Super league

[Chriselli]

My friends and I were discussing the merits of forming a Super League for football that includes the SEC, B1G, and select teams from the PAC 12, ACC, and Big 12. I stated that the SEC and B1G would be dumb to do that because they have such a financial and strategic advantage from the current playoff system and current/imminent media deals. They contended that schools would be driven to have more money total rather than the most money (though a smaller number) relative to their competitors. I argued that it would be better for them to raid coaches and players from the "lesser leagues" that have fewer revenue resources.

Thoughts?

 

[jlasson]

It depends how long it takes for expansion. Idk how accurate this is, but I heard that the other conferences were so spiteful of OU and Texas joining the SEC that they decided to vote down expansion after originally being in favor of it. But we all know expansion is inevitable, so it depends on what the requirements are for getting a spot in the expanded playoff. I can't see a Lincoln Riley led USC team turning down a free spot in the playoff every year as long as the win the dog**** Pac-12. But if they don't put in any 5-6 conference requirement when they expand, than there's really no incentive for the big brands not to do just go for the money.

UT and OU already showed that money drives the decision making in their AD's, UT gave up the right to dictate an entire conference, and OU willingly made their playoff path MUCH harder, I can't see UM or OSU's AD turning down extra money, especially considering (2021 aside)UM is basically OSU's punching bag anyway, in the current format they would be lucky to make the playoff once every 5-10 years. They might as well be the punching bag of all the big boys, and make more money doing it.

 

[Tommaker]

It depends how long it takes for expansion. Idk how accurate this is, but I heard that the other conferences were so spiteful of OU and Texas joining the SEC that they decided to vote down expansion after originally being in favor of it. But we all know expansion is inevitable, so it depends on what the requirements are for getting a spot in the expanded playoff. I can't see a Lincoln Riley led USC team turning down a free spot in the playoff every year as long as the win the dog**** Pac-12. But if they don't put in any 5-6 conference requirement when they expand, than there's really no incentive for the big brands not to do just go for the money.

UT and OU already showed that money drives the decision making in their AD's, UT gave up the right to dictate an entire conference, and OU willingly made their playoff path MUCH harder, I can't see UM or OSU's AD turning down extra money, especially considering (2021 aside)UM is basically OSU's punching bag anyway, in the current format they would be lucky to make the playoff once every 5-10 years. They might as well be the punching bag of all the big boys, and make more money doing it.

But do you keep your fan base if you're just a punching bag? The thing driving all of this, as pointed out, is $$$. Even in a super conference, you will have perennial winners and losers. Do fans stick around for a consistent 7-5 Michigan or OSU? Without the fans or the eyes on the screens, you no longer have the $$$.

 

[Hoosier Clarion]

But do you keep your fan base if you're just a punching bag? The thing driving all of this, as pointed out, is $$$. Even in a super conference, you will have perennial winners and losers. Do fans stick around for a consistent 7-5 Michigan or OSU? Without the fans or the eyes on the screens, you no longer have the $$$.

BINGO!

 

[Jackskip23]

There won’t be a super league because it will create more issues than it solves. BiG Presidents will never go that direction. Be prepared for the top football schools on every conference to start asking for revenue shares that reflect what they generate, rather than just an equal distribution based on simple arithmetic. Great if you’re OSU, PSU, UM, UW, MSU, UNL, and Iowa. Not good if you’re IU, PU, RU, Maryland, UI, Minnesota or Northwestern, all of whom take more than they contribute.

 

[YOTHN]

There won’t be a super league because it will create more issues than it solves. BiG Presidents will never go that direction. Be prepared for the top football schools on every conference to start asking for revenue shares that reflect what they generate, rather than just an equal distribution based on simple arithmetic. Great if you’re OSU, PSU, UM, UW, MSU, UNL, and Iowa. Not good if you’re IU, PU, RU, Maryland, UI, Minnesota or Northwestern, all of whom take more than they contribute.

I don't agree here. If revenue distribution went that way in the major conferences, then it would remove the benefit of being in the conference for the smaller teams. They are offering those other schools a platform they wouldn't necessarily have so its not like those lower tiered schools don't have a lot of value. To that, the top teams do have higher revenue streams coming in off their ticket/merch/concessions sales. Those aren't shared.

If you want to ruin a sport, you remove half of the teams in the NCAA that compete in smaller conferences and then remove half of the power 5 teams. You would lose over half of your fanbase if not more. So although the lower tiered teams are whipping boys to a degree, that is needed for the sport. Otherwise you will have a small league that consists of all of the top talent which reflects a minor league professional system. You could just as easily begin to see all the teams who were cast aside become a more fan popular league as it would be more reflective of college athletics than whatever idea you're putting out there.

