How will CFB change in 20 years?
I am wondering what people here think the future of CFB is. I have seen a lot of changes in the last 2-3 decades:
tons of teams hopping to new conferences
incredible coaching salary increases
mega commercialization of the game day- ads everywhere
lots of tradition thrown overboard (Remember Nebraska vs. Oklahoma?)
Games on lots of new days of the week
Weekly uniform changes- specialty hemets, etc.
I wonder about trends I see developing:
Young people more into electronics than live events or TV
More concern about concussions & injuries
People not willing to pay as much to watch sports (cord cutting)
The move to playoffs
What changes do folks here see happening to CFB in the future?
August 11th, 2017 at 1:03 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 1:11 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 12:45 PM ^
Do you think games will still be 3 hours long or will they shorten to keep more people from doing something else? Many young people I know can't envision spending 3 hours to watch 15 minutes of actual action.
August 11th, 2017 at 1:15 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 10:26 AM ^
How about Ty Issac?
August 11th, 2017 at 1:28 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 1:42 AM ^
Let people decide for themselves to take a risk that may or may not be worth it. And yes, let me be entertained by their self destruction.
August 11th, 2017 at 2:08 AM ^
The 13-year-old children WANT to work, they want to earn some money, let THEM decide if they're willing to work for peanuts 12 hours a day or not.
-a bunch of rich old white guys in the 1920s
Paternalism, for lack of a better word, is good. Paternalism is right. Paternalism works.
August 11th, 2017 at 5:49 AM ^
My dad was 9 at the onset of the Great Depression. I can only imagine, through his stories, how difficult it must have been. But don't let young people working to survive ruin your narrative. Rich old white guys are the worst.
August 11th, 2017 at 9:38 AM ^
Except the main argument against child labor is that children can't give consent. So even if a child does want to work before they turn 18 they can't make that decision and parental consent is required.
I played youth and high school football over 10 years ago and it required parental/guardian permission in the form of various waivers and legal paperwork to hold the coaches, school district, refs, etc. harmless. I doubt it has changed today. If 18 year olds, who by most legal definitions are adults want to play football in exchange for college tuition and room and board then let them.
August 11th, 2017 at 6:33 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 11:31 AM ^
Robot football, here we come?
August 11th, 2017 at 1:50 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 5:42 AM ^
Harbaugh will of won at least half of the NCs during that span. /knock on wood
Rutgers will still suck
MSU players will still frequent jail cells
The Bucks will of quit cheating....yeah I dont believe it either
PSU fans will still be excusing Joe Pa.
ND fans will still think they are special. They are, only "special education" is correct description.
Everyone in Wisconsin will now be microchipped.
PJ Fleck will of been evicted from his boat.
Neb will still have better corn than Iowa
NW will still be only school in B1G close to Michigan academic standards for university
DJ Durkin will be DC at San Jose State
Hoke will of come back to Michigan in unofficial capacity.
RichRod still wont understand that teams are allowed to field a defense.
And last but not least, Brians blog will still be kicking arse.
August 11th, 2017 at 7:58 AM ^
"Will of" hurts to read
August 11th, 2017 at 11:33 AM ^
You of to give him credit for trying.
August 11th, 2017 at 2:03 PM ^
He could have gone with will've.
August 11th, 2017 at 5:58 AM ^
Refs from Ohio will no longer be giving calls without even looking to Ohio St.
August 11th, 2017 at 6:10 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 6:48 AM ^
Are you serious? Exactly the opposite is going to happen.
"Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, known as CTE, was found in 99% of deceased NFL players' brains that were donated to scientific research, according to a study published Tuesday in the medical journal JAMA."
It's not uncommon for former NFL players to be reluctant for their own sons to play HS football, and plenty of regular parents feel the same.
Because of this, I bet football 20 years from now will bear some resemblance to this:
August 11th, 2017 at 7:33 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 8:06 AM ^
Scientists found 0 cases of CTE in deceased NFL players' brains that weren't donated to science...
