Interesting discussion on the coming college football super league...

[travis.sixpack]

Andy Staples had Cole Cubelic on his show to discuss the next big moves in college football. Neither one of them seem to think the super leagues will kick teams out, rather the Big Ten and SEC will continue to gobble up premier teams (like Clemson/FSU etc) and keep the existing bottom feeders. So according to these guys, Vandy and Northwestern and other Big2 small schools will be included in the Super Leagues essentially to catch losses.

Is a college football super league closer than we think? | Caitlin Clark breaks the scoring record (youtube.com)

 

[DawgatAuburn]

Going 4-8 most every year should do wonders for ticket sales.

 

[615dawg]

Could definitely happen that way. Will be the only way we survive playing at the highest level though.

So the question should be:

Would you rather be a punching bag for the big boys or at the top of the second level of college football?

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Geez I hate this idea. I am hoping the carnage stops at 20. Big 12 and ACC could at least salvage a decent middle class at that point, maybe even the Pac-MWC or whatever it will eventually be.

The pro model for college will not work well, but they don't care. They'll keep expanding until they get the college NFL. Then at that point - the NFL will react. They'll either expand or start allowing younger players to be drafted.

 

[StateCollege]

Could definitely happen that way. Will be the only way we survive playing at the highest level though.

So the question should be:

Would you rather be a punching bag for the big boys or at the top of the second level of college football?

Give me punching bag all day. It's basically what we've been throughout our history anyway. And I'd rather be us than a top CUSA team any day.

 

[8dog]

Could definitely happen that way. Will be the only way we survive playing at the highest level though.

So the question should be:

Would you rather be a punching bag for the big boys or at the top of the second level of college football?

A. B would be a terrible, terrible decision.

 

[patdog]

The pro model for college will not work well, but they don't care. They'll keep expanding until they get the college NFL. Then at that point - the NFL will react. They'll either expand or start allowing younger players to be drafted.

Or just start playing NFL games on Saturdays, as well as Sundays. That would cut college viewership for the elite schools in half.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Andy Staples had Cole Cubelic on his show to discuss the next big moves in college football. Neither one of them seem to think the super leagues will kick teams out, rather the Big Ten and SEC will continue to gobble up premier teams (like Clemson/FSU etc) and keep the existing bottom feeders. So according to these guys, Vandy and Northwestern and other Big2 small schools will be included in the Super Leagues essentially to catch losses.

Is a college football super league closer than we think? | Caitlin Clark breaks the scoring record (youtube.com)

I think this was always the path. Everyone in the BIG/SEC is safe. ND is safe, 4-6 from the ACC are safe, 3-5 from the Big 13 are safe. Will be 50ish teams. Revenue sharing will likely not carryover to every team in the same manner, Ok State (for example), won't have the same revenue sharing as Bama. The SEC and BIG will remain intact and negotiate their own TV deals.

 

[travis.sixpack]

Going 4-8 most every year should do wonders for ticket sales.

Ask Houston, TCU, and SMU what life in the C-USA was like after the SWC broke up. Ask Wazzu and OSU what the future looks like.

 

[patdog]

Ask Houston, TCU, and SMU what life in the C-USA was like after the SWC broke up. Ask Wazzu and OSU what the future looks like.

Depends. IF it's a 20-32 team super league, the 2nd tier schools will do pretty well, although with a large revenue drop. But there's only so many games you can have between the breakaway schools, so there'll be plenty of TV slots for the 2nd tier. If it's a 50 or more-team breakaway (or more likely a new NCAA subdivision), you definitely don't want to get left out of that group. As Cubelic and greenbean say, it was always going to be a 50-60 team breakaway, with us included.

 

[DawgatAuburn]

Ask Houston, TCU, and SMU what life in the C-USA was like after the SWC broke up. Ask Wazzu and OSU what the future looks like.

I wasn't suggesting we flee. That would be short-sighted and ill-advised and a bunch of other hyphenated words. But given where we stand right now it seems like we would need to have some favorable scheduling combined with one of the peaks of our cycle to approach playoff contender level.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Geez I hate this idea. I am hoping the carnage stops at 20. Big 12 and ACC could at least salvage a decent middle class at that point, maybe even the Pac-MWC or whatever it will eventually be.

