Alleged Format Of 70 Team College Football Super League Leaks, Might Enrage Fans
A photo allegedly showing what a 70 team college football super league would look like leaked. What teams are included?
www.outkick.com
Alleged Format Of 70 Team College Football Super League Leaks, Might Enrage Fans
- Thread starter RaleighPittFan
- Start date
www.outkick.com
Link to original article.
www.sportico.com
College Football ‘Super League’ Pitch Deck Details Breakaway Plan
A document distributed in February by College Sports Tomorrow laid out a proposed "NIL Salary Cap" and a breakdown of its seven geographic divisions.
www.sportico.com
I would love playing those 9 other teams every season.
Heinz Field would be packed for ND, PSU, and WVU and Pitt would have some winnable games against teams from this area.
This makes too much sense.
Heinz Field would be packed for ND, PSU, and WVU and Pitt would have some winnable games against teams from this area.
This makes too much sense.
It makes sense when considering every variable other than the one driving all of this
The name for Pitt's division should be "Beano"
It making too much sense is why it'll never happen.
It makes a lot of sense for Pitt. It doesn't make much sense for SEC and Big Ten...why would they give away an advantageous position?
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Other than Maryland and UVA, the Northeast is basically the Eastern Independents.
Right. Fans would love it but there's too much greed for this to go through. The B10 and SEC want to keep most of the available TV money out in the market, not share it with 35 other teams. So this has 0 chance. I do think the B10 and SEC can breakaway and maybe add some teams in a full pro sports model but it wont be 70
Because without the other conferences what do they have? They have regional football only covering 1/3 of the us. If 2/3's of the country is no longer a stake holder then much much much less cfb is watched outside those regions
While I'd love that to be true, Americans cant stop watching college football. Its an American obsession. Its literally the #2 sport in the country behind the NFL
You clearly dont get why people in utah or washington or wvu watch college football in the first place.
They have the areas covered and all the biggest brands. People say the eyes will drop if they break away, but reality says otherwise. People will still tune in every week to watch the big and sec. And that is why they have all the power and leverage. And that leverage is the tv networks are on their side as well.
The risk to the SEC and Big Ten is that probably half or more of the total college football market are fans of schools that would be shut out in their mega-conference model. And locking those programs out of the mega-conference will probably cause irreversible damage to the total addressable market, because once fans leave it is very, very difficult to get them to come back. So you accept a bit less pie but the pie is much, much bigger rather than accepting a huge chunk of a much smaller pie. I mean, these are already the biggest brands and they win it all every year, why do they need to kill off the entire sport just to fully lock that in? Isn't the illusion of fairness sufficient?
Now this argument is often persuasive (it worked with Jerry Jones in the NFL). But at the same time people tend to be greedy and shortsighted and 100% of these alignment moves to date have been about money, therefore, we should assume that most future moves would be as well.
Last edited:
No, this is an assumption. We can't really know how fans will react to the SEC and Big Ten literally absorbing the most prominent 40 brands and killing the remaining 100 because nothing like that has ever happened before. Ratings continue to go up because ostensibly most fans still have a shot. So Pitt fans watch Washington-Michigan because their team was at least in the same league as them, if only on paper. Is that going to happen if Pitt is in the B League? Is it going to happen if Pitt kills their football team?
I think it would be interesting to know how many George Mason and Xavier (teams without college football) fans watch some other D-1 team or the CFB championship. Or what percentage of an area that plays at a lower level but still has football watches the CFB championship (e.g., North Dakota State). Because those numbers are probably at least a bit insightful into what will happen after a few years of the fallout from this mega conference.
I guarantee most of America still watches even if their program is killed. Hell I bet most watching are front runner fans and don’t have a true affiliation.
Time will tell but when people say they won’t watch most of the time it’s not true
Time will tell but when people say they won’t watch most of the time it’s not true
People asking the same question: Why would the SEC and Big Ten share money with other teams?
Because they don’t have the final say. TV money will make the decisions. You can throw out all the logical you want concerning realignment, but the puppet masters behind the scenes know the end game.
All these super conference speculation you have seen lately is not pure fantasy.
Because they don’t have the final say. TV money will make the decisions. You can throw out all the logical you want concerning realignment, but the puppet masters behind the scenes know the end game.
All these super conference speculation you have seen lately is not pure fantasy.
I'd love to go back to the 70's. First, Pitt would actually be relevant again. Secondly, I'd be a whole lot younger.
Mostly correct on the TV money thing, but the climate is different now than it was for many decades, with all the channels and streaming platforms. I know many are owned by the same parent companies, but there is enough different options to create competition.
What I am saying is CBS and NBC can tell the Big Ten and SEC, this is the new way or we won't renew your TV contract. But then there is FOX, ABC, etc still available for the Big Ten and SEC to pursue TV money from. OK, make like the NFL where all those big TV companies work together split the inventory and control things. The Big Ten and SEC could then look to Amazon, Apple, NETFLIX, etc...at least 6-8 streaming platforms have the jack to pay for Big Ten and SEC football.