 

[turney333]

I don't agree here. If revenue distribution went that way in the major conferences, then it would remove the benefit of being in the conference for the smaller teams. They are offering those other schools a platform they wouldn't necessarily have so its not like those lower tiered schools don't have a lot of value. To that, the top teams do have higher revenue streams coming in off their ticket/merch/concessions sales. Those aren't shared.

If you want to ruin a sport, you remove half of the teams in the NCAA that compete in smaller conferences and then remove half of the power 5 teams. You would lose over half of your fanbase if not more. So although the lower tiered teams are whipping boys to a degree, that is needed for the sport. Otherwise you will have a small league that consists of all of the top talent which reflects a minor league professional system. You could just as easily begin to see all the teams who were cast aside become a more fan popular league as it would be more reflective of college athletics than whatever idea you're putting out there.

Yeah, when fans of neither team playing watch games, quality of matchup falls low on the list of reasons why. When not a fan of either team, people frequently watch for potential upsets/root against teams they dislike and/or to gauge their own team against teams they have played or will play. So a super league is going to struggle to bring in eyeballs outside the teams in the league

 

[Jackskip23]

I don't agree here. If revenue distribution went that way in the major conferences, then it would remove the benefit of being in the conference for the smaller teams. They are offering those other schools a platform they wouldn't necessarily have so its not like those lower tiered schools don't have a lot of value. To that, the top teams do have higher revenue streams coming in off their ticket/merch/concessions sales. Those aren't shared.

If you want to ruin a sport, you remove half of the teams in the NCAA that compete in smaller conferences and then remove half of the power 5 teams. You would lose over half of your fanbase if not more. So although the lower tiered teams are whipping boys to a degree, that is needed for the sport. Otherwise you will have a small league that consists of all of the top talent which reflects a minor league professional system. You could just as easily begin to see all the teams who were cast aside become a more fan popular league as it would be more reflective of college athletics than whatever idea you're putting out there.

But a super league would do this much more, totally separating the haves from the have nots. If the big boys in the BiG wanted revenue distributed based on each schools contribution, what could the smaller schools do about it?

 

[Radio Zero]

But a super league would do this much more, totally separating the haves from the have nots. If the big boys in the BiG wanted revenue distributed based on each schools contribution, what could the smaller schools do about it?

Who would comprise the big boys? OSU, UM, PSU certainly. Wisconsin, Iowa, MSU, Nebraska possibly? Is that a powerful enough bloc to push through something like that?

 

[jlasson]

But do you keep your fan base if you're just a punching bag? The thing driving all of this, as pointed out, is $$$. Even in a super conference, you will have perennial winners and losers. Do fans stick around for a consistent 7-5 Michigan or OSU? Without the fans or the eyes on the screens, you no longer have the $$$.

Nebraska fans have stuck around even though they've been completely irrelevant nationally for decades. I would bank on OSU and UM fans being more like Nebraska fans than Miami fans. I sense the culture around football resembles the culture in Lincoln, where you have nothing but UM or OSU football, so what else are you going to do during the fall.

 

[Tommaker]

I sense the culture around football resembles the culture in Lincoln,

If you haven't gone, I'd recommend going at least once (Lincoln becomes the biggest city I think in 3 adjoining states on gameday) and it is an event, heck, they pull tens of thousands in for their spring game. Having said that, talking with Nebraska fans the only way they've been able to keep their sellout streak alive over the last 5-10 years is by having corporations and deep pocket donors buy large blocks of tickets. I had a vendor who was a huge Michigan fan (non-grad), his company bought a block of tickets for the games, but he's been seeing a drop in attendance. I think last year was one of the lowest for season ticket sales, we'll see if a 12 win season can rebound that, but you see my point. There are people that go to the games for the college game day experience (me), and there are people who go to see their team win, and there are those that go to see the team win EVERYTHING. The question is how much of those last two categories do you lose when you start bumping heads with Bama and Georgia on a regular basis.

 

[YOTHN]

But a super league would do this much more, totally separating the haves from the have nots. If the big boys in the BiG wanted revenue distributed based on each schools contribution, what could the smaller schools do about it?

Don't get me wrong, I think there is value in cutting some of the fat off. Currently there are 130 division 1 teams. In the Power 5, there are 65 teams. I think you could still add more to that if you wanted to add some state schools in to be inclusive of most all states (just for fan sakes) but that number is more realistic than 130. So if by just maintaining the Power 5 is considered a Super League, then sure. I can see value there.