The pro model for college will not work well, but they don't care. They'll keep expanding until they get the college NFL. Then at that point - the NFL will react. They'll either expand or start allowing younger players to be drafted.

What? You're hoping there will be a 20 team super league that we certainly wouldn't be part of? Have you not paid attention? In the 80s the mustard buzzards were the best program in the 'Sip, however look at where they've fallen not being part of the SEC.

We won't do much better or worse in a 50/60 team super league than we are currently doing. With the right coaching, we'll be mid tier with a chance to challenging once a decade or so if we get the right QB and personnel. For SEC teams this won't be a huge change. For programs like FSU and Clempson it will take some adjustment. There will still be one or two games per season where a team can schedule against lower levels.

This year's OOC schedule is ASU, UMass, Toledo and Eastern Ken. ASU will likely make the 50/60 team league, so instead of playing three cupcakes, we will play one or two in the next iteration of CFB.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Could definitely happen that way. Will be the only way we survive playing at the highest level though.

So the question should be:

Would you rather be a punching bag for the big boys or at the top of the second level of college football?

 

[8dog]

Good pod. I said a while back TV Markets are not really relevant anymore and they say the same.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

What? You're hoping there will be a 20 team super league that we certainly wouldn't be part of? Have you not paid attention? In the 80s the mustard buzzards were the best program in the 'Sip, however look at where they've fallen not being part of the SEC.

We won't do much better or worse in a 50/60 team super league than we are currently doing. With the right coaching, we'll be mid tier with a chance to challenging once a decade or so if we get the right QB and personnel. For SEC teams this won't be a huge change. For programs like FSU and Clempson it will take some adjustment. There will still be one or two games per season where a team can schedule against lower levels.

This year's OOC schedule is ASU, UMass, Toledo and Eastern Ken. ASU will likely make the 50/60 team league, so instead of playing three cupcakes, we will play one or two in the next iteration of CFB.

I didn’t say that…..at all

MSU was not a part of my opinion/post

 

[travis.sixpack]

I wasn't suggesting we flee. That would be short-sighted and ill-advised and a bunch of other hyphenated words. But given where we stand right now it seems like we would need to have some favorable scheduling combined with one of the peaks of our cycle to approach playoff contender level.

If the SEC and BigTen go to 24 team leagues, I suspect you’ll have a 10 Big-2 (7-8 SEC/2-3 BigTen) schedule with two OOC games. You might even go back to more regionally based divisions (Hello, Bama, Auburn and LSU!) to manage the schedule. At some point, adding more teams to the SEC doesn’t really matter to State because you can only play so many games a year.

And to your point, everyone is bemoaning State’s 2024 schedule, but when the schedule flips in 2025, you’ll see Vandy, UK, USC, Oklahoma, Saban-less Bama, rebuilding OM, LSU and Auburn.

 

[patdog]

If the SEC and BigTen go to 24 team leagues, I suspect you’ll have a 10 Big-2 (7-8 SEC/2-3 BigTen) schedule with two OOC games. You might even go back to more regionally based divisions (Hello, Bama, Auburn and LSU!) to manage the schedule. At some point, adding more teams to the SEC doesn’t really matter to State because you can only play so many games a year.

And to your point, everyone is bemoaning State’s 2024 schedule, but when the schedule flips in 2025, you’ll see Vandy, UK, USC, Oklahoma, Saban-less Bama, rebuilding OM, LSU and Auburn.

I think that’s a pretty good educated guess of where this is heading.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Could definitely happen that way. Will be the only way we survive playing at the highest level though.

So the question should be:

Would you rather be a punching bag for the big boys or at the top of the second level of college football?

That’s not the only question. While its true the SEC / B1G may not kick anyone out, it seems pretty much inevitable that if they only want to keep small market teams around to “catch losses”, that they are also going to start exploiting those teams for everything they can get. That means get ready to kiss equal revenue sharing goodbye. SMU and others have already set that terrible precedent, and its only going to keep getting more prevalent.

