Starting to see college football super league talk
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
It is an interesting article. I was not aware of the extreme legal matters impacting the future viability of these individual conferences. It’s scary that the solution to this may be private equity owning a stake in university athletics. There is a lot of money in college football, and it seems like everybody wants a piece of it.
I said college football has peaked. This report says it is “headed for bankruptcy “ and “doomed.”
They tested this idea to the fans in soccer.
CFB will go the same way when and if they propose it.
Private equity owning a stake in a public university's athletics? As this stuff gets crazier and crazier we're going to edge into the area of, this stuff isn't legal or proper or whatever for universities or public entities to be involved with.
I believe that all of football is peaking but not sure if it has already peaked. Mothers are reducing the participation in football , seeking other sports , notably lacrosse.
This article for sure supports your argument
Super Bowl Excitement Can't Hide Football's Continuing Decline
SERIES: The Future of Football, Part 3
rogerpielkejr.substack.com
The doom and gloom is comical honestly. The biggest obstacle college football (and all sports) are going to face are younger generations would largely rather watch the game on TV than attend in person. Attendance is certain to drop but it won't be college specific. We'll see smaller stadiums and arenas. TV really drives the money anyway.
Kids will always play football--they may just start later in life. LAX, which is one of my favorite sports, will never have the fan base of other major sports in the US. Well, maybe not never, not in the next 100 years.
Kids will always play football--they may just start later in life. LAX, which is one of my favorite sports, will never have the fan base of other major sports in the US. Well, maybe not never, not in the next 100 years.
The sports of the big money (Football and maybe basketball) should be organized into a super conference. The non-revenue sports should remain in the original B1G. Then a kid at PSU playing tennis and who has to have a real major can go to Columbus for a match and not Oregon.
Yeah, I fully support that. I just believe football needs to break away from the NCAA.
Agreed but it isn't need for basketball. The NCAA tourny does just fine.
The problem is football. It drives a LOT of revenue for a few dozen teams. But it is also very expensive and throws the Title IX requirements out of whack.
Basketball isn't an expensive sport and has, what, 15 scholarships for the team. Travel and equipment is far less than football.
So while I see some benefits for BBall, the needs is with football.
Assuming eight divisions of ten teams (one of which being the top ten teams from the G5), it could look something like this for a hypothetical 2024 season:
Atlantic Division: Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, NC St, South Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Central Division: BYU, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Utah
Eastern Division: Boston College, Miami, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, UCF, West Virginia
Midwest Division: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Pacific Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St
Southeast Division: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Miss State, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Southwest Division: Arkansas, Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, SMU, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
G5 Division (Using Final 2023 FPI): Air Force, App State, Boise State, James Madison, Liberty, Memphis, South Alabama, Toledo, Tulane, UTSA
Tried to keep pre-realignment conferences together as much as possible. Sorry to Cincinnati and Louisville for getting dumped onto an island, but at least the Keg of Nails is alive and well.
Atlantic Division: Clemson, Duke, Florida St, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, NC St, South Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest
Central Division: BYU, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Utah
Eastern Division: Boston College, Miami, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, UCF, West Virginia
Midwest Division: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Pacific Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St
Southeast Division: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Miss State, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Southwest Division: Arkansas, Baylor, Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, SMU, TCU, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech
G5 Division (Using Final 2023 FPI): Air Force, App State, Boise State, James Madison, Liberty, Memphis, South Alabama, Toledo, Tulane, UTSA
Tried to keep pre-realignment conferences together as much as possible. Sorry to Cincinnati and Louisville for getting dumped onto an island, but at least the Keg of Nails is alive and well.
That's why too many teams
You're looking at 4 divisions of 12 or 8 of 6 with that primarily being the Big Ten/SEC
I know you're trying to include Pitt but they and almost half of those teams have no shot.
I don't disagree; I'm only predicting what the divisions would look like based on the vision of this "super league."
I think the divisions would align with some kind of 8-team playoff with another 4 playing in as wild cards (second-place finishers being voted in). If so, it would make sense that the 8 divisions be somewhat balanced in terms of the top 2x teams in the nation. So I don't see a "G5" division in your scenario. I simply see 8 divisions.