August 11th, 2017 at 8:23 AM ^
disagree. Football is a risky endeavor, of that there is no question. So is mountain climbing. So is boxing, so is bull riding, so is hockey. Hell, it is not even limited to sports. Many lawyers suffer the erosion of their soul everyday they do their job. Drilling oil is an incredibly dangerous endeavor, as is deep sea fishing. People with the talent to do these things still do them, because with the risk comes reward that is either objectively or subjectively fulfilling. This is not going to change.
CTE is a very real disease, to be sure. However, CTE talk is also very real clickbait. A large portion of the studies that have been done only confirm common sense, repetitive impact to a certain portion of the body will have some degree of degenerative effects, this is not breaking news. Some people will stop playing it, some kids will stay away, some kids will begin playing later and some professional players will retire earlier, still super rich. No amount of CTE can change the fact that a successful 8-10 year NFL career can secure the financial stability of entire family trees. We are not talking individual wealth, we are talking perpetual generational wealth.
CTE has been discussed now pretty much all the time football is discussed for about 10 years now, and 110,000 people are still going to fill the big house every weekend this fall. CTE is not going to be the demise of the sport. Equipment will optimize, technique will improve. All precautions will be taken to ensure that the sport is as safe as it can be without eliminating the essence of the game. People will not stop playing football, because the overwhelming majority of the people who play it well love playing it.
It is a contact sport. It can be a violent sport. There will always be some risk, but I would venture a guess that the majority of people who choose to play it are not risk averse. Additionally, in about five short years you have already seen the near elimination of the "big head shot." Targeting penalties are too costly, ejections of players can be season changing. Relatively few kickoffs come out of the endzone any more. You rarely see the major kickoff collision. The impacts of these modifications can already be seen at all levels, high school through professional. These rules are having the intended effect on the way the game is played. There will be additional changes, sure, but it won't look like the picture above. The overall format of the game at the highest levels will not change to that extent.
August 11th, 2017 at 9:08 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 12:48 PM ^
ijohnb- what are the broadcasting changes you see?
August 11th, 2017 at 6:32 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 12:51 PM ^
crg- how do you reduce player contact in football without radically changing the nature of the experience? Wouldn't this lead to a decline in viewership?
August 11th, 2017 at 4:19 PM ^
I'm not saying I approve of this trend, but I expect there to be even more restrictions on the nature and extent of contact allowed. The most recent examples are the "targeting" penalties (and the ensuing debates about what "targeting" actually is), but look at what are considered "late hits" and "roughing". If you were to compare the contact allowed now versus 10, 20, and 30 years ago - it has changed significantly.
I know there are many advocates of this trend, and the extent of severe injuries is being reduced, but I believe it is slowly altering the game in such a way that the final product will be something akin to touch football (albeit decades from now). Just my opinion, but as long as the players are aware of the risks (and in this day and age the information is widely available, and the coaches and ADs at various levels can make awareness a high priority), I think they should be allowed to play a truly full contact game if they want to do that.
As to your point about viewership, I don't believe this will influence viewership at all. Football is still one of the most engrossing spectator sports around due to the speed, physicality, simultaneous action, scoring significance (i.e. teams are not scoring every minute such as BB, so everytime matters), complex strategy and pageantry. I do not see another sport displacing FB as the primary viewer sport in the US (barring legislation or massive new regulations that kill it). It is the modern day gladiatorial contest (in a Disney sort of way that you can bring the entire family to watch, as opposed to MMA which is more similar to a literal gladiatorial contest).
August 11th, 2017 at 8:50 AM ^
Jim Harbaugh:
(1) Coaches Michigan to the first ever 15-0 season in CFB history.
(2) Shatters Oklahoma's 47 game win streak.
(3a) Overtakes Bear Bryant for most number of National Championships.
(3b) Surpasses Schembechler's 13 Big Ten titles in 21 years.
(4) Produces mulitple Heisman winning QBs who go on to become NFL Franchise QBs.
