Better than I worried it would be. It's a weird, self-inflicted predicament, because I keep reading these new state-of-college-fb books, and there hasn't been a great one in a while, and yet I keep reading them. Most of them feel like the rough draft of the first draft, throwing together a bunch of columns nobody edits any more without bothering to remove repetitions or contradictions, since we're really just extending the online brand into the historically respectable but now mostly irrelevant world of "books," I think they call them.
Definitely some of that here, and historical research that, from his account, he got from Taylor Branch's big Atlantic article, but also some good reporting and contemporary info about the overweening greed and shortsighted selfishness of the two big conferences (SEC/Big Ten) that basically keep tilting the football playing field in their own direction--as he notes, they've now hogged the revenues while dodging responsibility for paying their fair share of compensation to players for their labor. And that continues the NCAA's long-honored, if that's the word, strategy, if that's the word, of stonewalling, offering circular arguments (you gotta give to Brett Kavanaugh for how succinctly he demolished the organization's long-standing argument that you couldn't pay college players because...college players have never been paid, at least openly, and so not paying is crucial to the entire enterprise), and straight-out lying about why its policies are its policies. See, we're just maintaining competitive balance by ensuring that the free market doesn't apply to college sports, which obviously has let just about anyone win national titles. (Honestly, in that light it's kind of funny to read about Alabama boosters complaining about the new NIL unfairness that seems to have made them less dominant.)
I would love some sort of sociological analysis here--is this just the kind of organizational behavior you see when anyone is trying to maintain market dominance? Astonishing how often tech companies champion libertarian principles until their valuation is in the billions, at which point they suddenly love them some government cronyism. And Connelly makes the point that that's what the two big-conference commissioners are doing now, basically doing their best to stomp out any surprises, any possibilities of another Boise State/Appalachian State/TCU, etc. by cornering playoff spots, hogging revenue, and maybe eventually daring to try that same Super-League concept that European soccer fans roundly rejected. Also of interest: surprising-to-me research about how often previous super-conference notions have been mooted, how frequently some sort of playoff was suggested before we got the BCS, how repeatedly figures within the game have called for some sort of commissioner to exert oversight. (He has even thought out a massive national conference structure, complete with relegation, that I'm sure will never happen but that would be great fun in practice.)
Could all of the greed and machinations dry up the fan love for East Carolina and Iowa State, not to mention your FCS successes, if the big two keep tilting things their own way? He seems to be all over the place on that one--look at how NASCAR blew it! And baseball! But apparently not college football! At least not yet. This definitely makes what I guess you could call an anthropological case for college fb as one of our most cherished civic institutions, at once national and intensely local, and for the dream that someone, somewhere might steer it away from oligopoly. Probably not, though, right?