The events underway now set off by the news that UT/OU plan to leave for the SEC clearly illustrate (as if we didn't already know) that the pursuit of money is mostly all that matters now. It is obvious that ESPN is willing to throw huge sums of money ( $1 Billion per year or more just to the SEC?) to create what they want and seem to feel is in their best interest. The collateral damage from what they seem to want (throw money at the highest media market programs and who cares about the rest) is that the fans of "the rest" will lose interest as their teams no longer seem to matter to the decision makers. I don't know how that ends up in terms of the eventual haves and have nots, but this kind of future raises some interesting questions about the future of college football to me such as:
1- Eventually, how many programs will be left standing in the "haves" category? 64? 30-35? 25 or less? Once you start down this road full bore, it becomes harder and harder to avoid unintended consequences. When only the same 10-15 teams annually have any real chance to compete at the highest level and everyone knows only money matters, at what point do the fans of the "lesser haves" and "have nots" completely lose interest?
2-How many college football fans can you disenfranchise across the country before your business model no longer works? Today you feel confident you can shell out $1 Billion a year just to one conference. But is that based on the assumption that the number viewers you have today
will not shrink? Or is it even based on the assumption the number of viewers will somehow grow even as you add more and more fan bases who no longer have a reason to care? Already we are seeing signs people are tiring of just watching the same 5-6 teams contend for a NC every year.
Here is an interesting article that shows you the viewers for the most popular college games over the last couple of seasons:
footballscoop.com
I note that ratings fell last year, but also notice that even the most popular games draw less than 10 million viewers. Even the playoff games and NC game draw less than 25 million viewers. I'm sure ESPN execs expect to make money on their $1 Billion investment even though less than 10% of the population cares enough to watch the most popular games or they wouldn't spend it. But what if interest keeps falling in the future?
3- One has to ask though if this is sustainable as you drive more and more fan bases away and dismiss them as irrelevant? Already younger people and students are showing a declining interest in college football and even at some of the elite programs there is declining interest in football and sports in general.
4- It seems like we are trending towards a society where less than 10 million people may care enough to watch the more popular games and far less than that will watch an average game (say Miss State vs Tennessee for example).
5- The problem has the potential to grow worse even within the SEC. How long do the fan bases of the "lesser haves" in the SEC stay engaged when it becomes clear that only a few super haves in the SEC really matter to ESPN, etc? As their fan bases lose interest and viewership keeps falling, at what point does the ESPN business model simply fail to work? Can you continue to pay $70 million a year to Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Kentucky, etc. when you know there is no way they bring that much market value to the table? When do the "super haves" start complaining they are carrying the "lesser haves"? That can't happen in the SEC? Really? You are adding in 2 new members who clearly resent having to care about anyone else.
I don't know the answers to these questions, but I bet the execs at ESPN don't really know either. I'm just glad I am not betting $1 Billion a year and more that I won't disenfranchise so many of my customers that only 5-10 million or less of them care enough to watch even my most popular product in the years ahead. And what happens to the "super haves" when so many "lesser haves" and "have not" fans lose interest that ESPN can't pay the expected
amounts any more? I doubt that they believe it can ever happen so they don't even consider it as possible.
1- Eventually, how many programs will be left standing in the "haves" category? 64? 30-35? 25 or less? Once you start down this road full bore, it becomes harder and harder to avoid unintended consequences. When only the same 10-15 teams annually have any real chance to compete at the highest level and everyone knows only money matters, at what point do the fans of the "lesser haves" and "have nots" completely lose interest?
2-How many college football fans can you disenfranchise across the country before your business model no longer works? Today you feel confident you can shell out $1 Billion a year just to one conference. But is that based on the assumption that the number viewers you have today
will not shrink? Or is it even based on the assumption the number of viewers will somehow grow even as you add more and more fan bases who no longer have a reason to care? Already we are seeing signs people are tiring of just watching the same 5-6 teams contend for a NC every year.
Here is an interesting article that shows you the viewers for the most popular college games over the last couple of seasons:
A look at the college football TV ratings so far this season
There was a thought, back in those awful times of March, April and May, that when sports came back, they'd do so to the largest TV audience known to man. We
footballscoop.com
I note that ratings fell last year, but also notice that even the most popular games draw less than 10 million viewers. Even the playoff games and NC game draw less than 25 million viewers. I'm sure ESPN execs expect to make money on their $1 Billion investment even though less than 10% of the population cares enough to watch the most popular games or they wouldn't spend it. But what if interest keeps falling in the future?
3- One has to ask though if this is sustainable as you drive more and more fan bases away and dismiss them as irrelevant? Already younger people and students are showing a declining interest in college football and even at some of the elite programs there is declining interest in football and sports in general.
4- It seems like we are trending towards a society where less than 10 million people may care enough to watch the more popular games and far less than that will watch an average game (say Miss State vs Tennessee for example).
5- The problem has the potential to grow worse even within the SEC. How long do the fan bases of the "lesser haves" in the SEC stay engaged when it becomes clear that only a few super haves in the SEC really matter to ESPN, etc? As their fan bases lose interest and viewership keeps falling, at what point does the ESPN business model simply fail to work? Can you continue to pay $70 million a year to Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Kentucky, etc. when you know there is no way they bring that much market value to the table? When do the "super haves" start complaining they are carrying the "lesser haves"? That can't happen in the SEC? Really? You are adding in 2 new members who clearly resent having to care about anyone else.
I don't know the answers to these questions, but I bet the execs at ESPN don't really know either. I'm just glad I am not betting $1 Billion a year and more that I won't disenfranchise so many of my customers that only 5-10 million or less of them care enough to watch even my most popular product in the years ahead. And what happens to the "super haves" when so many "lesser haves" and "have not" fans lose interest that ESPN can't pay the expected
amounts any more? I doubt that they believe it can ever happen so they don't even consider it as possible.
