The ACC did try merger talks with the 4 corners, Oregon, UW and Cal and furd. But they could not get a deal together before the big took Oregon and Washington, and so the 4 corners bolted. I do think that the 4 corners, or at least ASU and Utah, would like to be in the ACC as opposed to the Big 12. So that could happen in 5 years or so.calumnus said:dimitrig said:BarcaBear said:First, this guy does not know the math. Maryland jumping does NOT give FSU and Clemson the framework for leaving. Maryland left at the tail end of an expiring contract. The GoR penalty for leaving the ACC is average annual revenue multiplied by remaining years left in the contract. If they leave by 2026, then they owe $400 million. If they jump, then they don't break even until 2031. The B1G contract expires in 2030, so that points to them leaving just in time to join the new B1G contract, not before.golden sloth said:sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.What is coming next in conference realignment?
— Big Ten information. College football fan (@Genetics56) September 1, 2023
A lot of people can come up with reasons for why the ACC adding SMU, Stanford and California doesn't make sense and arguments around travel, etc. However, when it came down to survival of a conference to even reach the year 2036,…
I know it is speculation, but I would be very irritated if the ACC adds Big-XII schools at a full share while Cal is still only receiving a partial share.
Second, something to keep in mind about the ability of the ACC to survive...the ACC agreement gives SMU a full vote by July 1, 2024, and Cal and Stanford each have voting power starting August 2, 2024.
If FSU and Clemson and UNC leave, then the ACC may create a West Coast pod and pick up OSU and Washington St. to replace them. And if Utah and the Arizona schools really don't want to be in the Big XII, then they could potentially be brought in.
But...the problem is the ACC ESPN contract goes all the way through 2036. Does anybody see ESPN agreeing to renegotiate a contract? Maybe if ESPN's parent company gets Apple to agree to become a partner and take over ESPN.
sidenote: is anyone thinking about a Big XII merger with ACC? it would create a lot of negotiating power.
Pac-12 should have merged with the ACC but apparently USC would not be happy in the same way Clemson and FSU are not happy.
Could the remaining Pac-10 members have done so? Maybe but with Oregon and Washington in the Big10 it seems they also would have been unhappy in the ACC.
All of which is to say that the former Pac-12 didn't have the juice so why would the dregs of the Pac-12 and Big-12 have any negotiating power?
After USC and UCLA bolted, a PAC-10 merger with the B1G or ACC was the way to go but was not in Kliavkoff's self-interest so he did not push for it and most of the presidents were too clueless to notice.
This is a great outcome considering we put ourselves in. Horrible position.
The latest on Conference Realignment and Cal - Saturday the 19th
189,852 Views |
1043 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by annarborbear
I have been reading some of the ACC boards and most fans don't like the expansion. They don't want their teams to travel across country and they feel Cal and Stanford add little. Most of them are more excited about SMU and the potential to add a school with deep pockets that cares about football. However, they all see the ACC as a dead conference going forward and are looking for ways out. Some of them know they have little hope, some have big plans, and some (UVA and UNC) think they have better brands than I think they actually have.
That said, there is an angle that I had not seen mentioned about why some of the schools wanted to add Cal and Stanford. In particular, VT and NC State think that they might be candidates for the Big10 in a few years. I scoff at that notion but I digress.
Anyway, they think that they won't be able to get in because they are not AAU schools. They are thinking that Cal and Stanford might do some lobbying to help them gain that status in repayment of the favor they did to help save our athletics. That was mentioned as one possible reason that NC Stare flipped their vote. Just a thought.
Also…gosh… the ACC is not a good football conference. No wonder Clemson and FSU want to leave.
This is what I was hoping after the LA teams announced their departure.dimitrig said:BarcaBear said:First, this guy does not know the math. Maryland jumping does NOT give FSU and Clemson the framework for leaving. Maryland left at the tail end of an expiring contract. The GoR penalty for leaving the ACC is average annual revenue multiplied by remaining years left in the contract. If they leave by 2026, then they owe $400 million. If they jump, then they don't break even until 2031. The B1G contract expires in 2030, so that points to them leaving just in time to join the new B1G contract, not before.golden sloth said:sycasey said:
Returning to unsubstantiated Twitter rumors, but this guy has an interesting scenario for FSU and Clemson leaving earlier. No idea if the money actually makes sense.What is coming next in conference realignment?
