What would you do if CFB created a "Super League"

I’m not on board with it but an alternative could be, four 16 team “conferences”. Each “conference” has two divisions an A and B division. Each season the A’s play the A’s and B’s play the B’s. There can be one cross over game between As and Bs for rivalry purposes but required. Each season the last place team in each A division in the seven division game gets relegated to the B and the B champ gets promoted to its A division.

Rutgers gets booted and Notre Dame rounds out the 64 teams.
 
wazzu31 said:
But that isn’t how the super league is. It was the top teams plus legacy teams. Alabama isn’t going to subsidize the SEC non profit sports. Army and Navy are the most legacy football programs in the country, they ain’t doing shit. Whether it be USC or Oregon on the west coast they will always be a no vote on football only objectives if it doesn’t trickle down to their Olympic sports. This is all theoretical but Alabama isn’t going to be gifted 500 million dollars, bring it home then split that with other members of the conference, thus, the end of Kentucky basketball. Same with the Pac, Ohio State in the B1G, Clemson in the ACC.

Super leagues look great on paper, just as P5 only conferences but even just straight P5 conferences, no way scheduling works. You can’t have the tops of conference play the lower end of the conferences, just as you can’t have the tops play each other. To me, it is a great idea on paper, but just like throughout mankind the things that work perfectly on paper end up being the worst ideas.
Click to expand...
I agree. Which is why I think the "marquee" schools stay put. There are several of them that could make a go of it as an independent in football ala Notre Dame and BYU. But, how many conferences would be willing to accept their other sports like the ACC does with Notre Dame? I don't think that would fly...unless those marquee schools "bought" their way in for the other sports.
 
I think the Power 5 should be its own league. Perhaps prop up American and Mountain West with it (or just the better programs). No point in having a division where teams in that division can go unbeaten but NOT make playoffs.
 
wazzu31 said:
Without question the NCAA is a joke. Just IMO overall college sports needs some type of governing body. But call me ignorant but I can’t imagine Ohio State and Alabama agreeing upon anything outside of a cash grab game. Call me glass half empty guy but there is no men’s or women’s NCAA tournament without college football money, which there wouldn’t be the extra money if the few schools make all of the money. Kind of the European argument for the trickle down effect and how American professional sports reward terrible on field product but an Oregon can crash the blue blood fest. If we want to equate college sports with the Super League then Nebraska, Michigan, Army and Navy would be first in line.
Click to expand...

I can guarantee you if the big schools could get together and create a new system, they would create a great system that benefits themselves tremendously.
 
Tharvot said:
I can guarantee you if the big schools could get together and create a new system, they would create a great system that benefits themselves tremendously.
Click to expand...
Themselves yes, but I just can’t see anyway them co existing regardless of money.
 
Deep Creek said:
I agree. Which is why I think the "marquee" schools stay put. There are several of them that could make a go of it as an independent in football ala Notre Dame and BYU. But, how many conferences would be willing to accept their other sports like the ACC does with Notre Dame? I don't think that would fly...unless those marquee schools "bought" their way in for the other sports.
Click to expand...
I see several huge issues of why it can’t work, but scheduling is definitely high on the why it won’t work. Choosing which teams also makes it nearly impossible as well because of state legislatures will step in IMO. In this super league scenario, when Auburn gets left out of the super league but Bama gets in the the Alabama legislature isn’t going to step in? Is Bama going to pay a “body bag” fee for the Iron Bowl? Lots of really important questions, that just IMO do not have answers because as much power as AD’s wield, they are not the real boss. The Big East worked at first because everyone took pride in NE basketball. The only common goal in a super league in college sports would be money, and anytime money is the sole goal then that venture fails. Kind of like how the Pac-12’s main goal when we expanded was money, and thus it has failed miserably.
 
wazzu31 said:
Kind of like how the Pac-12’s main goal when we expanded was money, and thus it has failed miserably.
Click to expand...
While I would agree the PAC 12's attempt at a "money grab" via conference expansion hasn't been successful, the B1G's and the SEC's has been very successful if you use money as the "sole goal" or measurement. (Some altruistic conference wonks will try to rationalize the expansion by saying it was for reasons other than money, but I ain't buying their bullshit.) thaThe ACC's was somewhere in between and the Big 12's "contraction" or remaining at 10 is probably also driven by money.

I can see state legislatures getting involved, but everyone around here thought that would happen when A&M bolted. The blow back from that was minor compared to what happened when the SWC folded and the Big 12 came into being. There was probably more legislative fallout when Baylor got the last spot and TCU didn't have a chair when the music stopped!

Then again, one could deduce that Texans are more willing to put such aside if more money rolls in. Texas gets big bucks via the LHN and A&M gets more by joining the SEC. Walla, more money for the state!
 
Deep Creek said:
While I would agree the PAC 12's attempt at a "money grab" via conference expansion hasn't been successful, the B1G's and the SEC's has been very successful if you use money as the "sole goal" or measurement. (Some altruistic conference wonks will try to rationalize the expansion by saying it was for reasons other than money, but I ain't buying their bullshit.) thaThe ACC's was somewhere in between and the Big 12's "contraction" or remaining at 10 is probably also driven by money.

I can see state legislatures getting involved, but everyone around here thought that would happen when A&M bolted. The blow back from that was minor compared to what happened when the SWC folded and the Big 12 came into being. There was probably more legislative fallout when Baylor got the last spot and TCU didn't have a chair when the music stopped!

Then again, one could deduce that Texans are more willing to put such aside if more money rolls in. Texas gets big bucks via the LHN and A&M gets more by joining the SEC. Walla, more money for the state!
Click to expand...
I vaguely remember the Texas legislature thing being an issue, but that is kind of why I brought it up. A&M didn’t bolt for greener pastures than what Texas is making. If A&M bolted for however many hundreds of millions of dollars more than Texas and left Texas unable to ever make up that difference I would think there would be more of an upheaval than what happened in Europe...but I am not a Texan.

