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

I don't like the idea at all. I like Oklahoma being a stud swaggering around the conference but there's always the chance some team comes in with a puncher's chance and knocks them off if OU isn't playing at the top of their game. Example: Iowa State has proved a program can rise to the occasion and win a HUGE game against a team that typically has a stronger program. That's good for college football even though it doesn't do much for my language when it happens. The low lifes in every conference are very rarely going to jump up and bite someone (like Kansas beating a Texas team that should have been left in Lawrence for losing that game) but the 2nd and 3rd strongest teams in a conference can play hell with the Big Boys. I wouldn't want that to go away.
 
Tharvot said:
I guess the question for supporters of the big programs is which do they prefer: high level competition and exciting matchups every week or tradition? In the end, from a competitive stand point, that's what it boils down to.

Which is better for the sport? Honestly, I'm not 100% sure.
Click to expand...
A mix ... what I think we will see when the CFP goes to 12. I want more great OOC games, and you are starting to see that. But I love my SEC with Vandy and Ole Miss and other crappy teams like Tennessee. We put up with them because the have the brains (Vandy), and the Grove and womenz (OM) and then, well not really sure about UTjr, but something.

I want teams like UCLA, USC, Nebraska and Michigan to be great again. It's good for college football with Michigan can do better than 1-14 against tOSU. I want the PAC and the B12 to have a chance every year, hence 12 teams, so we have better OOC, and more games count.

You've done a great job pointing out the pros and cons ... I want the the P5 to split off, but that's still the 60 some-odd teams that actually matter. With the NLI and the free transfer rule, I think you will see the group of those capable of at least getting to the NC game expand to 6-10, instead of 3 or 4.
 
WhosYourDawggy said:
A mix ... what I think we will see when the CFP goes to 12. I want more great OOC games, and you are starting to see that. But I love my SEC with Vandy and Ole Miss and other crappy teams like Tennessee. We put up with them because the have the brains (Vandy), and the Grove and womenz (OM) and then, well not really sure about UTjr, but something.

I want teams like UCLA, USC, Nebraska and Michigan to be great again. It's good for college football with Michigan can do better than 1-14 against tOSU. I want the PAC and the B12 to have a chance every year, hence 12 teams, so we have better OOC, and more games count.

You've done a great job pointing out the pros and cons ... I want the the P5 to split off, but that's still the 60 some-odd teams that actually matter. With the NLI and the free transfer rule, I think you will see the group of those capable of at least getting to the NC game expand to 6-10, instead of 3 or 4.
Click to expand...

I've heard both are tremendous there
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
It's far more likely that the P5 just split and form their own football championship.
Click to expand...

yeah, this isn't really a measure of likelihood. It's more of a "whataboutism" theorycrafting what would happen and how you would react if Super League happened in college football instead of european soccer.
 
I am not for the Euro soccer super league.

And if the top six programs in cfb talked the same kind of breakaway for themselves I would be against it.

However, if all cfb agreed to merge up into on league I would be interested and curious if it brings us a slightly more expanded playoff.
 
Tharvot said:
Lol if you think scUM wouldn't be in that list.

If something like this were to unfold, my list would be something like this (spoiler: the SEC gets more teams in and not all the members are current title contenders):

From the B1G - Ohio State, Michigan, PSU
From the ACC - Clemson, Florida State
From the PAC - USC, Oregon
From the B12 - Texas, OU
From the SEC - Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Florida, A&M
Indy - Notre Dame

There's your list of 15 founding members. 5 more admitted in based on recent merit.

Let the fighting begin
Click to expand...
how recent?
Wisconsin?
Washington?
Miami?
North Carolina?
Iowa?
Iowa State?
Utah?
Baylor?

do BYU, UCF, Boise get consideration?
 
OlyDuck said:
how recent?
Wisconsin?
Washington?
Miami?
North Carolina?
Iowa?
Iowa State?
Utah?
Baylor?

do BYU, UCF, Boise get consideration?
Click to expand...