All that would make him undeniably the GOAT college football coach.
August 11th, 2017 at 8:29 AM ^
Predictions for CFB in 20 Years (or "EM Takes Positions Knowing He'll Take Flak"):
-
Players will get more generous stipends, will have more control over the use of their images, and will receive qualified opportunities (e.g., means testing, good conduct, etc. would be necessary to qualify) to return to school to finish their degrees.
-
Players won't, despite the hew and cry of many on this board, "get paid" for being on the team because it's not a job. (I was in a non-rev sport that is incredibly taxing, uses a lot of time, and like my teammates I did it because of love of the sport. Just because a sport generates revenue does not make the sport a job.)
-
Rules changes will not only further decrease violent hits, but also the impact on the offensive line - i.e., the rules will work to address the micro-concussion issues that are the root of a lot of CTE.
-
CFB players will be eligible for a fifth year of education whether they are on the team or not, at the same full scholarship, if they have played four years. This will be done to address the student:athlete ratio.
- We'll still be hearing about how MSU beat us seven times between 2008 and 2015. Even though Michigan goes 17-3 against MSU in the next twenty years.
August 11th, 2017 at 9:10 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 9:31 AM ^
I'm underwhelmed with this logic. First, the topic is about CFB. So I'm not even sure what you're arguing when you reference the NFL.
Second (guessing at your argument), just because someone will pay you to do X doesn't, in and of itself, make X a job.
Take the music school, for example. It's tremendously competitive to get into the piano program. And you have to practice like a mofo, perform periodically, and face ruthless competition to succeed. You have to audition to get in. Yet, even though there are professional pianists (Evgeny Kissin is one of my favs), I'm not convinced that all the students at the School of Music have a job as pianists.
August 11th, 2017 at 9:35 AM ^
I don't know if players will get paid by colleges in the next 20 years. In my opinion, they probably won't, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.
But I think it's pretty likely that they'll get the right to accept income from third parties (this may have been what you were hinting at by saying they'll have more control over the use of their images). We've already seen this discussion start with regard to the UCF kicker being declared ineligible because he made money off his YouTube channel. I think the current situation is untenable.
August 11th, 2017 at 9:43 AM ^
That's what I was getting at with the control over use of one's own image. The only defensible bright line that I see there is that probably a school should be able to prevent a student athlete from profiting from their image when wearing the school uniform. Those are, rightfully, the school's intellectual property and the school has a right to protect its marks.
I could see a school relaxing those rules, but if I were in the Office of Counsel I would not grant a license to use the uniform/logo/etc. in for-profit activity unless I had a right to review the final product before release.
August 11th, 2017 at 12:55 PM ^
Everyone Murders (BTW- are you a vegetarian?):
You see players getting more control over their image- but do you see the rule that people can't go direct from high school to NFL as holding up? I can't see the courts allowing a double standard between the NFL and NBA for 20 more years.
August 11th, 2017 at 3:14 PM ^
I don't know how the h.s. to NFL track will ultimately shake out, but it seems unlikely. The courts (right up to the USSC) have, by my recollection, basically ignored anti-trust law when it comes to professional sports.
That's why things like the draft can be binding in baseball, hockey, football and basketball. The USSC seems to love the rich smell of jockstrap and owners' booty, so I would not bet on this monopoly situation changing through the courts anytime soon.
August 11th, 2017 at 2:21 PM ^
Agreed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UCF kicker wasn't using any school logos/apparel in his videos, was he?
August 11th, 2017 at 3:17 PM ^
What's grating about that one is he was just showcasing his football skills, which the NCAA took umbrage to. The NCAA would likely not be the party to worry about improper use of a uniform per se - that would seem to be UCF's beef.
August 11th, 2017 at 4:24 PM ^
I thought the argument was more fundamental than that. Wasn't it that any scholarship student-athlete in a revenue sport was not allowed to have outside income from a job? The risk being that it is too easy to set up "jobs" where they get a paycheck (from boosters or other university supporters) for doing nothing. The rationale for the UCF kicker was that a YouTube channel could be the same way, just having the paying party route a bunch of traffic to the site to increase the payment.
