ESPN: "All eyes on 2023 for conference realignment"
"Why 2023? It starts with expiring TV contracts. The ACC and SEC both have long-term media grant-of-rights agreements, running through 2035-36 and 2033-34, respectively. But the other three Power 5 conferences have agreements ending roughly around the same time (the SEC's Tier 1 deal with CBS runs through 2023-24). The Big Ten last summer opted for a shorter agreement with Fox and ESPN, which runs through 2022-23. The Pac-12 deal expires after the 2023-24 sports year, and the Big 12's ends the following year."
1) How much longer are games, really? Ads have always been part of the entire package. I waste no more time watching a game in 2017 compared to when I did in 2003. Which fundamental rules have really changed that "speed" the game up? If anything, the review system is a new rule that is actually stretching the game out.
2) No, that is not what is killing tailgating and making it to games. What contributes to that is the constant rising prices of a ticket, the effort for some people to drive 3-4 hours to spend 400 plus dollars, the increased quality of home viewing, and the crackdown of schools at tailgates. Until CMU got their act together recently, they absolutely crushed tailgates. People stopped going to the parking lot for a long time until recently.
I go to a couple of D3 games each year (used to be more) and the games are definitely shorter. Or at least they seem shorter--I'll pull box scores and check (I've been meaning to do this for a long time)...
Oberlin College 2016:
- Kalamazoo 3:28
- Kenyon 2:52
- Denison 2:45
- Ohio Wesleyan 3:05
- Allegheny 2:43
- Wabash 2:36
- Wooster 2:45
- Wittenberg 2:50
- DePauw 2:45
- Hiram 2:42
Average TOG was 2:51. I'm pretty sure the Kalamazoo game was on Comcast TV this year for some reason, which would mean commercial TOs. Leave that game out and the average was 2:46.
University of Michigan 2016
- Hawaii 3:17
- Central Florida 3:27
- Colorado 3:22
- Penn State 3:20
- Wisconsin 3:21
- Rutgers 3:26
- Illinois 3:11
- Michigan State 3:46
- Maryland 3:09
- Iowa 3:19
- Indiana 3:14
- Ohio State 3:51
- Florida State 3:42
OSU went OT and doesn't count. I'll put out the bowl game too because halftime would have been long. Average of the other 11 was 3:21.
So 35 minutes of commercial time, more or less. Timing rules are the same in both divisions.
Adding to the subjective effect is the fact that the untelevised D3 games always started at the published time to the dot, 1:00 or 1:30 or whatever, while TV games tend to start 5-15 minutes late while television does its pregame thing. Whether you count that as extra time spent in the stadium is a matter of taste.
But wouldn't you expect D3 games to be much shorter than their D1 counterparts??
I'm talking comparing D1 games from 10-20 years ago to D1 games now. Maybe it's just my head, but I do not feel like I am watching a longer game now than yesteryear.
I don't think there would be any other material difference between D3 and D1, although this particular year I'd suspect Oberlin games would have run longer than Michigan's, on average, just from the respective styles and game flows. The average Oberlin game had 81 runs and 70 passes; the average Michigan game had 81 runs and 54 passes. There were only four more incompletions in an Oberlin game, though, and six more first downs, so despite all the extra plays we're probably only talking about three minutes per game or so. Make the net difference 38 instead of 35.
As for D1:
2005: The average game took 3:20. This was seen to be a problem, because games weren't always fitting into the 3:30 allotted to their timeslot.
2006: The rules were changed so that on kickoffs the clock would start when the ball was kicked instead of when the receiving team touched it and would start on the ready-to-play instead of the snap after a change of possession. The latter rule was controversial from the get-go; it took Bret Bielema and his staff to expose the loophole in the former. The average game took just 3:06, and had 14 fewer plays.
2007: Both rules were scrapped at the end of 2006 (there wasn't much choice, where the kickoff rule was concerned) and the average game time went back up to 3:21.
2008: The 40-second play clock was implemented (before 2008 it was 25 seconds from the ready-to-play, like it still is now after stoppages), and after an out-of-bounds play the clock started on the ready-to-play instead of the snap. Game times were again shortened, this time at the cost of only about 5-6 plays per game instead of 14.
2009: The average game time was 3:12.
2016: The average game time was 3:24. This was seen to be a problem because....
My guess is that this will remove a lot of plays from each game, but we'll be back to 3:20 within a decade or so. If we keep this up, in fifty years we'll have a running clock and we still won't be able to fit the games in.
YEOMAN'S COROLLARY TO PARKINSON'S LAW: Commercial time will expand a game to fill its allotted timeslot.
The older crowd that can remember life before ESPN won't be under any illusions about whether games are getting longer. The '69 OSU game took 2:26, and it was on TV! A typical game back then took about 2:15.
But also that it takes forever to start play again once the commercials are over!
First, the studiio shows a TD from another game, then the play-by-play guys run an ad for whatever game is next, then they show the current B1G standings to talk about the importance of this game, and THEN the refs begin to run the play clock .......... which the offense runs down to 5 seconds anyway after they audible 3 times.
