College Sports Tomorrow Super League of Extraordinary Teams

[Hoo's That]

If you reduce the number of teams in the top echelon and make class attendance optional, you get what I've been saying all along.

 

[Newhouser]

NCAA won't die because the conferences themselves don't want to have to recreate the actual administration of the tournaments, etc. It's not as easy as one would think. A clearinghouse of sorts is still needed at the end of the day. NCAA runs fencing tournaments, field hockey, water polo. NCAA is very important administrator of things beyond football

It will be interesting to see how interested the NCAA is in remaining the administrator of the non-revenue secondary sports.

Running the football championships has shown the schools they don't need the NCAA for the money tournaments. Once those are taken away the NCAA will be interesting to watch.

 

[Hoo's That]

It will be interesting to see how interested the NCAA is in remaining the administrator of the non-revenue secondary sports.

Running the football championships has shown the schools they don't need the NCAA for the money tournaments. Once those are taken away the NCAA will be interesting to watch.

The NCAA gets its money from the CBS contract for the D-1 basketball tournament. Since the Supreme Court decisions of 1984 taking away its control over TV coverage, it gets a grand total of $0.00 annually from FBS (formerly D-1A) football. As long as this idea remains covering football only, the NCAA will be unaffected.

 

[Newhouser]

The NCAA gets its money from the CBS contract for the D-1 basketball tournament. Since the Supreme Court decisions of 1984 taking away its control over TV coverage, it gets a grand total of $0.00 annually from FBS (formerly D-1A) football. As long as this idea remains covering football only, the NCAA will be unaffected.

Thanks I understand that - my bet is it won't. The schools don't need them to run any money making tournaments and will eventually say "why are we basically giving money away".

 

[Bayside44]

Non-football sports should be regional again.

Where does that, for example, put Cuse lax.

 

[Hoo's That]

Thanks I understand that - my bet is it won't. The schools don't need them to run any money making tournaments and will eventually say "why are we basically giving money away".

It wouldn't surprise me at all if that happened at the D-1 level for basketball. There would also be a movement to make the requirements to stay in D-1 so onerous it will drive out just about every school that has moved up to D-1 from another division and, quite possibly, the schools that don't play football.

 

[texascpa]

The NCAA gets its money from the CBS contract for the D-1 basketball tournament. Since the Supreme Court decisions of 1984 taking away its control over TV coverage, it gets a grand total of $0.00 annually from FBS (formerly D-1A) football. As long as this idea remains covering football only, the NCAA will be unaffected.

Not only that, but most people don't realize that the various bowls contract directly with the conferences, not the NCAA. I think many people believe the NCAA is this goliath that picks the winners and losers in the distribution of money. They are the regulatory and enforcement arm of the like-minded (I use that loosely) institutions. That's basically it.

 

[syracuse95]

I agree.

My opinion only here.

I think the days of 20% or more revenue increases year by year for the B1G and SEC are coming to an end.

I think when these incredibly lucrative contracts with ESPN and Fox expire, the Big Two are going to be very fortunate to get what they are getting right now.

The cable model is changing and all those people who have been paying really high prices for live sports (and don't care about them) are not going to be there.

Yes, these conferences have large passionate fan bases who do care and will pay to see their teams. But even ESPN/Disney is not going to be able to keep the SEC Network distribution close to where it is today. The same with the ACCN, the B1GN, ESPN, ESPN2, etc.

The next 4-6 years are going to be the high point for these conferences (and really all college conferences).

If Chancellor Sveryud is right and the NCAA loses the cases pending and athletes are going to need to share in TV revenue (and get back paid for abuses in the past), the good times will end shortly after those cases close and the courts find in favor of the athletes.

Agree, ESPN and Fox are going to need to be supportive of this.

My hope is that when the contracts come up, ESPN and Fox are going to have bad news. But it might be the same bad news if they stay in their bloated post expansion states or go back to how things used to be.

If the SEC and B1G are going to get the same money regardless, maybe they will opt in. They get a lot of big benefits and won't have to pay a price for doing it.

I haven't read Eric's argument closely on why moving to this quickly will help in the lawsuits but hope that is true as well. Then maybe there is hope we can get to a better place for college sports and not have to wait 5 or 6 more years to get it.

I love the idea of regional divisions and the restoration of regional rivalries within an overarching "Super League". Basically taking college football back to what it once was. But I don't think that will ever happen.

The whole idea is predicated on the top echelon of college football agreeing to expanded access and a level playing field, and they don't want that. Their goal isn't just more money for themselves...it's more money for themselves at the expense of everyone else. They're going to cannibalize the sport and consume all of the resources that the mid-level teams now receive. So they won't ever sign on to any plan that maintains or expands the number of teams with a seat at the table, because in their view fewer mouths to feed means more food for them.

As far as having reached "peak media value" for college football, I tend to agree. I don't agree, though, that flat or reduced TV revenue will drive the landscape toward the "Super League". Instead, I think the next step will be that media contracts plateau and, in their desire for more money at the expense of others, the SEC/B1G will start to jettison the bottom tier teams. Pushing out teams like Rutgers and Vandy will give the top tier teams more revenue even if the TV contracts stagnate. I don't think that means kicking teams out of the existing conferences. I think it means the top teams leaving the B1G/SEC to start their own league/conference.

