Daily Archives: January 6, 2017

Talent will up and out.

I touched on this yesterday, but David Ching nicely fleshes out how the postseason talent drain in the SEC East is shaping up in this post.  Go down his list and it’s apparent that Florida and Tennessee are taking the biggest hits in the division and that Georgia, while not going completely unscathed, comes off looking a lot healthier by comparison.

Advertisements

41 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, SEC Football

USA Today has Alabama on its mind.

I’ve never been the kind of person who cared about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, so can somebody explain to me why I should care about this one way or the other, or what I could possibly do for this to matter to me?

Nothing lasts forever, peeps.  Not even the Sabanator.

30 Comments

Filed under Media Punditry/Foibles, Nick Saban Rules

Shut up, dad.

The debate raging in the comments section yesterday in reaction to Ken Blankenship’s cri de coeur about Kirby Smart’s nefarious plot to deny his son a full scholarship left out one part of the puzzle — where Rodrigo himself stood in the situation.  That was certainly by design, as Ken made it clear he was speaking only for himself and his wife, while Kirby wasn’t speaking publicly at all.

Well, now the kicker, or, I should say, The Kicker has weighed in.

After being a constant source of speculation, Georgia kicker Rodrigo Blankenship shared his thoughts on the season and the controversy regarding whether or not he deserves a a scholarship.

In a lengthy message posted via Blankenship’s Twitter account, the redshirt freshman kicker did not state whether or not he deserved a scholarship, as Blankenship deemed his opinion on the matter “irrelevant.”

Lengthy is right, but the gist of what he wrote can be found in three sentences.

… It is evident Georgia deserved better than what I was able to offer this season, and I would like to apologize for my clearly-defined deficiencies. I would also like to apologize for my father’s interactions with the media this season. He acted without my knowledge each time, and each incident was uncalled for.

The tone and message of the first line there comes off very differently in conjunction with what follows in the next two.  The latter is an unambiguous disavowal by a son of his father’s tactics.  The former, though, is something quite unlike that.  Do you take it as a straightforward critique of his season in support of his head coach’s decision not to extend a full scholarship at present?  Or is it a subtle passive-aggressive piece of snark offered up to mock that decision?

Your guess is as good as mine (and probably Kirby Smart’s), which actually makes it kind of brilliant.

Does it serve to calm the waters?  With regard to the football program, it’ll probably be taken that way.  But as far as Ken Blankenship goes, he doesn’t exactly strike me as the kind of guy who’s interested in taking anyone’s advice, including his son’s.  I don’t expect the kvetching to be done just yet.  After all, it’s not signing day and what better time to seek a little more attention over injustice?

149 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football

Maybe that business model isn’t quite dead yet.

You keep asking why ESPN shells out the big bucks for college football.  ESPN sees the answer in numbers like this:

Consider the St. Petersburg Bowl (formerly the Beef O’Brady’s Bowl) that took place at 11 a.m. Eastern in St. Petersburg, Fla., on the Monday after Christmas. The setting was Tropicana Field, a baseball stadium that holds more than 40,000 fans. The game drew only 15,717 attendees and ended with 6-7 losing records for both Mississippi State and Miami of Ohio.

However, it garnered 2.045 million viewers for ESPN, which is close to what Comcast’s CMCSA, +0.40%  NBC managed for a rerun of “Hairspray Live” (2.45 million viewers) that night. Yes, a terrible bowl game that started at 8 a.m. on the West Coast put in a better prime-time performance than network shows that actually aired in prime time.

This wasn’t an anomaly, either. Between Dec. 17 and 26 — well before the college football playoffs — only one bowl game that ESPN and its Walt Disney Co. DIS, -0.06%  sibling networks ABC, ESPN2 and ESPNU aired failed to draw 1 million viewers.

We’re junkies.  It’s that simple.

What’s more interesting is that, for once, the NCAA and schools may be taking note of our addiction and reacting to it in real time.

… An audit of the 2012-2013 college bowl season by the NCAA found that 35 bowls gave out $300.8 million to conferences, while individual schools reported spending $90.3 million on bowl trips.

The NCAA report found that bowls received $445.6 million in gross receipts and spent 26% of that sum on operating expenses, keeping only 7% of the total. However, schools participating in bowls ate $12.1 million in unsold tickets, for an average of $173,479 in losses per team. While big-conference schools with major athletic revenue can take that hit — especially if they’re playing in one of the premier bowl games — it’s tougher for schools with less sports income to cover those costs. Unfortunately, it’s those schools that end up playing in lower-tier regional bowls.

However, starting in 2015, the NCAA began arguing that the new playoff system now functions as a sort of revenue-sharing model that helps take pressure off of the small-conference teams and the lesser bowls. That year, after receiving reports from the 39 post-season bowl games and the schools that took part in them, it was determined that the bowls distributed $505.9 million to participating conferences and schools. The schools, meanwhile, spent $100.2 million to take part in bowl games. The NCAA presented this as a net profit of $405.7 million. While there’s little evidence that any of the above makes it easier for smaller schools to travel to and participate in lower-tier bowls, it gave ESPN the go-ahead to streamline the process a bit.