So, the better question is which option you’d prefer, if you’re MSU in 10 years.

1) Stay in SEC / Super League. Be a punching bag, go 4-8 every year against a 10 or 11 game conference schedule. And do all that for only 40-50% of the annual TV revenue that the big blue bloods are getting.

2) Join another league that would be comprised of the current Big 12, plus Washington State, Oregon State, and some or all of Ole Miss, Vandy, NC State, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, and maybe Stanford, Cal, Georgia Tech, and SMU. Be a mid to upper tier team in football. And get to that for about the same money as they would get in a reduced-share SEC.

It’s not as cut and dry as you’d think. SEC still might be the correct call, just to preserve regional matchups and general fan interest. But its naive to think that MSU is going to continue getting these TV checks that are quite a bit larger than FSU, Notre Dame, Clemson, and others. That other shoe is going to drop.

 

[travis.sixpack]

Depends. IF it's a 20-32 team super league, the 2nd tier schools will do pretty well, although with a large revenue drop. But there's only so many games you can have between the breakaway schools, so there'll be plenty of TV slots for the 2nd tier. If it's a 50 or more-team breakaway (or more likely a new NCAA subdivision), you definitely don't want to get left out of that group. As Cubelic and greenbean say, it was always going to be a 50-60 team breakaway, with us included.

They’re saying both conferences go to 24, which would only allow 14 more teams to join:

FSU, Clemson and UNC are the obvious ones. They suggested Oklahoma St, TCU, Utah, BYU, UVA, Pitt, WV, Va Tech, Miami, Kansas State and one other. Baylor? Of the schools that really care about football, who’s left? Texas Tech? SMU? Kansas? Houston? UCF? Arizona? Other than TT or Wazzu, I won’t feel bad about any of those schools being left out.

That’s not the only question. While its true the SEC / B1G may not kick anyone out, it seems pretty much inevitable that if they only want to keep small market teams around to “catch losses”, that they are also going to start exploiting those teams for everything they can get. That means get ready to kiss equal revenue sharing goodbye. SMU and others have already set that terrible precedent, and its only going to keep getting more prevalent.

So, the better question is which option you’d prefer, if you’re MSU in 10 years.

1) Stay in SEC / Super League. Be a punching bag, go 4-8 every year against a 10 or 11 game conference schedule. And do all that for only 40-50% of the annual TV revenue that the big blue bloods are getting.

2) Join another league that would be comprised of the current Big 12, plus Washington State, Oregon State, and some or all of Ole Miss, Vandy, NC State, Wake Forest, Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, and maybe Stanford, Cal, Georgia Tech, and SMU. Be a mid to upper tier team in football. And get to that for about the same money as they would get in a reduced-share SEC.

It’s not as cut and dry as you’d think. SEC still might be the correct call, just to preserve regional matchups and general fan interest. But it’s naive to think that MSU is going to continue getting these TV checks that are quite a bit larger than FSU, Notre Dame, Clemson, and others. That other shoe is going to drop.

The difference is State already has a seat at the table along with UK, Vandy, Ark, Ole Miss and So Car. Those other schools don’t and have no vote. They’re taking a reduced share or no share with the promise of an equal share eventually. And good luck getting the smaller SEC schools to go along with giving a portion of their share to new comers. Maybe after 10 years or so, the big boys will want a bigger share in a 24 team league, but remember: the Cleveland Browns get the same TV cut as the Dallas Cowboys. The big boys will always be richer than the small schools regardless of the portion and everyone remembers it was Texas greed that blew up the Big 12.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

That’s not the only question. While its true the SEC / B1G may not kick anyone out, it seems pretty much inevitable that if they only want to keep small market teams around to “catch losses”, that they are also going to start exploiting those teams for everything they can get. That means get ready to kiss equal revenue sharing goodbye. SMU and others have already set that terrible precedent, and its only going to keep getting more prevalent.

