I meant schools on our level of athletic institutional committment. I looked at the list of our peer institutions and most of them are Power 5 schools except for New Hampshire and Rhode Island.

I was also referring to football only. The landscape is different for basketball. It's vastly different for other sports.

Funny story... I originally chose "The Optimist" name to be ironic. I felt many of the views presented on BA were pessimistic to the point that a realistic person could come across as unreasonably positive.

Over the years, I've certainly played to the moniker and presented some views that were absurdly optimistic. In this case, I'm drawn back to my roots.

Is anyone capable of presenting a logical or facts-based argument that our success the last decade in athletics has not been better than our success in athletics in the decade before to that, or the decade prior to that?

We've had more success on the national level than we've ever had. Yes, we haven't won the MAC Championship some obsess over. However, we've had high-profile wins that have elevated the reputation of our program far beyond where we were a decade ago.

Supposedly, the environment for college athletics 20 or 30 years ago was superior for OHIO to what we have today. That's garbage. We were terrible 30 years ago. We went 1-10 in 1986. We went 6-6 in 1996. 10 years back? 9-5.

I hear a lot of whining about how much better college athletics used to be. You may have moral objections to the "arms-race" but don't try to justify your moral reservations with the belief that this hasn't been a good thing for Ohio Athletics.

Well said. +1