Of ESPN Events’ 13 bowls, five — New Mexico, Bahamas, Boca Raton, Idaho and Camellia — pay out less than $500,000 per team, which is divided among all schools in that team’s conference. Only four of its bowls — Texas, Celebration, Las Vegas and Birmingham — pay out $1 million or more, and Birmingham only pays that to one team from the Southeastern Conference.

In other words, the economic structure of the postseason is shifting from focusing on asses in the seats to eyeballs on the tube.  ESPN is more than happy to bring that change of course to fruition, naturally, because that’s how Mickey gets paid.  And if the small fry don’t like it, tough shit.  They’re not where the money is.

However, if that number seems a little light, it’s likely because ESPN is paying a whole lot more for rights to the bigger college bowl games. It paid $7.2 billion for exclusive rights to college football’s playoffs through 2026. It pays another $80 million a year through 2026 for the Rose Bowl alone and billions more in deals with college football’s Atlantic Coast Conference ($3.6 billion), Southeast Conference ($2.3 billion), Big 12 ($2.5 billion), PAC-12 ($3 billion) and Big 10 (nearly $1.2 billion). Why pay so much for college football in particular, you ask? Because it’s one of the last safe bets.

In 2015, NFL games accounted for all of the top 25 broadcasts and 46 of the top 50. One of those outliers was a Michigan State-Alabama football playoff game shown by ESPN. That said, ESPN faces a whole lot of competition for those properties, with Fox paying for the other half of Big 10 rights, its pick of games and the rights to the Big 10 championship. But ESPN knows its future lies in the rights to live sports broadcasts, and it’s loading up on them no matter the cost to the rest of its programming.

In the short run, you might welcome that.  After all, are Keith Olbermann, Rachel Nichols, Jason Whitlock, Skip Bayless and Bill Simmons going to be missed?

But the next thing to consider is what happens when ESPN turns that same logic towards college football’s regular season.  The conferences and schools can mumble all they want about preserving the live fan experience, but money talks and the loudest money comes from their broadcast partners.  Just ask the NFL.

Sports attendance has been either flat or falling for much of the past decade, even as live sporting events continue to outperform other broadcast or streamed entertainment. After nearly having to take three playoff games off television in 2014 thanks to its blackout rule requiring 100% attendance, the National Football League owners began phasing out attendance-based blackouts team by team in 2014 before shelving them altogether in 2015. With total revenue of more than $10 billion — including $1 billion a year apiece in broadcast rights from NBC, CBS CBS, -0.40%  and Fox through 2022 and $1.5 billion a year from AT&T-owned T, -0.28%  NFL Sunday Ticket provider DirecTV, also through 2022 — the NFL and its owners are beginning to realize that attendance is becoming a smaller part of the game-day equation.

It’s just one more reason to acknowledge that the game as we know it is slipping away from us in its current form and there’s not much we can do about that, because we’re a part of the problem.  In other words, enjoy it while you’ve got it.

16 Comments

Filed under College Football, ESPN Is The Devil, It's Just Bidness

Don’t make ’em put you in the box, kid.

Another one of those suits where student-athletes, in this case, some former track players, sought to have a court find that athletes put in enough work at universities to be entitled to minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act was shot down.  The ruling itself wasn’t especially notable, but the rationale supporting it certainly was.

Plaintiff attorney Paul McDonald summarized the result of the decision. “Student athletes now join prisoners as the only citizens who, as a matter of law, cannot be considered employees,” he said.

He shitteth you not, good people.

… Instead, at both the district and circuit levels, they threw the case out by using a single piece of case law, Vanskike v. Peters, involving convicts. In Vanskike, an inmate at a state prison in Joliet, Ill., had asked for wages. The Seventh Circuit declined to apply the test questions in that instance because asking who benefits from an inmate’s labor was nonsensical and didn’t “capture” the “real relationship” of prisoner to prison.

So, to be clear, the best way to “capture” the relationship of athletes to their campus is to view them as detainees?

The Seventh Circuit’s contorted reasoning bears repeating. College athletes are similar to prisoners economically because the “revered tradition of amateurism” in college spanning than 100 years “defines the economic reality of the relationship between student-athletes and their schools,” the court wrote. As with inmates, asking any questions about who benefits from their work would “fail to capture the true nature of their relationship.” In other words, amateurism is as confining and defining as jail.

Then the court went one step further and declared, “Simply put, student-athletic ‘play’ is not ‘work,’ as least as the term is used in the FLSA.”

That’s something.

It turns out those folks comparing student-athletes’ conditions to life on a plantation were wrong.  According to the Seventh Circuit, they have even less rights than sharecroppers.  Go figure.

15 Comments

Filed under Look For The Union Label