I'll agree that the Big Ten and SEC would most likely bend to the whims of CBS/NBC/FOX/ABC, especially if they are all working together, but it's not like the Big Ten and SEC have zero leverage in those talks.
Ratings will go down if the super league is only the Big 10 and the SEC. There’s a reason the NFL is in the biggest TV markets & I’m sorry, Indiana's vs Miss St broadcast is never going to do the same rating in NYC as an NFL game.
That's a theory, that the ratings will go down if it's just the SEC and Big Ten, but the evidence to date does not support that theory. I pasted below the Top 50 college football games last year, in terms of TV ratings. 43 of the 50 most watched games (86%) involved at least one team from the SEC or Big Ten (2024 conference alignment) and most involved 2 teams from those conferences.
I bolded the 7 games that did not involve Big Ten or SEC. All seven of those games included Notre Dame, Florida St, Clemson, or Colorado. If the Super League were to just be Big Ten and SEC, they' likely add a few more teams each and Notre Dame, Florida St, Clemson would 100% be invited. Colorado may or may not be invited, but we know they were only up in the TV ratings because of Coach Prime and he ain't staying there long. So with just a little more expansion the Big Ten and SEC would include every brand that people tune in to see in volume.
1. Ohio State-Michigan -- 19.07 million (Fox)
2. Georgia-Alabama, SEC Championship -- 17.52 million (CBS)
3. Colorado-Oregon -- 10.03 million (ABC)
4. Michigan-Iowa, Big Ten Championship -- 10.02 million (Fox)
5. Ohio State-Notre Dame -- 9.98 million (NBC)
6. Penn State-Ohio State -- 9.96 million (Fox)
7. Colorado State-Colorado -- 9.3 million (ESPN)
8. Oregon-Washington, Pac-12 Championship -- 9.25 million (ABC)
9. LSU-Florida State -- 9.17 million (ABC)
10. Michigan-Penn State -- 9.16 million (Fox)
11. Alabama-Auburn -- 9.09 million (CBS)
12. LSU-Alabama -- 8.82 million (CBS)
13. Texas-Alabama -- 8.76 million (ESPN)
14. Nebraska-Colorado -- 8.73 million (Fox)
15. Tennessee-Alabama -- 8.01 million (CBS)
16. Oklahoma State-Texas, Big 12 Championship -- 7.89 million (ABC)
17. Oklahoma-Texas -- 7.87 million (ABC)
18. Colorado-TCU -- 7.26 million (Fox)
19. USC-Colorado -- 7.24 million (Fox)
20. Alabama-Texas A&M -- 7.23 million (CBS)
21. Oregon-Washington -- 7.04 million (ABC)
22. Louisville-Florida State, ACC Championship -- 7.03 million (ABC)
23. Missouri-Georgia -- 7 million (CBS)
24. Florida State-Clemson -- 6.71 million (ABC)
25. USC-Notre Dame -- 6.43 million (NBC)
26. Georgia-Auburn -- 6.40 million (CBS)
27. Georgia-Florida -- 5.95 million (CBS)
28. Washington State-Washington -- 5.85 million (Fox)
29. Georgia-Tennessee -- 5.73 million (CBS)
30. Michigan-Maryland -- 5.43 million (Fox)
31. South Carolina-Georgia -- 5.42 million (CBS)
32. Georgia-Georgia Tech -- 5.33 million (ABC)
33. Notre Dame-Duke -- 5.32 million (ABC)
34. Tennessee-Florida -- 5.31 million (ESPN)
35. Utah-Washington -- 5.17 million (Fox)
36. Notre Dame-Louisville -- 5.12 million (ABC)
37. Florida State-Florida -- 5.07 million (ESPN)
38. Ohio State-Wisconsin -- 4.87 million (NBC)
39. Alabama-South Florida -- 4.84 million (ABC)
40. Ole Miss-Georgia -- 4.83 million (ESPN)
41. Washington-Oregon State -- 4.73 million (ABC)
42. Colorado-UCLA -- 4.66 million (ABC)
43. Ohio State-Indiana -- 4.65 million (Fox)
44. Ole Miss-Alabama -- 4.61 million (CBS)
45. Maryland-Ohio State -- 4.51 million (Fox)
46. Michigan-Nebraska -- 4.48 million (Fox)
47. Washington-USC -- 4.45 million (ABC)
48. Clemson-Duke -- 4.39 million (ESPN)
48. Iowa-Nebraska -- 4.39 million (CBS)
50. Texas A&M-Tennessee -- 4.38 million (CBS)
It's getting harder to care..... with each passing year we get further from real college athletics and closer to minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. NIL and the transfer portal have ruined college athletics. I'll still get our season tickets because I love Pitt, but it seems increasingly futile without deep pocketed boosters.
