There’s zero doubt PSU WAS a national brand. They’re still a good brand but simply a top 15-20 program. Not top 7-8.
Mark Madden: Pitt needs what college football used to be, not what it has become
- Thread starter HailtoPitt
- Start date
Last time I checked Penn State had 14 four star rated recruits for 2022. Pitt has one. And I hate Penn State ; but truth be told.
Kids in the area like Stefen Djordjevic had LOTS of incentive to do well on the football field.
Regardless of its 10 year or so run of lackluster football, Michigan is a major brand, has a massive nationwide following, is top 5 in athletic revenue and is one of the 3-4 richest schools in the P5. In short, they always have a seat at the big boy table when the discussion is about money.
You want to talk about a program elevated by its coach. Yeah, FSU is a good example of that. But who is the current FSU…..Clemson. Posts up above lumping Clemson in with Alabama and OSU as schools that will always be in the running for the championship. I guess memories don’t go back very far for some. Seems to me Clemson’s football history, in terms of success on the field, isn’t much different than Pitt’s, aside from their current elevation under Dabo.
I don't think many people in the south figure "to hell with the NFL" They are just big on football & there's plenty of room for both college and the NFL. tOSU values college football superiority, but that doesn't mean the state neglects the Bengals & Browns, both of which have a long history of sucking out loud. Obviously Mississippi & Alabama don't have an NFL team, but the other areas that do, they support it.
There is not much NFL football in SEC territory. Carolina, Atlanta, Tennessee, and New Orleans. That stretches from the Atlantic Coast to the Mississippi. Compare that to New England, New York ×2, Phily, Baltimore, Washington, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Cincinnati in the northeast..... and that it just from the coast to Ohio. The SEC is way bigger than the NFL in the deep south because the the NFL presence is pretty small in comparison.
Last time I checked, Penn State has 0 National Championships to Ohio State's 2 (and 3 more appearances) in the last 20 years and has lost 15 of the last 20 against the Buckeyes. And I hate Penn State : but truth be told.
Agreed. College football has been fracturing and talent/resources have been amassing at the absolute top of the mountain for the last 30 years. It's almost sobering that a very good program like Penn State is almost completely irrelevant nationally.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I don't understand your line of thinking and I don't think you understand the concept of leverage. After the dust settles, the same half-dozen or so schools will still be the favorites regardless of where their school plays football or what scheme the CFP adopts. The Big12's model was always doomed because it depended on one or two schools getting their way by pushing everyone else around. But there are schools that weren't interested in being a part of something like that. Clemson and FSU were givens to jump to the Big12 because of the TV money, remember? I'd say things worked out pretty well for Clemson. Now you're arguing that everyone should allow the SEC to do the same with the playoff because somehow it's better to collect the scraps rather than try to maintain relevance.
Again, I think people, fans mostly, and that is who runs also mostly these internet sites, blogs that are college football centric............they focus too much on on the field success and recent performance instead of the brand.
For example, Clemson is Clemson. Michigan is Michigan. No arguing who has been most successful the past decade, Clemson. But Michigan is the slam dunk, better name brand. That was the thing about Texas. Texas hasn't been much better than, well Pitt, the past decade. But....Texas is that huge brand. And that's why the SEC wanted them.
I love the one post, not sure if it is in this thread or another, where they broke down the revenue a new addition to the ACC would have to bring, just to make it make financial sense. Because that is how these Presidents are looking at this, not looking at "who would make our conference better in football next year."
For example, Clemson is Clemson. Michigan is Michigan. No arguing who has been most successful the past decade, Clemson. But Michigan is the slam dunk, better name brand. That was the thing about Texas. Texas hasn't been much better than, well Pitt, the past decade. But....Texas is that huge brand. And that's why the SEC wanted them.
I love the one post, not sure if it is in this thread or another, where they broke down the revenue a new addition to the ACC would have to bring, just to make it make financial sense. Because that is how these Presidents are looking at this, not looking at "who would make our conference better in football next year."
What any Super League will depend on is NFL style fans. Fans who choose teams to follow that they have no connection too. Like they'd want Pitt fans to root for Bama or tOSU or Clemson and watch matchups of the super teams even though they had no connection with them, In the past you chose your CFB team based on being an alumni or living in a certain area. Now the vast majority of the teams won't be in the super league and they will count on you caring more about watching "THE BEST" than your school, me? I'll be watching Pitt no matter who they play and what league they are in, The NFL is my super league, I won't be watching SEC-PLUS
Last edited:
I don't understand what this means.
Food for 20 delivered to one is one of his sponsors and they didn't send the tractor trailer over to his place?