— Big Ten information. College football fan (@Genetics56) September 1, 2023
A lot of people can come up with reasons for why the ACC adding SMU, Stanford and California doesn't make sense and arguments around travel, etc. However, when it came down to survival of a conference to even reach the year 2036,…
I know it is speculation, but I would be very irritated if the ACC adds Big-XII schools at a full share while Cal is still only receiving a partial share.
Second, something to keep in mind about the ability of the ACC to survive...the ACC agreement gives SMU a full vote by July 1, 2024, and Cal and Stanford each have voting power starting August 2, 2024.
If FSU and Clemson and UNC leave, then the ACC may create a West Coast pod and pick up OSU and Washington St. to replace them. And if Utah and the Arizona schools really don't want to be in the Big XII, then they could potentially be brought in.
But...the problem is the ACC ESPN contract goes all the way through 2036. Does anybody see ESPN agreeing to renegotiate a contract? Maybe if ESPN's parent company gets Apple to agree to become a partner and take over ESPN.
sidenote: is anyone thinking about a Big XII merger with ACC? it would create a lot of negotiating power.
Pac-12 should have merged with the ACC but apparently USC would not be happy in the same way Clemson and FSU are not happy.
Could the remaining Pac-10 members have done so? Maybe but with Oregon and Washington in the Big10 it seems they also would have been unhappy in the ACC.
All of which is to say that the former Pac-12 didn't have the juice so why would the dregs of the Pac-12 and Big-12 have any negotiating power?
The question I have is: Why is George Kliavkoff still gtting a paycheck?
I know more than you.
accprisoner said:
I know more than you.
If FSU/Clemson have $350+ million in funds they are willing to burn through on the hope they find a legal loophole for the chance to tag onto a contract that ends in 6 years when it would take them a decade plus to recoup their losses, good for them. I'll laugh hysterically when the whole conference-cable media system explodes within the decade and the Rutgers and Northwestern and Miss State and Vandy's are relegated. FSU fans should take a beat, figure out what the future looks like, and save the money rather than burning it Joker-style.
JeepCSC said:accprisoner said:
I know more than you.
If FSU/Clemson have $350+ million in funds they are willing to burn through on the hope they find a legal loophole for the chance to tag onto a contract that ends in 6 years when it would take them a decade plus to recoup their losses, good for them. I'll laugh hysterically when the whole conference-cable media system explodes within the decade and the Rutgers and Northwestern and Miss State and Vandy's are relegated. FSU fans should take a beat, figure out what the future looks like, and save the money rather than burning it Joker-style.
They feel like they will be falling farther and farther behind with each passing year and that if they don't do something their programs will be a lot less relevant in the future. That is the incentive to take action now.
Quite frankly, the ACC should have probably voted to blow itself up and become free agents. However, that will leave a lot of schools in the same situation as Cal and Stanford which is why the votes are not there. ACC and Big-12 are not where you want to be if you have aspirations.
This. I keep saying that they feel like they are losing money already, not gaining a measly $10-15 million in spending cash. They feel like they're losing $300 million over the next 6 years. No one seems to accept that FSU and Clemson feel the conference is dead already. They are locked into a GoR that they unknowingly thought was going to bring them security long term but it is now a dinosaur.dimitrig said:JeepCSC said:accprisoner said:
I know more than you.
If FSU/Clemson have $350+ million in funds they are willing to burn through on the hope they find a legal loophole for the chance to tag onto a contract that ends in 6 years when it would take them a decade plus to recoup their losses, good for them. I'll laugh hysterically when the whole conference-cable media system explodes within the decade and the Rutgers and Northwestern and Miss State and Vandy's are relegated. FSU fans should take a beat, figure out what the future looks like, and save the money rather than burning it Joker-style.
They feel like they will be falling farther and farther behind with each passing year and that if they don't do something their programs will be a lot less relevant in the future. That is the incentive to take action now.
Quite frankly, the ACC should have probably voted to blow itself up and become free agents. However, that will leave a lot of schools in the same situation as Cal and Stanford which is why the votes are not there. ACC and Big-12 are not where you want to be if you have aspirations.
I give it to 2029/30. If you have 4 teams leave, it is likely a sinking ship. 6 years to figure things out.