Nope to all, at least in my list. The 15 listed are always a part of things and maybe 9 more get in on a merit basis (AP ranking?) to compete each year but the 15 core members are always involved regardless of how they perform on the field. They are the biggest schools with the most fans and most money and therefore will get the most eyeballs on tv and streaming services.

That's essentially what the ESL is proposing to be.
 
I'd argue that the concept of a super league, like what's being discussed in soccer, in CFB would be just taking the P5 and breaking off into a new league (something I support). It would mean all the G5 teams now lost their money grab in getting killed by P5 teams every year, but I think it would prove to be a better product on the field for CFB fans.
 
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
I'd argue that the concept of a super league, like what's being discussed in soccer, in CFB would be just taking the P5 and breaking off into a new league (something I support). It would mean all the G5 teams now lost their money grab in getting killed by P5 teams every year, but I think it would prove to be a better product on the field for CFB fans.
Click to expand...

That's certainly the argument for ESL, and in this version of the conversation CFBSL. Why should Ohio State and Michigan continue to share equal share of the BTN revenue with Rutgers? It's essentially the same reasoning Texas had when they agreed to launch the LHN.

These big name schools are almost always the ones who win the CFP anyhow, so why not cut out the middle man and just set up the league with only these big name schools.
 
Tharvot said:
Nope to all, at least in my list. The 15 listed are always a part of things and maybe 9 more get in on a merit basis (AP ranking?) to compete each year but the 15 core members are always involved regardless of how they perform on the field. They are the biggest schools with the most fans and most money and therefore will get the most eyeballs on tv and streaming services.

That's essentially what the ESL is proposing to be.
Click to expand...
Oh no i know what you were talking about. I was asking about those schools for the other spots.
I mean how far are we going back? what kind of criteria?
i feel like, as much as i dont want to say it, Washington has more argument for inclusion than Michigan, Penn State, A&M and Auburn
Wisconsin has a strong case too.
 
Tharvot said:
That's certainly the argument for ESL, and in this version of the conversation CFBSL. Why should Ohio State and Michigan continue to share equal share of the BTN revenue with Rutgers? It's essentially the same reasoning Texas had when they agreed to launch the LHN.

These big name schools are almost always the ones who win the CFP anyhow, so why not cut out the middle man and just set up the league with only these big name schools.
Click to expand...
I think it's just a matter of which schools are the "big schools". Because a school like Clemson, which you'd think would be a huge money maker, ranked 25th in 2019 in 3 year average revenue:
www.forbes.com

College Football’s Most Valuable Teams: Reigning Champion Clemson Tigers Claw Into Top 25

Clemson’s on-field dominance has been paying off—the No. 1 team in the country now generates nearly $80 million per year in revenue, ranking the Tigers among the sport’s most valuable teams for the first time.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

Rutgers is probably the most extreme example. In most scenarios, P5 schools have some history of success during one decade or another.
 
OlyDuck said:
Oh no i know what you were talking about. I was asking about those schools for the other spots.
I mean how far are we going back? what kind of criteria?
i feel like, as much as i dont want to say it, Washington has more argument for inclusion than Michigan, Penn State, A&M and Auburn
Wisconsin has a strong case too.
Click to expand...

Yeah I arbitrarily chose the first 15 that came to mind just to try to visualize the impact. For similar reasons, there are a dozen european clubs that have a bigger & more successful history than the club I support (Tottenham) and their closest rivals (Arsenal). But those 2 are in and the other poorer clubs are out.

Its a wild change, they're even talking salary caps now to make the new league the european equivalent to the NFL.
 
MAIZEandBLUE09 said:
I think it's just a matter of which schools are the "big schools". Because a school like Clemson, which you'd think would be a huge money maker, ranked 25th in 2019 in 3 year average revenue:
www.forbes.com

College Football’s Most Valuable Teams: Reigning Champion Clemson Tigers Claw Into Top 25

Clemson’s on-field dominance has been paying off—the No. 1 team in the country now generates nearly $80 million per year in revenue, ranking the Tigers among the sport’s most valuable teams for the first time.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

Rutgers is probably the most extreme example. In most scenarios, P5 schools have some history of success during one decade or another.
Click to expand...