The reason I used the Pac 12 is because it was a failure of trying break out of the status quo and got bitch slapped by ESPN and Fox.

There is a difference between the money conferences are getting but the SEC’s tv contract isn’t leaving the B1G, Big 12, ACC and Pac 12 schools fighting over MAC money. Which, from all of the outrage I’ve heard analysts say it what the main gripe is about.
 
it wasn't about money when aggy bolted.. they wanted to go it's separate ways and did so. The money thing is now just a tit for tat argument point. They made the best decision for themselves and they are happy with it.

Texas was bolting for the PAC til ESPN lured them with the LHN deal.. State politics wasn't going to stop Texas going west or aggy going to the SEC despite all the tough lawyer posturing Baylor did.

Just like the politics won't get away if UT left the Big12 and didn't take another Texas school with them. Doesn't mean that they won't but it's not going to stop them from making the best financial decision for them.

Super Leagues suck.. wish we could go back to geographical conferences/divisions like we had 30 years ago
 
The issue with the super league is some teams have to win and some have to lose. Players, and sometimes coaches, want to be st schools that win. Therefore you would get the Boise State effect where players would start to chose a team like Boise State over let's say Michigan or Tennessee who might be in the super league but regularly rank towards the bottom. Therefore teams outside the super league would be able to put together gaudy records, get recruits, and make argument to be in super league.
 
Thiefery said:
it wasn't about money when aggy bolted.. they wanted to go it's separate ways and did so. The money thing is now just a tit for tat argument point. They made the best decision for themselves and they are happy with it.

Texas was bolting for the PAC til ESPN lured them with the LHN deal.. State politics wasn't going to stop Texas going west or aggy going to the SEC despite all the tough lawyer posturing Baylor did.

Just like the politics won't get away if UT left the Big12 and didn't take another Texas school with them. Doesn't mean that they won't but it's not going to stop them from making the best financial decision for them.

Super Leagues suck.. wish we could go back to geographical conferences/divisions like we had 30 years ago
Click to expand...

The issue is that only Texas really sees the Pac12 as a good fit. The rest of the schools, notably Oklahoma, would rather stay out. The Pac12 is just too far away geographically, isn't a good cultural fit, and isn't that great, perception wise, in football. Big12, in its current setup, is a stronger football league than Pac12. (At least on paper).

The only league that really made any sense for Texas is the SEC. They are the closest league geographically and provide a scale up in competition. However, SEC now has A&M, so I don't see that happening.
 
Volbound1700 said:
The issue is that only Texas really sees the Pac12 as a good fit. The rest of the schools, notably Oklahoma, would rather stay out. The Pac12 is just too far away geographically, isn't a good cultural fit, and isn't that great, perception wise, in football. Big12, in its current setup, is a stronger football league than Pac12. (At least on paper).

The only league that really made any sense for Texas is the SEC. They are the closest league geographically and provide a scale up in competition. However, SEC now has A&M, so I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...
thats more perception than reality. if it happened depending on who all came from Big XII would likely stay together in a division and add say Arizona and Arizona State or Utah and Colorado. so distance isnt really that big of an issue as people thinking Texas would be traveling to Seattle every year.
 
OU would be the best addition to the SEC. We already recruit some of the best talent out of Texas each year. We would add an annual quality program in multiple sports(football, softball, mens and women's gymnastics, basketball(sometimes)). The reality is in the present state of the B12, there is OU and 9 teams that look up to OU year after year. OU needs better competition to get better. Yes, each season there is 1, maybe 2, teams that challenge us. Teams like KSU, which are spoilers(beat us and finish mediocre).
 
BoomerNTX said:
OU would be the best addition to the SEC. We already recruit some of the best talent out of Texas each year. We would add an annual quality program in multiple sports(football, softball, mens and women's gymnastics, basketball(sometimes)). The reality is in the present state of the B12, there is OU and 9 teams that look up to OU year after year. OU needs better competition to get better. Yes, each season there is 1, maybe 2, teams that challenge us. Teams like KSU, which are spoilers(beat us and finish mediocre).
Click to expand...

I think OU fans and leadership would prefer SEC. The geography is real. Someone pointed out Arizona, Colorado, and Utah for Texas but the entire SEC West except maybe Auburn is closer to Texas. Texas would have more regional rivals like Arkansas, LSU, and of course Texas A&M in the SEC.

Ultimately the best move for Big12 is stay pat, grow brand, and add teams. If Texas leaves SEC makes the most sense but I don't see it happening.
 
Volbound1700 said:
I think OU fans and leadership would prefer SEC. The geography is real. Someone pointed out Arizona, Colorado, and Utah for Texas but the entire SEC West except maybe Auburn is closer to Texas. Texas would have more regional rivals like Arkansas, LSU, and of course Texas A&M in the SEC.

Ultimately the best move for Big12 is stay pat, grow brand, and add teams. If Texas leaves SEC makes the most sense but I don't see it happening.
Click to expand...
i mentioned them based on the realignment that was speculated back in the day as OK, OKst, TX, TT, all coming too going from 10 to 14 to match the other conferences.
Arizona is not even 50 miles more than to auburn.
Utah is still closer than West Virginia is and Colorado is closer than Iowa State and AZ st is only barely farther.
but those are based on driving miles. air time and distance likely shortens those.
 
Thiefery said:
Super Leagues suck.. wish we could go back to geographical conferences/divisions like we had 30 years ago
Click to expand...
for the most part dont we have geo regional conferences and divisions now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top