August 11th, 2017 at 6:35 PM ^
What I recall is that the UCF kicker was told he could keep his YouTube channel (which generated some revenue), but had to take the football-related clips off.
August 11th, 2017 at 8:39 AM ^
The rate of revenue flowing in is unsustainable. New TV and apparel deals will reflect that. Since the schools have been spending all their revenue, any downturn will put them under a lot of pressure. Power 5 schools will have more competitive non-conference schedules to maximize TV revenue. Some Group of 5 schools will have dropped football or moved down and more will be looking to do the same. Those bodybag games were the only thing keeping some of them afloat.
CTE will have started to make its mark on CFB popularity. It will start with more high profile players retiring very early. Advances in detecting problems will outpace solutions. Smaller high schools and high schools in non-football mad areas will have been dropping football. Meaningful changes in how the games are played will be hotly debated, but not yet implemented in CFB and the NFL. Expect some high profile lawsuits.
August 11th, 2017 at 12:57 PM ^
Mr Miggle: what will happen to the number of scholarships? Will lower revenues hurt coach salaries or player scholarships more?
August 11th, 2017 at 8:50 AM ^
Sparty will really recruit the galaxy
August 11th, 2017 at 8:53 AM ^
August 11th, 2017 at 9:06 AM ^
The one thing I am sure that will be different about CFB in twenty years is that I will be entering my sixties then and will probably - as my father did (he's now 75, so it is more pronounced) - begin to nod off during less interesting games, and possibly even a few that I am interested in. Of course, my dad went to Indiana, so I know he began doing this sometime in the Corso years if not sooner, perhaps even when he was there in the 60s.
August 11th, 2017 at 9:23 AM ^
48 men to a side
Half D & Half O on roller blades with 6" spikes out sides
Offense in the middle
Movable goal posts
And, of course, relaxed PI rules
August 11th, 2017 at 9:27 AM ^
or no?
August 11th, 2017 at 9:45 AM ^
There will be no college football by 2037 because we'll be in the midst of a climate change crisis that will cause massive changes to how societies operate--including the elimination of major sports across the board. Besides the Olympics, World Cup and all the professional leagues in this and other countries, college athletics will also be on the chopping block.
The NCAA, the conferences and the universities have a few different paths and timelines to get to that point. I suspect they will opt to shut down college athletics over an announced period of time (five years?) in order to allow athletic departments time to plan how to mothball facilities, deal with financial issues, etc.
I suspect we'll start seing changes in the latter part of the 2020s. In football, for example, we could have fewer games, no post-season bowls or playoff, changes in recruiting rules, fewer or no athletic scholarships and conferences rearranged by geography. We might eliminate long trips for non-conference games (the 2027 trip to Austin to play Texas might be the last of its kind) or just eliminate non-conference games altogether.
Let's say, for example, in 2028 that the NCAA caps the number of football games per year to eight, eliminates the post-season and decides the national championship by popular vote. Teams play a round-robin within a conference that is geographically bound (to reduce the carbon footprint), then the sportswriters or coaches or some other body votes on the national champion.
A nine-team conference that included Michigan in 2028 might include, for example, Michigan State, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue, Cincinnati, Louisville and Pittsburgh. Each team plays one another, a conference champion is crowned and then there is a vote after the season's over to see if that team is the national champion.
I suspect that as this happens, smaller schools in both the current Power 5 and non-Power 5 conferences may opt to fold up shop earlier rather than later. That means the number of programs in Division 1-A/FBS will be markedly reduced.
August 11th, 2017 at 11:49 AM ^
I'm all for taking climate change seriously, but your scenario seems incredibly unlikely. What driving force does climate change put on shutting down college athletics? I certainly don't see the NCAA leading the charge to end football.