5 year cumulative Grand Total Athletics Revenue (per EADA 2017-21 filings):
— Jeff Fuller (@jjfuller72) August 20, 2023
1-10
Ohio State $ 1,025,965,761
Texas $ 998,714,585
Georgia $ 902,151,502
Alabama $ 887,756,096
Michigan $ 858,867,399
Oklahoma $ 834,334,929
Notre Dame $ 828,704,475…
FSU was 8th in athletic revenue from 2017-2021, in between Notre Dame and LSU. They've absolutely blown through the money they've earned and they've handled the transition from Jimbo pretty horrifically which has only exacerbated the main issue with Seminole Nation (that it is not 1999 anymore). But again, if they want to raise money to assuage their ego, I'm all for it. Again, I think the Nebraska athletic director hinting at P2 relegation is the next step in the changing media market wasn't far off. A new way to handle college football is coming, and FSU spending hundreds of millions to tilt at the old windmills of yesteryear when it's all going away anyhow seems on brand.
no American sports will ever embrace relegation.JeepCSC said:5 year cumulative Grand Total Athletics Revenue (per EADA 2017-21 filings):
— Jeff Fuller (@jjfuller72) August 20, 2023
1-10
Ohio State $ 1,025,965,761
Texas $ 998,714,585
Georgia $ 902,151,502
Alabama $ 887,756,096
Michigan $ 858,867,399
Oklahoma $ 834,334,929
Notre Dame $ 828,704,475…
FSU was 8th in athletic revenue from 2017-2021, in between Notre Dame and LSU. They've absolutely blown through the money they've earned and they've handled the transition from Jimbo pretty horrifically which has only exacerbated the main issue with Seminole Nation (that it is not 1999 anymore). But again, if they want to raise money to assuage their ego, I'm all for it. Again, I think the Nebraska athletic director hinting at P2 relegation is the next step in the changing media market wasn't far off. A new way to handle college football is coming, and FSU spending hundreds of millions to tilt at the old windmills of yesteryear when it's all going away anyhow seems on brand.
BarcaBear said:no American sports will ever embrace relegation.JeepCSC said:5 year cumulative Grand Total Athletics Revenue (per EADA 2017-21 filings):
— Jeff Fuller (@jjfuller72) August 20, 2023
1-10
Ohio State $ 1,025,965,761
Texas $ 998,714,585
Georgia $ 902,151,502
Alabama $ 887,756,096
Michigan $ 858,867,399
Oklahoma $ 834,334,929
Notre Dame $ 828,704,475…
FSU was 8th in athletic revenue from 2017-2021, in between Notre Dame and LSU. They've absolutely blown through the money they've earned and they've handled the transition from Jimbo pretty horrifically which has only exacerbated the main issue with Seminole Nation (that it is not 1999 anymore). But again, if they want to raise money to assuage their ego, I'm all for it. Again, I think the Nebraska athletic director hinting at P2 relegation is the next step in the changing media market wasn't far off. A new way to handle college football is coming, and FSU spending hundreds of millions to tilt at the old windmills of yesteryear when it's all going away anyhow seems on brand.
I also don't think those big programs will actually be happy playing in a league only against other big spenders. If you do that then someone is going 2-10.
I think what's really needed is some kind of standardization between conferences and heavy financial advantages for winning.
They might if the money drives it. The USL is thinking about it. I don't think it will happen in pro football but in college it could.
You have 25-30 teams, call it the college football Championship. They have a media deal. Then you regionalize all the rest. Cali/northwest, southwest, Midwest and east/southeast. They have their own media deals. It keeps some semblance of regional rivalries. Teams in the Championship can still play 2 games out of the league. Teams relegated would get a percentage of media revenue from the championship.
The EPL was formed by exactly what college football is driving to: teams wanted a greater share of tv revenue, weren't getting it from the EFL - and then broke away.
You have 25-30 teams, call it the college football Championship. They have a media deal. Then you regionalize all the rest. Cali/northwest, southwest, Midwest and east/southeast. They have their own media deals. It keeps some semblance of regional rivalries. Teams in the Championship can still play 2 games out of the league. Teams relegated would get a percentage of media revenue from the championship.
The EPL was formed by exactly what college football is driving to: teams wanted a greater share of tv revenue, weren't getting it from the EFL - and then broke away.