When Indiana has Indiana State coming to Bloomington , IU is cutting them a check. That is what the big teams are trying to get rid of. Sharing revenue with much smaller programs because everyone else is playing those cupcakes. When Indiana plays vs. Louisville or Notre Dame, those schools aren't paying Indiana to come to their place. To me, that is a black and white line that shows where one is providing value and the other is not. So I think the revenue Ohio State is getting is because they are riding the shoulders of the B1G. They get to play in the largest TV market (Midwest), and within that market, they are arguably the best team.

Let me put it this way, if Ohio State went to the SEC (or some Super League) and was no longer the perennial favorite to win the conference, do you think their value would take hit over time? Most certainly. Texas had an enhanced revenue deal with the Big 12 that also allowed them to maintain their own personal TV rights. The end result was the rest of the conference (aside from Oklahoma) was made to look like they weren't as valuable which made the conference become devalued. A rising tide lifts all boats applies here.

The point being, Indiana and the rest of the B1G teams would tell teams like OSU to shove it if they came around with that nonsense. The ACC in basketball has proven the more talent you have in one conference, the more likely you are going to have a historically good team become mediocre. Because there's no way for everyone to always win. What OSU has right now is a mutually beneficial relationship and the value of leaving the B1G for any reason is not the same as Texas and the much weaker Big 12.

 

[TomEric4756]

The NFL has equal distribution of TV revenue… I don’t see the Big Ten changing that (Any time soon).

The haves get other advantages they don’t share equally in alumni contributions, gate receipts, parking passes, and Jersey sales.

I can see division changes to set up an OSU v. Penn State or OSU v Michigan BiG Championship game.
East Division champ laughers over west division champs aren’t working

Proposals to even out the frequency of now rare opponents were about improving the champ. Game matchup to me.

 

[Jackskip23]

Don't get me wrong, I think there is value in cutting some of the fat off. Currently there are 130 division 1 teams. In the Power 5, there are 65 teams. I think you could still add more to that if you wanted to add some state schools in to be inclusive of most all states (just for fan sakes) but that number is more realistic than 130. So if by just maintaining the Power 5 is considered a Super League, then sure. I can see value there.

When Indiana has Indiana State coming to Bloomington , IU is cutting them a check. That is what the big teams are trying to get rid of. Sharing revenue with much smaller programs because everyone else is playing those cupcakes. When Indiana plays vs. Louisville or Notre Dame, those schools aren't paying Indiana to come to their place. To me, that is a black and white line that shows where one is providing value and the other is not. So I think the revenue Ohio State is getting is because they are riding the shoulders of the B1G. They get to play in the largest TV market (Midwest), and within that market, they are arguably the best team.

Let me put it this way, if Ohio State went to the SEC (or some Super League) and was no longer the perennial favorite to win the conference, do you think their value would take hit over time? Most certainly. Texas had an enhanced revenue deal with the Big 12 that also allowed them to maintain their own personal TV rights. The end result was the rest of the conference (aside from Oklahoma) was made to look like they weren't as valuable which made the conference become devalued. A rising tide lifts all boats applies here.

The point being, Indiana and the rest of the B1G teams would tell teams like OSU to shove it if they came around with that nonsense. The ACC in basketball has proven the more talent you have in one conference, the more likely you are going to have a historically good team become mediocre. Because there's no way for everyone to always win. What OSU has right now is a mutually beneficial relationship and the value of leaving the B1G for any reason is not the same as Texas and the much weaker Big 12.

Not sure I agree. If OSU, UM and PSU went to the rest of the BiG schools and said, we generate a disproportionate share of the revenue and we deserve to be rewarded accordingly, the others, who take out more than they contribute, would have to listen. Especially if the big 3 dangled an option of combining forces with other major football schools. Great that they continue to subsidize us, but I don’t know if we can count on that forever.

 

[YOTHN]

Not sure I agree. If OSU, UM and PSU went to the rest of the BiG schools and said, we generate a disproportionate share of the revenue and we deserve to be rewarded accordingly, the others, who take out more than they contribute, would have to listen. Especially if the big 3 dangled an option of combining forces with other major football schools. Great that they continue to subsidize us, but I don’t know if we can count on that forever.

Who is subsidizing who in the B1G? And in what ways are they subsidizing them? I think that's blatantly false.

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

Nebraska fans have stuck around even though they've been completely irrelevant nationally for decades. I would bank on OSU and UM fans being more like Nebraska fans than Miami fans. I sense the culture around football resembles the culture in Lincoln, where you have nothing but UM or OSU football, so what else are you going to do during the fall.

Sounds like a certain basketball program I know.