Eventually it will be a 20-24 team league that only plays itself, and it will be NFL Lite. We will not be a part of that. The other 100-110 D1A teams will constitute what has always been "College Football". That's where we end up.

I don't like it, and maybe I'm too pessimistic, but that's what I see.

 

[Newhouser]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if that happened at the D-1 level for basketball. There would also be a movement to make the requirements to stay in D-1 so onerous it will drive out just about every school that has moved up to D-1 from another division and, quite possibly, the schools that don't play football.

I wonder about the trickle down too - I believe in the not so distant future the NCAA will not be involved in March Madness leaving them with little or no revenue stream. At that point the mantra "about helping the student athlete" will be outed as phony because they will drop the D3 and D2 sport administration in a heartbeat citing economics.

 

[Chip]

70 is too many and 10 team divisions are too large. TV wants intersectional games.

70 isn't too many, come on.

But if it were me, and feasible given geography, I'd do 8 divisions of 9 teams. You have your 8 division games, you play 4 more that rotate in the other groups. And you have a playoff setup with nice round numbers.

 

[texascpa]

70 isn't too many, come on.

But if it were me, and feasible given geography, I'd do 8 divisions of 9 teams. You have your 8 division games, you play 4 more that rotate in the other groups. And you have a playoff setup with nice round numbers.

Almost too perfect.

 

[Dcuse]

Almost too perfect.

It will be the reason it's shot down. If it was set up and gave life to all schools that were in jeopardy but made the SEC and BIG10 sleezeballs take 50 cents less than what they make now.....they will kill it.

 

[David321]

The good guys strike back.

 

[SmilinBob]

The SEC and Big Ten want nothing to do with this. They cancelled scheduled meetings with this group. Only if the NFL steps in will players in those two conferences demand change.

Actually, the SEC and Big Ten will agree to this 70 "team" league and then branch off and start their Super Duper league of 40 and divisions called the Big 10 and SEC.

 

[Consigliere]

The schools should be paying them. This begging fans to foot the bill while they get huge checks from the conferences is a joke. Could you imagine the bills or Yankees with their hands out to pay players. This model is a joke and about what you should expect when the government gets involved.

If the payments are made by the schools it would require additional revenue or cutting costs. Despite the narrative college athletics programs are not sitting on piles of cash. The revenue sports fund the entire program and all of the Olympic and minor sports. And unless Title IX is revoked at least some of that will always remain. Some men’s non revenue sports might well be relegated to club status, but as long as there are programs out there willing to invest heavily in coaches and facilities that arms race will continue. So players’ salaries will require a significant revenue increase.
One way or the other, the increased cost of paying the players will fall on the fans.

 

[Hoo's That]

I wonder about the trickle down too - I believe in the not so distant future the NCAA will not be involved in March Madness leaving them with little or no revenue stream. At that point the mantra "about helping the student athlete" will be outed as phony because they will drop the D3 and D2 sport administration in a heartbeat citing economics.

Could very well happen. Most of D-3 would have to relocated to the NAIA if they don't form some sort of new federation.

 

[JRHEETER]

Pete Thamel basically said there was no chance this happens on Pat Mcafee today

 

[Newhouser]

Pete Thamel basically said there was no chance this happens on Pat Mcafee today

I don't see why anyone in the Big or SEC would join in. They are going to dictate who is at the big boy table. Just a question of when.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

70 isn't too many, come on.

But if it were me, and feasible given geography, I'd do 8 divisions of 9 teams. You have your 8 division games, you play 4 more that rotate in the other groups. And you have a playoff setup with nice round numbers.

There are 68 P4 schools currently and a few of those don’t belong in a Super League.

Another unrelated point they would likely need to go to 14 games. These bigger schools are used to 8 home games, at worst 7. Can’t go down to only 6.

As to divisions I think 5-6 teams makes the most sense for everyone. You can keep traditions and TV gets more inter regional matchups. So if you have 70 teams then 14 division winners and 0-18 wildcards in the playoffs.

 

[Toga]

 

[Chip]

It will be the reason it's shot down. If it was set up and gave life to all schools that were in jeopardy but made the SEC and BIG10 sleezeballs take 50 cents less than what they make now...they will kill it.

Yep, this is why the whole idea will never work. Those two leagues aren't going to take equal money as everyone else. Frankly I'm surprised that the Big 10 hasn't kicked out the deadweight yet. The only thing better than splitting a ginormous treasure among 20 is to split it among 16.

SEC and B1G would be perfectly happy if the rest of college football crumbled, and they could decide which carcasses they wanted to pick through.

 

[longtimefan]

I'm not advocating for a government solution.

Private equity never has solutions. That's not what they're about.

(You should have used the sarcasm font on #34 above.)

 

[OttoinGrotto]

(You should have used the sarcasm font on #34 above.)

I refuse to use the sarcasm font.

 

[longtimefan]

70 isn't too many, come on.

But if it were me, and feasible given geography, I'd do 8 divisions of 9 teams. You have your 8 division games, you play 4 more that rotate in the other groups. And you have a playoff setup with nice round numbers.

Jake Crouthamel always said that a 9-team league was ideal. 4 home league games, 4 on the road, lots of flexibility to fill out the schedule.

 

[longtimefan]

I refuse to use the sarcasm font.

The problem is--it's often difficult to tell whether a comment is being made with a straight face.