Not relegation per se, but in a world without cable bundled and instead relying on streaming eyeballs (and perhaps dwindling media money pool), I'm thinking Ohio State will start to get bothered by making the same as Rutgers. Something will give.BarcaBear said:no American sports will ever embrace relegation.JeepCSC said:
IM5 year cumulative Grand Total Athletics Revenue (per EADA 2017-21 filings):
— Jeff Fuller (@jjfuller72) August 20, 2023
1-10
Ohio State $ 1,025,965,761
Texas $ 998,714,585
Georgia $ 902,151,502
Alabama $ 887,756,096
Michigan $ 858,867,399
Oklahoma $ 834,334,929
Notre Dame $ 828,704,475…
FSU was 8th in athletic revenue from 2017-2021, in between Notre Dame and LSU. They've absolutely blown through the money they've earned and they've handled the transition from Jimbo pretty horrifically which has only exacerbated the main issue with Seminole Nation (that it is not 1999 anymore). But again, if they want to raise money to assuage their ego, I'm all for it. Again, I think the Nebraska athletic director hinting at P2 relegation is the next step in the changing media market wasn't far off. A new way to handle college football is coming, and FSU spending hundreds of millions to tilt at the old windmills of yesteryear when it's all going away anyhow seems on brand.
They aren't going to pay anywhere close to full price to leave and the amount they owe will be spaced out over a long enough timeline for the ACC to implode and for them to not have to pay it anymore.JeepCSC said:accprisoner said:
I know more than you.
If FSU/Clemson have $350+ million in funds they are willing to burn through on the hope they find a legal loophole for the chance to tag onto a contract that ends in 6 years when it would take them a decade plus to recoup their losses, good for them. I'll laugh hysterically when the whole conference-cable media system explodes within the decade and the Rutgers and Northwestern and Miss State and Vandy's are relegated. FSU fans should take a beat, figure out what the future looks like, and save the money rather than burning it Joker-style.
The wheels were set in motion years ago. FSU and Clemson aren't going to put up with BC and Wake tier parasites taking all of their money.
accprisoner said:They aren't going to pay anywhere close to full price to leave and the amount they owe will be spaced out over a long enough timeline for the ACC to implode and for them to not have to pay it anymore.JeepCSC said:accprisoner said:
I know more than you.
If FSU/Clemson have $350+ million in funds they are willing to burn through on the hope they find a legal loophole for the chance to tag onto a contract that ends in 6 years when it would take them a decade plus to recoup their losses, good for them. I'll laugh hysterically when the whole conference-cable media system explodes within the decade and the Rutgers and Northwestern and Miss State and Vandy's are relegated. FSU fans should take a beat, figure out what the future looks like, and save the money rather than burning it Joker-style.
The wheels were set in motion years ago. FSU and Clemson aren't going to put up with BC and Wake tier parasites taking all of their money.
But ...
$350M+ is nowhere near full price. Full price = exit fee + (# of years remaining x B1G/SEC media revenue per year). That's more like $750M to leave in 2026.
UT and UO negotiated $50M each to leave 1 yr early. If the ACC and FSU negotiated that same deal, FSU would pay $500M to leave in 2026.
$350M to break the most ironclad contract in all of college sports 10 years early would be an absolute bargain.
berserkeley said:accprisoner said:They aren't going to pay anywhere close to full price to leave and the amount they owe will be spaced out over a long enough timeline for the ACC to implode and for them to not have to pay it anymore.JeepCSC said:accprisoner said:
I know more than you.
If FSU/Clemson have $350+ million in funds they are willing to burn through on the hope they find a legal loophole for the chance to tag onto a contract that ends in 6 years when it would take them a decade plus to recoup their losses, good for them. I'll laugh hysterically when the whole conference-cable media system explodes within the decade and the Rutgers and Northwestern and Miss State and Vandy's are relegated. FSU fans should take a beat, figure out what the future looks like, and save the money rather than burning it Joker-style.
The wheels were set in motion years ago. FSU and Clemson aren't going to put up with BC and Wake tier parasites taking all of their money.
But ...
$350M+ is nowhere near full price. Full price = exit fee + (# of years remaining x B1G/SEC media revenue per year). That's more like $750M to leave in 2026.
UT and UO negotiated $50M each to leave 1 yr early. If the ACC and FSU negotiated that same deal, FSU would pay $500M to leave in 2026.