I would also guess that care would be given to preserving some semblance of the current conferences so that UM vs tOSU is preserved, GA/AL, OK/TX, FL/FSU/Miami and of course, the Landgrant rivalry of PSU/Sparty.
That's also a good idea, but I'm just going off what The Athletic wrote. Supposedly, all 70 P4 schools (with the addition of SMU) would be included plus an eighth division consisting of the top ten G5 schools using a promotion/relegation system, creating an eight-division, 80-school system.
I think you're way low on the number of playoff teams. 12 would be the minimum and if there's 8 conferences then we're looking for at least 24.
I don't pay for the athletic so I can't speak to their idea but if they're suggesting an 80 team league that's absurd.
We're looking at one of the 2 scenarios IMO
4 conferences of 12 (12-24 team playoff. Top 3-6 in each division)
SEC 1: Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky, South Carolina, Clemson*, FSU*, Virginia Tech* and UNC*
SEC 2: Texas, A&M, LSU, Miss State, Ole Miss, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Houston*, Baylor*, Oklahoma State* and Texas Tech/Memphis*
Big Ten 1: Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Virginia* and Miami*
Big Ten 2: UCLA, USC, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Notre Dame*, Colorado*, Arizona* and Utah*
8 conferences of 6 (24 team playoff--top 3 in each division--division winners get byes)
SEC 1: Virginia Tech, UNC, South Carolina, Clemson, Georgia and Florida
SEC 2: Auburn, Alabama, Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Kentucky and Florida State
SEC 3: Texas, Oklahoma, Baylor, Oklahoma State, Houston and Arkansas/Texas Tech
SEC 4: A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, Miss State and Arkansas/Memphis
Big Ten 1: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Illinois and Purdue
Big Ten 2: Penn State, Maryland, Miami, Virginia, Rutgers and Indiana (although Ohio State and Indiana need flipped)
Big Ten 3: UCLA, USC, Oregon, Arizona, Washington and Utah
Big Ten 4: Notre Dame, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Colorado (best case for Notre Dame)
Ultimately I think they'd want half the teams in the playoffs.
agreed but that gets confusing. 12 is an easy number as 4 get a bye and the other 8 play to get the other 4 spots making it a clean 8 team playoff with three more games to crown a champ. But they can do as you say and go to 16 teams with 12 getting a buy and 8 playing that extra game to get the total to 16 teams which relates to 4 games for the championship. But, man, at this level, that's a lot of games and physical punishment. It works at the lower levels but I just don't know if it translates to these elite athletes.
If I was the league, I'd start with 8 and 4 (six teams get a bye with four teams playing in to round out the final 8) and then increase the number if that works OK.
I like the six team conferences based on current alignment to preserve rivalries. 24 spots seems like a lot. Are you thinking 16 team playoff with 12 of those getting byes while 8 play into that final 16? If one of those play-in teams makes the championship game, they'd have to play in five playoff games plus the regular season?
Play in game>16 team first round>8 teams second round>4 team third round>championship game.
All of the recent changes in cfb have done nothing to improve the quality of the product. The only thing that they have done is generate more money. Conference re-alignments, expanded playoffs and NIL are all money driven schemes that add absolutely nothing for the fan.
Why is that too many teams? I never understood this argument. I would rather have more teams, not less.
What ever happened to putting cameras in the stadiums and you could watch on a VR headset? It would be just like being at the game except for the weather, traffic, and the guy next to you spilling his beer.
Because the entire purpose of a super conference is to keep the money with those that bring it in. That's why the if you're not in the SEC/Big Ten right now you're trying to do anything possible to join them. The ACC/Big XII will soon become the equivalent of FCS while everyone else becomes DII.
Who knows what happens in the future but the live experience isn't what it was for most of us throughout our lives.
But what good does the additional money really do the average fan?? The game isn't really any more interesting than it was when there was less money in the 70s, 80s, 90s, etc. In fact, you could probably make the argument that CFB has become less interesting as power coalesced into a few elite programs. People were growing tired of seeing Alabama and Clemson in the playoffs every year.
As proposed in the article, there would be unequal revenue sharing. I love the idea of keeping the Boise States in the mix. Of course, Boise is only get $5M while the Ohio States are going to get $80M, or whatever the number turns out to be.
