With summer upon us that means college football season is right around the corner. Over the course of the summer I plan to do separate previews of each Power Five conference, plus one more for the other FBS conferences/Independents, but I wanted to start off with an overall look at the state of college football as we approach the third season of the new playoff format. So here are my Top 3 questions/answers facing the sport in 2016.

(You can discuss this on the BSL Board here.)

1. While the Playoff has been relatively successful thus far, it has not been entirely without controversy, as 1-loss Big 12 co-champs Baylor and TCU were both left out in 2014. Will future occurrences like this lead to Playoff expansion sooner than later?

I’ll answer that with two points, one a fact, the other an opinion.

Fact: No matter how big the field, you will never eliminate controversy over who gets in and does not get in the Playoff.

Opinion: Expansion of the Playoff is inevitable. Eventually.

College football has always evolved to give the fans more of what they want, and fans want more games that matter at the end of the season. And with all the money involved, there is probably nothing that will stand in the way of that. Not that there aren’t issues. The health, safety, and expectation of classroom performance of the players being primary among them. But in the end, money trumps all.

Here’s the thing….even when the money is potentially sitting there for the taking, college football has always moved slowly and incrementally. It took a lot of years and a lot of baby steps before we were finally guaranteed that the #1 and #2 ranked teams would play at the end of the season (not that they were always the two most deserving, but I digress). Now we have football’s answer to the Final Four. But I’d be shocked if the next step is taken by the time 2020 is upon us. The current CFP television deal runs through the 2025 season. I bet we’ll see an expanded field entering 2026, if not a little sooner.

2. The conference expansion and realignment movement in recent years has been driven almost entirely by football. Is there any more on the near horizon?

For the first time in a several years there has recently been open and meaningful dialog of expansion, this time by the Big 12. But while they plan to reinstate a conference championship game in 2017, no timetable has been set to expand, if at all. One notable point did emerge from the recent conference meetings though; the Big 12 could receive as much as $50 million in additional TV revenue per year if they expand. Factor in that new members don’t receive a full share of revenues immediately upon joining, and that means about an extra $3 million a year per school the first few years. Another important point from the meetings is that the Big 12 has no intention of pursuing a conference television network. This impacts expansion because it means the main criteria for candidates, expanding your footprint into heavily populated states, isn’t as important when you aren’t relying on a couple bucks a month from every cable subscriber, whether they watch your channel or not. Instead, the Big 12 can focus on adding schools with athletic programs (again, with football being the bus driver here) that will enhance the conference’s national profile.

Given that, where would the Big 12 look? All of the other Power 5 conference schools are locked in to agreements known as grant of rights, where they would essentially have to surrender all of their new TV revenues to their old conference if they leave. I’m not confident these agreements would stand up to a court challenge if a school wanted to go that route to get out. But such a fight would be long and come at great cost, both monetarily and in the acrimony it would cause. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, I’m assuming the grant of rights agreements are plenty enough to keep any Power 5 school from leaving for another conference until their existing TV deal expires, which won’t be anytime soon. Notre Dame is also out of the question, and apparently is bound to the ACC’s grant of rights if they ever do decide to join a conference for football.

That leaves little in the way of attractive options. BYU probably has the highest national profile of the remaining schools, but they aren’t a geographic fit and their Sunday ban on playing games could present scheduling headaches that aren’t worth the trouble. Boise State is also a poor geographic fit (and that really matters when you’re talking about travel for non-revenue sports) and recently they haven’t been the giant-slayers that they were from 2006-11. Houston has had some success and notoriety recently, but as Central Florida showed (from winning a BCS Bowl to 0-12 in just two years) that kind of success can be fleeting for newcomers to the big stage; plus, the other Texas schools might not want yet another Power 5 program in their backyards competing for recruits. As for UCF, well, you already know. Cincinnati and UConn have solid basketball programs and would provide another eastern-ish school to pair with WVU, but neither move the needle football-wise. I expect expansion to be tabled by the Big 12 for several more years. And with the other Power 5 conferences content as currently comprised, expansion won’t be a serious topic anytime soon.

3. As more revenue flows into college athletics there has been more talk about the players, whose talents make all that money possible, receiving greater compensation than currently. Are we far away from the day when college athletes are paid?

Way off. And I mean waaaaaay off. As in, probably not in my lifetime.

That doesn’t mean we won’t see the NCAA and member schools take steps to address the concerns of student athletes, particularly those who face the expectations and pressures of playing revenue sports. And especially as public scrutiny on these matters increases. But like I said regarding the Playoff….baby steps. Players now have a greater voice at the NCAA level with regard to some of the rules, as well as at the conference level in some cases. And schools were recently given the go-ahead to compensate them for the “full cost of attendance” through a stipend. But paying the athletes, essentially treating them as employees, is the line in the sand….one the NCAA won’t cross for anything short of the death of college athletics (and if you believe what some scorched earth minded people say, maybe not even then).

Still, I’d really like to see the NCAA and its members take some steps that I think would greatly benefit players, but also shouldn’t dent their revenues or create the kind of unfair competitive advantages they seek to avoid. Here’s three ideas I have:

First and foremost, we need to face up to the fact that a significant number of these players have neither the desire nor the aptitude to earn a college degree, and wouldn’t even be there if it weren’t for their athletic talents. Without going into a big discussion over education and other socioeconomic issues children face, suffice to say there isn’t a lot the NCAA and universities can do about the kids before they arrive. So what to do once they are there? Previously I’ve discussed giving them the option of accredited programs, outside of the other degree programs, that would help prepare them for life beyond competing in sports, something that is not in the future for the overwhelming majority of players once their eligibility is up. They would still attend classes, write papers and take exams, just like their teammates who choose degree programs, only they would be learning skills and knowledge that are more tailored to their interests and goals instead of Anthropology and 19th Century English Literature. It’s not a perfect solution yet. One issue I already see is that some coaches might pressure players who are capable and want to pursue a degree into one of these presumably easier programs instead, just to ensure they maintain academic eligibility. That’s obviously not an outcome we want. But maybe it’s an idea that could be the foundation for a discussion to a better solution?

Another issue that many players have voiced that should be dealt with is time. NCAA rules mandate that they spend no more than 20 hours per week during the season devoted to their sport. From what many players share, the real amount exceeds that. Obviously these kids enjoy the sport they play, so even if you enforce the 20-hour rule there’s no certainty they will choose to spend their free time elsewhere instead of playing pickup games or lifting weights. But a college experience should be about more than just going to classes and playing a sport. At least give them the time to have the option to pursue other interests. Or have a part-time job to earn that spending money you refuse to pay them for all the revenue they bring in. Or maybe just take a nap….a sufficient amount of sleep could improve their performance across the board.

Finally, if a player possesses the kind of special talent that brings a lot of notoriety, don’t prohibit him from earning off that while in college. No one says it’s unfair for a coding whiz to develop an app that makes money for him while in college. Why is it unfair when a star football player can do the same autographing memorabilia? Let’s end that double-standard.

Next: ACC Preview

Mike Lowe
Mike Lowe

College Football Analyst

Mike is a Baltimore native living in Portland, OR since 2007. He currently runs his own business specializing in video production and online marketing. Prior to that he was a legal technology consultant, worked for 9 years at Johns Hopkins University and served 6 years in the Air Force. He also enjoys travel, food, beer, and is a volunteer at the Oregon Humane Society.

X