I don't know that they'll do this for the 48 team (or 60, whatever it ends up being) super league. Remember, SMU did that to get into the ACC, not SEC/B1G. Unequal distribution has always been the downfall of conferences, and Sankey and them know that.

We will, I agree, have to take our ass17ings and stay quiet.

 

[615dawg]

I have famously opined on this board for 5 years that we are headed to something we won't like. I still think we are more likely to be left out of the next round unless the B1G coast to coast thing is a complete failure.

The idea in this article makes sense, but it still won't be good for us. If there are 14 teams not currently in the SEC/B1G added, what does that look like?

Florida State, Miami, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech from the ACC?

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State from the Big 12?

You'd be leaving out TCU, who played for a national title last year, Baylor that won a basketball title a couple years back, Duke, a basketball blue blood.

It gets real complicated. You know what's less complicated? Going with 24.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

It gets real complicated. You know what's less complicated? Going with 24.

Can pretty much guarantee you that won't happen, at least not in our lifetimes.

Things will probably just stay the same for the foreseeable future, and we will have this 12 or 14 team playoff, whatever is decided. The PAC/MWC will sort itself out, and FSU will continue to cry like a bltch about their ACC money (have you noticed that they keep running up against a brick wall here?). Things will stabilize for a while (like I have been famously opining).

This new super league won't happen until folks decide how to deal with pay-for-play. And it may never happen. I have a sneaky suspicion that they'll run up against Title 9 issues there and won't ever get it done. Nobody seems to be able to answer these questions.

 

[8dog]

Can pretty much guarantee you that won't happen, at least not in our lifetimes.

Things will probably just stay the same for the foreseeable future, and we will have this 12 or 14 team playoff, whatever is decided. The PAC/MWC will sort itself out, and FSU will continue to cry like a bltch about their ACC money (have you noticed that they keep running up against a brick wall here?). Things will stabilize for a while (like I have been famously opining).

This new super league won't happen until folks decide how to deal with pay-for-play. And it may never happen. I have a sneaky suspicion that they'll run up against Title 9 issues there and won't ever get it done. Nobody seems to be able to answer these questions.

Here’s a title 9 potential issue no one saw coming. Let’s say CFB actually disengaged from the schools and simply pays the school a licensing fee. Now you may have to add men’s sports or reduce women’s sports.

 

[patdog]

It gets real complicated. You know what's less complicated? Going with 24.

24, or 32 that has been mentioned a lot over the years is just never going to happen. It'll be at least 40 schools and probably 50-60. People are trying to make college football an NFL junior, and it's just not.

 

[HuntDawg]

Here’s a title 9 potential issue no one saw coming. Let’s say CFB actually disengaged from the schools and simply pays the school a licensing fee. Now you may have to add men’s sports or reduce women’s sports.

Its not really that. Its more the scholarship deal that would have to even out. The sports itself are somewhat even. Most schools down south have Gymnastics, Volleyball to help even things out. You may have to add a rowing team for men or something like that. But the full ride for womens sports are likely over, unless you take those football scholarships and dole them out to all teh other male athletes.

For us we'll add a male soccer team and/or cross country team-- and be right in compliance.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Here’s a title 9 potential issue no one saw coming. Let’s say CFB actually disengaged from the schools and simply pays the school a licensing fee. Now you may have to add men’s sports or reduce women’s sports.

Yep and until somebody explains a realistic way to get rid of the whole 'school' issue, I will continue to just tune out that noise. The schools will never turn loose of football, and why would they? It pays for everything else. So they won't be adding men's sports, they'll be cutting women's. And maybe cut some of both until they hit a money mark that they can cover.

 

[8dog]

Yep and until somebody explains a realistic way to get rid of the whole 'school' issue, I will continue to just tune out that noise. The schools will never turn loose of football, and why would they? It pays for everything else. So they won't be adding men's sports, they'll be cutting women's. And maybe cut some of both until they hit a money mark that they can cover.

They would still make the money. The teams would pay it over in licensing fees under this theory.

 

[travis.sixpack]

I have famously opined on this board for 5 years that we are headed to something we won't like. I still think we are more likely to be left out of the next round unless the B1G coast to coast thing is a complete failure.