Yeah thats very true. What it boils down to is which core member schools will earn this new CFBSL the most money in their new TV/Streaming deal. You need a mix of iconic names with huge fanbases that may or may not be on top of the CFB world right now (Michigan, ND, Texas, USC) and new blood who have been dominant in the recent decade (Clemson, Oregon).

Is it completely unfair to schools like Wisconsin or Utah, TCU, Washington, etc that have probably some legit claims to recent footballing success? Absolutely. But I guarantee even a subpar UT-ND matchup will get more eyeballs than a top 5 matchup between any of those other schools. At the end of the day, that's all this is really about.
 
This might be a good time to remind people that it was Oklahoma that kicked the NCAA in the Balls and took their lunch money, so all you guys could have nice things.


You're Welcome
 
If, repeat IF, anything like this Super League idea ever happened, has anyone considered we'd have to pare the season down to create more open dates? Getting the hell pounded out of you week after week would decimate a team. I might go with the idea of a Super League if there was a maximum of 10 games with more open dates. Stagger the start of their seasons (so there are games being played every week by somebody) and you'd have a team playing 4 games, off a week, playing 3 games, off a week, playing 3 games and then at least 2 weeks off before the Playoff started. It's either that or go back to 100 man squads like we had in the 1970's but the cost would be horrendous and it would completely wipe out the talent pool of good players leaving any school outside the Super League looking pretty damn weak with the leftovers.
 
Tharvot said:
I've heard both are tremendous there
Click to expand...
THe womenz, yes. The Grove is vastly overrated. I know as I was in the Grove in 1978 when it was literally a grove. Today it's wall to wall tents, with generator fumes, and a bunch of drunk people. Too much of a good thing ruined it, IMO.
 
Goldbug said:
If, repeat IF, anything like this Super League idea ever happened, has anyone considered we'd have to pare the season down to create more open dates? Getting the hell pounded out of you week after week would decimate a team. I might go with the idea of a Super League if there was a maximum of 10 games with more open dates. Stagger the start of their seasons (so there are games being played every week by somebody) and you'd have a team playing 4 games, off a week, playing 3 games, off a week, playing 3 games and then at least 2 weeks off before the Playoff started. It's either that or go back to 100 man squads like we had in the 1970's but the cost would be horrendous and it would completely wipe out the talent pool of good players leaving any school outside the Super League looking pretty damn weak with the leftovers.
Click to expand...
sounds like an excuse.
 
OlyDuck said:
sounds like an excuse.
Click to expand...
Excuse? OK, so the Ducks are the only team in America who could run a gauntlet playing 12 of the very best teams in the country every week without any time off to nurse injuries, get people back, etc. As if Oregon can win every game on its so-so schedule they're playing now. Alabama, Oklahoma, Clemson, Ohio State and any other top team couldn't survive 12 games in a row like that but Oregon could. Gotcha.
 
Goldbug said:
Excuse? OK, so the Ducks are the only team in America who could run a gauntlet playing 12 of the very best teams in the country every week without any time off to nurse injuries, get people back, etc. As if Oregon can win every game on its so-so schedule they're playing now. Alabama, Oklahoma, Clemson, Ohio State and any other top team couldn't survive 12 games in a row like that but Oregon could. Gotcha.
Click to expand...
please tell me where i said any of what you claim i said.

and yes i believe they would survive. at any given time an injury is no more likely to happen playing Ohio State, Oklahoma and Clemson as it would be playing Texas Tech, South Carolina and WSU.
show me any evidence to the contrary.

they almost all go back to practice by the next monday. even after playing one of these teams.
if this were done there would be no reason to just have 1 bye in there like there is now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top