But why would the Big Ten and SEC agree to it? They already have the teams they want that they know they'll beat. What you or I want doesn't matter. Ratings are insanely good right now and an expanded playoff will only help that as more games have meaning as teams fight for spots and seeding.
Honestly, anything is better than the 70s 80s and 90s when the title was determined by voters. The larger the playoff the less debate that someone could have won that wasn't included.
I agree. I don't think the b10/sec will go for this.
My main point is that more money doesn't improve my cfb viewing experience, it actually lessens it to some degree.
That's fair. I'm just focused on what will likely happen and I see a lot of positives for the fans. Not only do I think the "elite league" would be amazing but I'd absolutely still watch a second tier and their playoff. The second tier playoff might be the third most watch college postseason (March Madness being 2nd)
No. Forget the original BIG 10. The problem with your plan is most of the teams in the big 10 are west of Columbus. Using your logic non revenue sports should be playing temple Pitt, wvu and not traveling to play Iowa, Wisconsin, and northwestern in front of 120 fans.
Would it bother you if tennis, baseball, soccer, field hockey, track were playing local rivals? More fans would probably attend. Fans from both teams could attend.
Watch NFL in VR: Virtual Reality Football Experience
Step into the immersive world of virtual reality and witness NFL like never before with a groundbreaking virtual reality football experience. In this article, we delve into the exciting realm of VR technology
www.livesportsontv.com
I just looked at South Dakota State, that won the national championship of Div 2 last year. They played 15 total games. They were 8-0 in their conference, 14-1 overall (loss to Iowa 7-3) and 4-0 in the playoffs. They had a first round bye so it is possible that they could have played in 16 games if they didn't have that first round bye and made it to the championship game.
The first round was 8 games/16 teams. That eliminated 8 teams. the second round was also 8 games, 16 teams.
So if the big boys follow that format, the season would end mid-november and playoffs into the first week of January. Michigan and Washington played 15 games last year.
They'd eliminate conference championship games
12 games with a max of 17--likely 16.
This isn't an issue. The number of games has steady increased.
It is an interesting article and an interesting concept for the restructure of college football. No question, there's logic to the idea
However, I don't think there's a chance of anything like it happening in the foreseeable future. I don't know...maybe revisit things in the 2030s when the current television deals have expired.
Meanwhile, you need buy-in from the two 800-pound gorillas in the room, the SEC and Big-10, and I see little incentive for them to sign on...especially at a time when the dominance (and financial profit) of those two leagues has practically been codified in the expanded playoff system.
That's probably why the commissioners of those two conferences canceled meetings with the organizers of the proposal. They're not interested.
As regards Penn State, it took 30 freakin' years, but finally with the addition of the big-name West Coast teams and the revamped structure of the conference and the league's position of power within the new pecking order of the sport, I see a major advantage from a football standpoint of being a member of the Big-10.
So just when we've finally reached that point, I'm not anxious to chuck it overboard in favor of the kind of thing that the proposal envisions...even though I can also see some obvious pluses to the idea.
Anyway, bottom line: it ain't gonna happen, but it provides great fodder for debate and discussion...sort of like the idea of a legitimate playoff system did for decades before that finally happened.
I think what has changed is the 12 team playoff (leaving NiL and the xfer portal out for now). That broke the hold college football had with the bowl series. Kids aren't showing up to play the bowls that aren't playoffs. Once you do that, the schools then have to consider NIL and organized labor in college sports.
I honestly don't think the large conferences have a choice. It is really just a matter of time. How can you compare teams like Iowa State and SMU to ND and Alabama?
What really made the B1G was the fact that it was made up of large D1 midwestern schools. This provided a competitive league in most sports. There is the occasional outlier like PSU wrestling that is just simply dominant nationally. For a long time OSU was the furthest east on the B1G schools. It worked fine. The league expansion is all about football. Let football be a league of its own.
This is the crux of the problem. Being honest, the caliber of play even in this new spring league exceeds the caliber of play in an average NCAA division 1 game. The differential for college football is the attachment to the school through their school’s students playing other school’s students. Migrating to this new free-for-all system of player “employees” erases that differential.