$350M to break the most ironclad contract in all of college sports 10 years early would be an absolute bargain.
the ACC would never in a million years get an injunction to enforce the GOR as written. IF they won, (big if), they'd be lucky to get damages equal to the ACC media payout x number of years remaining. ACC media payout is 24.7 million. FSU/Clemson will pay that every year without batting an eye because they'll be making 100m a year on the b1g deal.
Final deal is going to be exit fee up front (120m) + some negotiated number per year for 12 years. Likely 250m total. The ACC won't survive the full 12 years anyway so FSU/Clemson don't care.
accprisoner said:They aren't going to pay anywhere close to full price to leave and the amount they owe will be spaced out over a long enough timeline for the ACC to implode and for them to not have to pay it anymore.JeepCSC said:accprisoner said:
I know more than you.
If FSU/Clemson have $350+ million in funds they are willing to burn through on the hope they find a legal loophole for the chance to tag onto a contract that ends in 6 years when it would take them a decade plus to recoup their losses, good for them. I'll laugh hysterically when the whole conference-cable media system explodes within the decade and the Rutgers and Northwestern and Miss State and Vandy's are relegated. FSU fans should take a beat, figure out what the future looks like, and save the money rather than burning it Joker-style.
The wheels were set in motion years ago. FSU and Clemson aren't going to put up with BC and Wake tier parasites taking all of their money.
Somewhat of the same dynamic as in European club soccer, a lot of the top clubs in the big leagues tried to break away from their national leagues in order to form a European superleague. It was thankfully quashed by politicians after a lot of public outrage.
I could see that. Only way it happens is if you see the Athletic Department or at least College football from a top university spin off and go fully private and strike some sort of deal with a university that grants them laundry rights.JeepCSC said:Not relegation per se, but in a world without cable bundled and instead relying on streaming eyeballs (and perhaps dwindling media money pool), I'm thinking Ohio State will start to get bothered by making the same as Rutgers. Something will give.BarcaBear said:no American sports will ever embrace relegation.JeepCSC said:
IM5 year cumulative Grand Total Athletics Revenue (per EADA 2017-21 filings):
— Jeff Fuller (@jjfuller72) August 20, 2023
1-10
Ohio State $ 1,025,965,761
Texas $ 998,714,585
Georgia $ 902,151,502
Alabama $ 887,756,096
Michigan $ 858,867,399
Oklahoma $ 834,334,929
Notre Dame $ 828,704,475…
FSU was 8th in athletic revenue from 2017-2021, in between Notre Dame and LSU. They've absolutely blown through the money they've earned and they've handled the transition from Jimbo pretty horrifically which has only exacerbated the main issue with Seminole Nation (that it is not 1999 anymore). But again, if they want to raise money to assuage their ego, I'm all for it. Again, I think the Nebraska athletic director hinting at P2 relegation is the next step in the changing media market wasn't far off. A new way to handle college football is coming, and FSU spending hundreds of millions to tilt at the old windmills of yesteryear when it's all going away anyhow seems on brand.
but, relegation won't happen because of the whole academic thing. But do you see any of the top programs in the country thinking that is a legitimate avenue for them? A department would have to be facing some sort of existential crisis that could get a University administration to make that leap. I don't see any state schools doing it. of the schools that could do it, I don't see any of them thinking they need to do it.
There are a handful of schools that could potentially make that leap, teams who don't realize that its been like 30 years since they were blue bloods.
another potential avenue that would make more sense would be that a conference shave a few points off the top of their annual distribution to form an on-field performance pool. win the conference, win awards, make the playoffs...that way Ohio State is earning the bonus money that separates if from Rutgers.
Cal88 said:accprisoner said:They aren't going to pay anywhere close to full price to leave and the amount they owe will be spaced out over a long enough timeline for the ACC to implode and for them to not have to pay it anymore.JeepCSC said:accprisoner said:
I know more than you.
If FSU/Clemson have $350+ million in funds they are willing to burn through on the hope they find a legal loophole for the chance to tag onto a contract that ends in 6 years when it would take them a decade plus to recoup their losses, good for them. I'll laugh hysterically when the whole conference-cable media system explodes within the decade and the Rutgers and Northwestern and Miss State and Vandy's are relegated. FSU fans should take a beat, figure out what the future looks like, and save the money rather than burning it Joker-style.
The wheels were set in motion years ago. FSU and Clemson aren't going to put up with BC and Wake tier parasites taking all of their money.