This just came out and it is incredibly damaging to the prospects of the "Left Behind 8", what they are calling the remaining Big 12 members. None, will bring enough to justify inclusion in the remaining P5 conferences. Most likely, makes sense for some merger with the AAC. Texas and OU really did them dirty.
theathletic.com
Mandel: Big 12's TV numbers explain divide between Texas, Oklahoma and the rest — and why remaining 8 should worry
The reality is there’s very little difference between the TV interest in Kansas State and West Virginia and the interest in UCF or Houston.
theathletic.com
Brands can change very quickly, though. Everyone thought Macy's was a gold-star brand not even 15 years ago and barely anyone used Amazon. How'd that turn out?
The problem with the B10 is demographics. Look at this map of demographic changes across the B10: down everywhere except Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and Indiana. Where is there explosive growth? Pretty much all of the SEC, except for MS and LA. South Carolina is one of the fastest growing states in the country. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...stimates-show-population-decline-in-16-states
Michigan's population is going to be completely flat from 2005-2040 and South Carolina's is going to grow 60%. Hard to generate huge amounts of sports revenue when your state population is old and dying. I'd be very surprised if Michigan was still a "gold star" college football brand in 2040 without significantly better on the field results. I think they'll be passed by basically everyone in Texas, if that hasn't happened already, plus several "Tier 2" programs in the SEC like Auburn and Ole Miss.
Michigan hasn’t been a “gold star” brand for over 20 years. As Mark Packer repeatedly states, “Jim Harbaugh is doing a good job at Michigan. It’s simply not a top 10 program anymore. It’s a top 25 program and has been for well over a decade.”
Penn St is definitely a better program/brand than Michigan now. Michigan can be Wisconsin good. They could rarely make the playoffs. The chances of winning 1 playoff game are remote. The chances of winning 2 are none.
Not sure I buy that. I don't think Harbaugh's job should be in jeopardy, but I think they perform better than what they have recently.
Basically, it sounds like Packer is relegating the B1G to a 1 team league.
Let me correct your statement. EVERYONE is relegating B1G to a 1 team league. Clemson and OU are also in a 1 team league. PAC is a zero team league.
I think Michigan & PSU have the resources and clout to compete for Big 10 supremacy.
In the ACC, I think FSU and Miami should have ambitions to compete for conference supremacy.
A lot of other teams can in the SEC. LSU, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, TAMU. It's more difficult at Tennessee, but they will put the money and resources behind it. They are at a bit of a geographic disadvantage.
Program and Brands are too different thing. Like I said, Clemson is the superior program, Michigan is the superior brand. In 10 more years, if this same trend then things change. Like in college basketball with UCLA and Indiana and college football with Nebraska.
How so? Again, stupid comments. Alabama. LSU. Georgia. Auburn all have been in the playoffs. Florida is just a good coach away from joining them. Now with Oklahoma....
Agreed. The SEC will soon be an 8-9 team league..UT, OU, ATM, Bama, Auburn, UGA, UF, LSU. Those schools will have a chance at future CFP hardware. It’s where the recruits are.
The same can’t be said for PSU and Michigan.
I mean I hear what you are saying. Brand equity certainly lags behind performance/state of the program. BUT Michigan has been average for a quarter of a century with the exception of 1 year about 15 years ago. And they still couldn’t beat the Buckeyes.
Their brand was undoubtedly top 3 even in the late 90s. You would see people across country in Michigan gear. Not anymore. You see Ohio St and Alabama. I’d probably still contend that little old Clemson (relative to Michigan) is a better brand by now.
If we're going to shortchange Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, USC, Oregon and Texas, I'm going to discount all the teams in the SEC outside of Alabama and whoever is in second place at the moment.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
None of it matters unless there's value. If your program can't bring value to a conference network that moves the shares upward, you better hope where you're at is going to pay enough to sustain you. That, in a nutshell, describes why what's left of the Big12 is swinging in the wind and why the ACC (with Clemson and FSU) took a "lesser" deal. The B1G, Pac12, Big12 remnants, and ND are all starting or getting ready to start talks with TV people. We'll know a lot more about the true value of programs in the next few years.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
I can't open this but this goes along with what I was thinking when this broke. I think Dodd had a similar version of this article on CBS. Everyone sort of jabbed at the ACC for the "small" deal. Just wait. That deal is going to look great compared to what some of these other deals might look like.This just came out and it is incredibly damaging to the prospects of the "Left Behind 8", what they are calling the remaining Big 12 members. None, will bring enough to justify inclusion in the remaining P5 conferences. Most likely, makes sense for some merger with the AAC. Texas and OU really did them dirty.
Mandel: Big 12's TV numbers explain divide between Texas, Oklahoma and the rest — and why remaining 8 should worry
The reality is there’s very little difference between the TV interest in Kansas State and West Virginia and the interest in UCF or Houston.