The idea in this article makes sense, but it still won't be good for us. If there are 14 teams not currently in the SEC/B1G added, what does that look like?

Florida State, Miami, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Virginia, Virginia Tech from the ACC?

Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State from the Big 12?

You'd be leaving out TCU, who played for a national title last year, Baylor that won a basketball title a couple years back, Duke, a basketball blue blood.

It gets real complicated. You know what's less complicated? Going with 24.

A good program is going to get left in the 48 team scenario and basketball will play very little into the decision.

 

[travis.sixpack]

Its not really that. Its more the scholarship deal that would have to even out. The sports itself are somewhat even. Most schools down south have Gymnastics, Volleyball to help even things out. You may have to add a rowing team for men or something like that. But the full ride for womens sports are likely over, unless you take those football scholarships and dole them out to all teh other male athletes.

For us we'll add a male soccer team and/or cross country team-- and be right in compliance.

Just give baseball more scholarships.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

A good program is going to get left in the 48 team scenario and basketball will play very little into the decision.

My question is, why do we have to have this break away? It's not necessary.

The playoff is at 12, soon to be 14, and probably will ultimately end up at 16. Why can't we just keep the 134 FBS teams we have now? Maybe some choose to go down to FCS willingly, but I doubt it. Conferences can still make their TV money, and the power teams will beat each other up and add losses. Just make sure 4 or so spots are available for the G5, and they can play the top 4 overall seeds.

The lower the conference, the less the competition. So there's a tradeoff. I don't see an issue.

 

[thatsbaseball]

A good program is going to get left in the 48 team scenario and basketball will play very little into the decision.

The last thing SEC and B1G football wants are "good programs" with small TV footprints. **

 

[L4Dawg]

Its not really that. Its more the scholarship deal that would have to even out. The sports itself are somewhat even. Most schools down south have Gymnastics, Volleyball to help even things out. You may have to add a rowing team for men or something like that. But the full ride for womens sports are likely over, unless you take those football scholarships and dole them out to all teh other male athletes.

For us we'll add a male soccer team and/or cross country team-- and be right in compliance.

Title 9 is Federal Law. The schools, the SEC/BIG, and the NCAA can't just make it go away. Football can't be taken by itself as long as it is associated with schools.

 

[HuntDawg]

Title 9 is Federal Law. The schools, the SEC/BIG, and the NCAA can't just make it go away. Football can't be taken by itself as long as it is associated with schools.

Title 9 has nothing to do with football. Im confused at what your getting at.

 

[L4Dawg]

Title 9 has nothing to do with football. Im confused at what your getting at.

Then why would men's sports have to be added if football was somehow out of the equation?

 

[HuntDawg]

Then why would men's sports have to be added if football was somehow out of the equation?

Because currently most schools have more female sports and opportunities than male to balance out football. Since football has the most players and most scholarships.

if you took football away from the schools like someone mentioned (not saying they will).. then the balance of the sports and athletic opportunties (which is essentially what title 9 does) is out of wack. And its out of wack in favor of female sports. Therefore you'd either have to add male sports or eliminate female sports to balance things out and keep in compliance with title 9.

 

[L4Dawg]

Because currently most schools have more female sports and opportunities than male to balance out football. Since football has the most players and most scholarships.

if you took football away from the schools like someone mentioned (not saying they will).. then the balance of the sports and athletic opportunties (which is essentially what title 9 does) is out of wack. And its out of wack in favor of female sports. Therefore you'd either have to add male sports or eliminate female sports to balance things out and keep in compliance with title 9.

Oh, so football DOES have something to do with Title 9 then.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

Because currently most schools have more female sports and opportunities than male to balance out football. Since football has the most players and most scholarships.

if you took football away from the schools like someone mentioned (not saying they will).. then the balance of the sports and athletic opportunties (which is essentially what title 9 does) is out of wack. And its out of wack in favor of female sports. Therefore you'd either have to add male sports or eliminate female sports to balance things out and keep in compliance with title 9.