Somewhat of the same dynamic as in European club soccer, a lot of the top clubs in the big leagues tried to break away from their national leagues in order to form a European superleague. It was thankfully quashed by politicians after a lot of public outrage.
Sort of. It was UEFA and FIFA that said they would not allow the competition under their governance. They would have had to leave both bodies to play and would have been shut out of billions. Yes, the public outrage shamed the English clubs into backing out. But Barcelona, real Madrid and Juventus still want to do it.
The relegation model doesn't make any sense for College Football. With the portal and the constant roster turnover due to kids graduating you can't build season upon season.BarcaBear said:no American sports will ever embrace relegation.JeepCSC said:5 year cumulative Grand Total Athletics Revenue (per EADA 2017-21 filings):
— Jeff Fuller (@jjfuller72) August 20, 2023
1-10
Ohio State $ 1,025,965,761
Texas $ 998,714,585
Georgia $ 902,151,502
Alabama $ 887,756,096
Michigan $ 858,867,399
Oklahoma $ 834,334,929
Notre Dame $ 828,704,475…
FSU was 8th in athletic revenue from 2017-2021, in between Notre Dame and LSU. They've absolutely blown through the money they've earned and they've handled the transition from Jimbo pretty horrifically which has only exacerbated the main issue with Seminole Nation (that it is not 1999 anymore). But again, if they want to raise money to assuage their ego, I'm all for it. Again, I think the Nebraska athletic director hinting at P2 relegation is the next step in the changing media market wasn't far off. A new way to handle college football is coming, and FSU spending hundreds of millions to tilt at the old windmills of yesteryear when it's all going away anyhow seems on brand.
golden sloth said:The relegation model doesn't make any sense for College Football. With the portal and the constant roster turnover due to kids graduating you can't build season upon season.BarcaBear said:no American sports will ever embrace relegation.JeepCSC said:5 year cumulative Grand Total Athletics Revenue (per EADA 2017-21 filings):
— Jeff Fuller (@jjfuller72) August 20, 2023
1-10
Ohio State $ 1,025,965,761
Texas $ 998,714,585
Georgia $ 902,151,502
Alabama $ 887,756,096
Michigan $ 858,867,399
Oklahoma $ 834,334,929
Notre Dame $ 828,704,475…
FSU was 8th in athletic revenue from 2017-2021, in between Notre Dame and LSU. They've absolutely blown through the money they've earned and they've handled the transition from Jimbo pretty horrifically which has only exacerbated the main issue with Seminole Nation (that it is not 1999 anymore). But again, if they want to raise money to assuage their ego, I'm all for it. Again, I think the Nebraska athletic director hinting at P2 relegation is the next step in the changing media market wasn't far off. A new way to handle college football is coming, and FSU spending hundreds of millions to tilt at the old windmills of yesteryear when it's all going away anyhow seems on brand.
Plus the United States is a far larger country than England. A different league composition means wildly different travel schedules.
The relegation model would have worked very well for soccer in the US, with a multi-layered league structure owned and run by the US Soccer Federation, but of course it completely clashes with the league/franchise model.
But the subject of the Euro Superleague is very valid here, as it seems that the logical conclusion to the shakeup in the NCAA landscape is for the upper echelons programs in the top 3 or 4 conferences to ditch their conferences and merge into a national superconference with around 20-25 teams. We could be now at just an intermediate stage.
But the subject of the Euro Superleague is very valid here, as it seems that the logical conclusion to the shakeup in the NCAA landscape is for the upper echelons programs in the top 3 or 4 conferences to ditch their conferences and merge into a national superconference with around 20-25 teams. We could be now at just an intermediate stage.
Cal88 said:
The relegation model would have worked very well for soccer in the US, with a multi-layered league structure owned and run by the US Soccer Federation, but of course it completely clashes with the league/franchise model.
But the subject of the Euro Superleague is very valid here, as it seems that the logical conclusion to the shakeup in the NCAA landscape is for the upper echelons programs in the top 3 or 4 conferences to ditch their conferences and merge into a national superconference with around 20-25 teams. We could be now at just an intermediate stage.