MLB has their game time issues as well. But credit where it's due: it's 2:10 between half-innings and the umps are good about starting play right at that 2:10 mark, whether TV is ready or not.
At least in football it doesn't materially change the game itself, except I suppose for those unfortunate D3 schools whose rosters are too short to support two platoons. (I'm not talking about a few players getting a few snaps on the other side of the ball a la Woodson or Peppers, I'm talking 8-11 guys playing every snap of the game. A couple extra minutes on the changeover would be pretty welcome....)
In basketball it's a much bigger deal. Without the media stoppages a 20-minute half is a grind. I saw Grinnell play at Chicago a few times when they first implemented their System* and the Chicago players were absolutely gassed by halftime. That fatigue was the only reason the game was competitive; by the time Grinnell started recruiting half-decent D3 level players they were winning a lot of games.
But when ESPN put one of their games on TV a few years ago...nothing. Those four extra two-minute rests completely changed the dynamic of the game, probably cost Grinnell 20-30 points net.
*Kamikaze press on defense ("it's better to give up an uncontested layup than to force a shot clock violation"), "the first shot is the best shot" on offense, five-man shifts entering the game at every stoppage. Basically Westhead/Loyola Marymount on Bennies.
I would be more annoyed with networks dictating "when and where" decisions if conferences and schools weren't fully on board with such moves to gain exposure. A school like Western Michigan does not draw the kind of distance travel fans that Michigan does, but they do want to get on television, and unusual times gives them a chance to be seen. Many of these schools lack the depth of tailgate culture anyway.
I would hate it if Michigan were moved in such a fashion, but Michigan is going to be a major tv draw regardless, so they don't need to move and networks have no pull to make them. The B1G, not the networks, is putting the brakes on Friday games, because the constituents don't want it.
I think it is mostly a plus for the have-nots, with the occasional Clemson-Georgia Tech matchup thrown in that the nation wants to watch.
Getting to watch Wednesday and Thursday night MAC-tion.
How else would I get a chance to watch my Chips play a slop fest against Akron?
a huge change to long-standing conference policy, any expansion for full-time members that takes place will only involve members of the Association of American Universities, which is a consortium of the leading research universities; all BIG conference members are research universities who, with one exception, belong to the AAU. Neither Oklahoma or Syracuse are AAU members.
The one exception is Nebraska; at the time the BIG extended the invitation Nebraska was a member, but the AAU kicked them out in the intervening time between the offer and the membership becoming official. Nebraska's Chancellor has openly stated that Nebraska wouldn't have received the initial invite to join the BIG if they hadn't been members at the time.
My preferences for expansion would be Missouri and Pitt. I don't expect either to join, if ever, before 2023.
Oklahoma isn't AAU for the very reason Nebraska isn't AAU anymore, and it is sort of BS. The AAU places a lot of merit on research money and expenditures, however they will only count research expenditures from the flagship campus. The University of Oklahoma's medical campus, hospital, and some other research facilities are located on a campus in Oklahoma City because it is downright logical for the state to have that arrangment (it's only 30 minutes away from Norman, OKC is where most people in the state live, and it is at the geographical center of the state.) However, since the campus isn't on OU's Norman campus, AAU refuses to recognize the research done on that campus even though it is done by The University of Oklahoma. Nebraska lost their AAU status because their medical campus is in Omaha.
Unbuckle for this one...
So, this seems like an odd take to have (and I'm sure it's crazy and optimistic), but could we see realignment in reverse?
The days of traditional cable providers and market size being important will soon be a thing of the past. More households have a Netflix subscription than a cable subscription as of right now. ESPN is cutting loose people because rights to live sporting events have blown up in cost as ESPN is shedding subscribers (and cable channels as a whole, but most don't have that upfront cost of rights deals that ESPN has). Being in the New York market won't be as important in 2023 as it is right now. The amount of potential subscribers will be more important. Future conference realignment may be geared around a combination of school size, total alumni, and fan interest.
Imagine this scenario: The Big Ten Network decides to offer their content via a paid streaming service available over Apple TV, Roku, Amazon, etc. They charge a monthly fee. Would the conference rather have Rutgers which could provide fewer subscribers than let's say Kansas State? Would they rather pay out revenue to 10 teams or 14 teams if those 4 extra teams don't add a sufficient number of subscribers to the service?
I guess it's hard to imagine schools being kicked out of conferences just because it's so rare, but the television landscape is changing and how that affects realignment will be fascinating.
Georgia Tech to the Big10! Great school academically and in a huge media market. Lots of UM alums in Atlanta and surrounds.
GT is a shit show of a program for all revenue sports and the fan base is dwarfed by UGA. For every 1 GT fan I can find 30 UGA fans down here. As much as I'd love for GT to come just if anything so I could see some B1G games every year, it would be an absolute horrible decision for any reason outside of academic ones.
Added benefit of that is that I'm pretty sure the SEC would be pissed off beyond measure that the Big10 has infitrated their geographical area.
Wait......nobody heard that Liberty is joining the FBS as an independent? They're the real deal! Gonna join the ACC someday... /s
I'm all for dropping the crap teams and the conference championship game and going back to the way it was before. But they aren't going to say no to the extra revenue.