This is what I keep saying over and over won't happen, because of the mechanics. Let's all get on the same page:

- Football is decoupled from being a 'school' thing, and is moved to some LLC or something similar, enabling straight pay for play;
- The LLC is now responsible for money in vs. money out for football;
- The LLC pays the school a licensing fee due to the years and year of branding and other capital;
- This licensing fee pays for all the other sports, which are now evenly distributed between men and women, whether it's adding men or cutting women.

First, I have ZERO idea why the schools would ever do this. The football programs belong to them and them alone. But one thing is for certain, no one school has the power, so they'll have to make a collective decision, and I can't imagine any AD/president in their right mind that would try and convince everyone to go independent of the schools. If they did, all ticket sales and TV money would then go to the LLC, so those licensing fees better be huge.

Alumni donations, I would suspect, would flow back to the educational part of the school, and the other sports. And that would determine what sports a school plays and how successful they are.

But therein lies the problem. Right now a lot of your alumni donations fund NIL, while your TV money funds other sports. All you're doing is shifting around. I think you give the most opportunity to the most kids through the current system. Remember, true NIL affects like 1% of players. The rest of this is a fake demand, artificially propped up by donors who just want to win. You think they'd be willing to now give that same money to the non-football sports. Hell no they wont'. They will probably still give their money to the football LLC. So non-revenue sports probably cease to exist outside of men's and women's basketball (licensing fees and men's profit would roughly cover women's cost drain).

And are licensing fees constant every year? Or are they dependent on profit?

 

[8dog]

This is what I keep saying over and over won't happen, because of the mechanics. Let's all get on the same page:

- Football is decoupled from being a 'school' thing, and is moved to some LLC or something similar, enabling straight pay for play;
- The LLC is now responsible for money in vs. money out for football;
- The LLC pays the school a licensing fee due to the years and year of branding and other capital;
- This licensing fee pays for all the other sports, which are now evenly distributed between men and women, whether it's adding men or cutting women.

First, I have ZERO idea why the schools would ever do this. The football programs belong to them and them alone. But one thing is for certain, no one school has the power, so they'll have to make a collective decision, and I can't imagine any AD/president in their right mind that would try and convince everyone to go independent of the schools. If they did, all ticket sales and TV money would then go to the LLC, so those licensing fees better be huge.

Alumni donations, I would suspect, would flow back to the educational part of the school, and the other sports. And that would determine what sports a school plays and how successful they are.

But therein lies the problem. Right now a lot of your alumni donations fund NIL, while your TV money funds other sports. All you're doing is shifting around. I think you give the most opportunity to the most kids through the current system. Remember, true NIL affects like 1% of players. The rest of this is a fake demand, artificially propped up by donors who just want to win. You think they'd be willing to now give that same money to the non-football sports. Hell no they wont'. They will probably still give their money to the football LLC. So non-revenue sports probably cease to exist outside of men's and women's basketball (licensing fees and men's profit would roughly cover women's cost drain).

And are licensing fees constant every year? Or are they dependent on profit?

I really doubt anyone would notice the difference between the LLC and school. It would just be a legal distinction. Much like the BI and school now. Really more form over substance but the players wouldn’t be students so the title 9 application isn’t likely

 

[Villagedawg]

Or just start playing NFL games on Saturdays, as well as Sundays. That would cut college viewership for the elite schools in half.

I read recently that that is actually against the law. Not playing, but broadcasting where there is a high school or college game happening within 75 miles. Before December I believe.

 

[OG Goat Holder]

I really doubt anyone would notice the difference between the LLC and school. It would just be a legal distinction. Much like the BI and school now. Really more form over substance but the players wouldn’t be students so the title 9 application isn’t likely

In that case, let's say they do it. Will fans support the team in the same way if it essentially becomes a bigger (as far as number of teams) NFL? How long will they be able to play? Will it just be 4 years? If not, you may see some guys who are good college players but not good pro players stay for 10 years, restricting opportunities for younger guys. And what stops basketball from one saying they want to do it too?

Everything about this idea just sucks. But they'll damn sure do it eventually.