Agree on the super league point. I think its inevitable, and is really just a question of how big the super league is. Is it 30 teams, 40 teams, more? I'm thinking somewhere between 40 and 50, as the best programs dont just mirror the major cities.
golden sloth said:Cal88 said:
The relegation model would have worked very well for soccer in the US, with a multi-layered league structure owned and run by the US Soccer Federation, but of course it completely clashes with the league/franchise model.
But the subject of the Euro Superleague is very valid here, as it seems that the logical conclusion to the shakeup in the NCAA landscape is for the upper echelons programs in the top 3 or 4 conferences to ditch their conferences and merge into a national superconference with around 20-25 teams. We could be now at just an intermediate stage.
Agree on the super league point. I think its inevitable, and is really just a question of how big the super league is. Is it 30 teams, 40 teams, more? I'm thinking somewhere between 40 and 50, as the best programs dont just mirror the major cities.
My question is, would there ever be a way to move up into that league or down into another? Over time, the composition of the "best" programs will change.
Not very likely. The whole point of a "super league" is for the wealthiest and most popular programs to lock in their status forever so that they can't be moved down even if they have a long stretch of suckitude.sycasey said:golden sloth said:Cal88 said:
The relegation model would have worked very well for soccer in the US, with a multi-layered league structure owned and run by the US Soccer Federation, but of course it completely clashes with the league/franchise model.
But the subject of the Euro Superleague is very valid here, as it seems that the logical conclusion to the shakeup in the NCAA landscape is for the upper echelons programs in the top 3 or 4 conferences to ditch their conferences and merge into a national superconference with around 20-25 teams. We could be now at just an intermediate stage.
Agree on the super league point. I think its inevitable, and is really just a question of how big the super league is. Is it 30 teams, 40 teams, more? I'm thinking somewhere between 40 and 50, as the best programs dont just mirror the major cities.
My question is, would there ever be a way to move up into that league or down into another? Over time, the composition of the "best" programs will change.
BearSD said:Not very likely. The whole point of a "super league" is for the wealthiest and most popular programs to lock in their status forever so that they can't be moved down even if they have a long stretch of suckitude.sycasey said:golden sloth said:Cal88 said:
The relegation model would have worked very well for soccer in the US, with a multi-layered league structure owned and run by the US Soccer Federation, but of course it completely clashes with the league/franchise model.
But the subject of the Euro Superleague is very valid here, as it seems that the logical conclusion to the shakeup in the NCAA landscape is for the upper echelons programs in the top 3 or 4 conferences to ditch their conferences and merge into a national superconference with around 20-25 teams. We could be now at just an intermediate stage.
Agree on the super league point. I think its inevitable, and is really just a question of how big the super league is. Is it 30 teams, 40 teams, more? I'm thinking somewhere between 40 and 50, as the best programs dont just mirror the major cities.
My question is, would there ever be a way to move up into that league or down into another? Over time, the composition of the "best" programs will change.
I can see this going over pretty poorly with a lot of state governments.
golden sloth said:Cal88 said:
The relegation model would have worked very well for soccer in the US, with a multi-layered league structure owned and run by the US Soccer Federation, but of course it completely clashes with the league/franchise model.
But the subject of the Euro Superleague is very valid here, as it seems that the logical conclusion to the shakeup in the NCAA landscape is for the upper echelons programs in the top 3 or 4 conferences to ditch their conferences and merge into a national superconference with around 20-25 teams. We could be now at just an intermediate stage.
Agree on the super league point. I think its inevitable, and is really just a question of how big the super league is. Is it 30 teams, 40 teams, more? I'm thinking somewhere between 40 and 50, as the best programs dont just mirror the major cities.
30-34 tops, any more and it would not be that much different from the current P4 lineups.
here's something for folks to ponder...Cal88 said:
The relegation model would have worked very well for soccer in the US, with a multi-layered league structure owned and run by the US Soccer Federation, but of course it completely clashes with the league/franchise model.
But the subject of the Euro Superleague is very valid here, as it seems that the logical conclusion to the shakeup in the NCAA landscape is for the upper echelons programs in the top 3 or 4 conferences to ditch their conferences and merge into a national superconference with around 20-25 teams. We could be now at just an intermediate stage.
This new superleague model is threatening the financial viability of college football for smaller teams.
If ESPN/FOX are able to survive a push by Apple to enter, and they manage to keep pouring billions into the top teams, they don't seem to be willing to give anything but table scraps to the other conferences.
Also, student-athletes are becoming more like pro-players with their financial rights. But, we are seeing schools devoting a lot of resources to train, coach, house, and take care of these athletes. Yet, schools recoup no money whatsoever when students just get up and transfer. So...what if college football established a transfer fee system like professional soccer?
In professional soccer you see teams sign athletes to contracts, and they put these payout clauses in the contracts where if they player leaves prior to the completion of the contract then "x" amount of money must be paid to the Club. That is called a transfer fee, and the new team has to pay the former team that fee. Some players are cut and released from their contracts and can join whoever, but transfer fees allow for a team to try to secure a player without losing them easily.
We are seeing athletes from FCS teams or from smaller Div 1 schools showcasing their talents and transferring to bigger schools. We have that amazing running back who transferred here from Montana. so...imagine if Cal had to pay Montana St. for Isaiah Ifanse's contract. Those fees could help smaller schools. Colorado would've had to pay Jackson St. for Shedeur Sanders and Travis Hunter. It would have cost Colorado a lot of money to put together the team they fielded today.
as folks say, this is a business, so lets start treating it like a business and come up with a way to help teams to compete against the juggernauts,
One could make the argument, if you have a team IN the super league or that would more than likely be in it, is that the current system is threatening the financial viability of college football. Should a team like Rutgers get the same payout as Ohio State? Should Vandy get the same as Alabama?BarcaBear said:here's something for folks to ponder...Cal88 said:
The relegation model would have worked very well for soccer in the US, with a multi-layered league structure owned and run by the US Soccer Federation, but of course it completely clashes with the league/franchise model.
But the subject of the Euro Superleague is very valid here, as it seems that the logical conclusion to the shakeup in the NCAA landscape is for the upper echelons programs in the top 3 or 4 conferences to ditch their conferences and merge into a national superconference with around 20-25 teams. We could be now at just an intermediate stage.
This new superleague model is threatening the financial viability of college football for smaller teams.
If ESPN/FOX are able to survive a push by Apple to enter, and they manage to keep pouring billions into the top teams, they don't seem to be willing to give anything but table scraps to the other conferences.
Also, student-athletes are becoming more like pro-players with their financial rights. But, we are seeing schools devoting a lot of resources to train, coach, house, and take care of these athletes. Yet, schools recoup no money whatsoever when students just get up and transfer. So...what if college football established a transfer fee system like professional soccer?
In professional soccer you see teams sign athletes to contracts, and they put these payout clauses in the contracts where if they player leaves prior to the completion of the contract then "x" amount of money must be paid to the Club. That is called a transfer fee, and the new team has to pay the former team that fee. Some players are cut and released from their contracts and can join whoever, but transfer fees allow for a team to try to secure a player without losing them easily.
We are seeing athletes from FCS teams or from smaller Div 1 schools showcasing their talents and transferring to bigger schools. We have that amazing running back who transferred here from Montana. so...imagine if Cal had to pay Montana St. for Isaiah Ifanse's contract. Those fees could help smaller schools. Colorado would've had to pay Jackson St. for Shedeur Sanders and Travis Hunter. It would have cost Colorado a lot of money to put together the team they fielded today.
as folks say, this is a business, so lets start treating it like a business and come up with a way to help teams to compete against the juggernauts,
A super league would be 25-30 teams tops. All the rest would be free to have players transfer. Where you could possibly see restrictions is if you restricted transfers in the super league. Or you create a transfer window before the season starts. If you're not in the super league, then you can transfer with no fee. There can be rules for everything.
The rip off in college football is that teams in G5 conferences can't compete with teams in P5. Even though media and NCAA would have us believe its possible. Taking the juggernauts out of the equation could help that. Who knows.
With no draft and no salary cap, this will be one of the dumbest moves in the history of sports. As the rich get richer and no one else can win, fans of other teams are going to lose interest in college football. I am already tuning out the predictable College Championship Playoffs.
For the rest, It's going to be the Globetrotters versus the Washington Generals, but without the humor.
For the rest, It's going to be the Globetrotters versus the Washington Generals, but without the humor.
Featured Stories
See All
Friday Night Lights - Week 3
by Bradley Connelly
Ultimate Insider Podcast E90: Auburn Review, SDSU Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
The Trench Report - Cal vs Auburn
by FireFighter Best
Lots of Unofficial Visitors on Tap for Cal vs SDSU
by Jim McGill