Could the biggest blue bloods make enough money with a plan like this if they did unequal revenue sharing?
That would be a way for the big SEC and Big Ten schools to stop getting the same amount as Northwestern, Minnesota, Vanderbilt, etc.
That would be a way for the big SEC and Big Ten schools to stop getting the same amount as Northwestern, Minnesota, Vanderbilt, etc.
This scenario is legally more realistic than anything else. Courts have already ruled individual schools retain TV rights, there is nothing legally binding revenue sharing other than conference by-laws which we will soon see if they are legally enforceable.
Me thinks the current ACC status quo survives litigation but at some point, a school(s) will sue a conference based on Anti-Trust laws. And we all know how that will end: loose affiliations for scheduling but expanded playoffs replace conference “championships” where something similar to NFL 14/32 teams make playoffs… roughly 44%, So… do the math,
Me thinks the current ACC status quo survives litigation but at some point, a school(s) will sue a conference based on Anti-Trust laws. And we all know how that will end: loose affiliations for scheduling but expanded playoffs replace conference “championships” where something similar to NFL 14/32 teams make playoffs… roughly 44%, So… do the math,
That’s a current snapshot. What you are not factoring in, are the current fans of teams that would be left out of the “Big Boy” super league.
I’m a Pitt fan who currently watches a lot of ACC games, and SEC games. I have no interest watching Big 10 or PAC regular season games, but if Pitt would not remain in the top tier of college football, I would not have any interest in watching SEC games.
I can’t be the only one who would lose interest in college football if their team were left out.
I don't know. Obviously some amount fans, like yourself, would watch less. But is it a big enough % that the TV execs would care? Do they think they could make up that difference, and then some, over time by appealing to new fans?
The NFL only has 32 teams. Their fandom and ratings in the U.S. is not based on just fans in those 32 cities. They draw fans from all over the country that 'adopt' teams to root for that are not based on the city they live in.
College football has way less fans than the NFL. However, a TV exec could look at that as a growth opportunity: There are millions of NFL football fans that aren't college football fans - let's get even a fraction of them to watch college football. And they don't need 70 brands to do that. As noted, the NFL only has 32 brands. Get the Top 48 brands into two 24-team leagues (SEC and Big Ten) and then market the heck out of it. There is probably room to market better if focused on just these two leagues than marketing a bunch of leagues consisting of 128 FBS teams. The current product is diluted.
The only hope for schools like Pitt is that the Big Ten and SEC need broken up or reconfigured to shed some dead weight. Schools like Vandy, Indiana, Rutgers, etc. could eventually be dumped like Wash St and Oregon St just were. However, if you replace Vandy, Indiana, Rutgers with FSU/Clemson/Notre Dame...there still isn't room for Pitt. They would first have to cut deeper like Miss St, Minnesota, maybe Northwestern or Purdue, then we'd still have to beat out UNC, UVA, Miami, VA Tech, Louisville, and several Big 12 teams.
So even at 48 teams, Pitt isn't getting in. 70 teams definitely should be what Pitt fans root for, but I don't think the TV execs need 70 to make big money. The hope for 70-80 teams is that the TV execs value having more inventory. While Pitt-Syracuse is not going to make the Top 50 watched games list, it can still draw more eyeballs than reruns of Designing Women on Lifetime. Look at how even the crappiest of Bowl games do great ratings compared to what else is on at the same time (vs comparing the ratings to other football games). Football games get ratings.
This would be heavenly. So I doubt it happens.Alleged Format Of 70 Team College Football Super League Leaks, Might Enrage Fans
A photo allegedly showing what a 70 team college football super league would look like leaked. What teams are included?
This is a terrific post.
One thing that occurred to me, that you point out here, is the product getting diluted.
Both the NFL and CFB play the same season (sept-jan). To date, its the same "sport", but not the same game.
However, with CFB now a pay for play, the two leagues have never been more alike.
The result as i see it is a watered down product that will not impact the NFL but rather the TV deals made with college ball.
What's going to happen with other college athletics when the super league forms and players begin to get paid with the TV money?
Alleged Format Of 70 Team College Football Super League Leaks, Might Enrage Fans
A photo allegedly showing what a 70 team college football super league would look like leaked. What teams are included?
LMAO. The only issue with a 70 team super league is that the Top 20 teams don't want it.
Pitt would be in a 48 team league, hypothetically.
SEC adds
FSU, Clemson, Colorado, UNC, UVa, 1 Arizona, Pitt, Miami
B10 adds
VT, NC St, Utah and then 3 of Duke, GT, UConn, Syr, BC, Ok St, TT, Cal, Stan, TCU, Baylor, Houston
I never follow the "if they wanted "X" then we'd already have it angle". Things change or the timing may not be right. But I do agree, as of right now, this is of no interest to the TV networks. But there are also many other factors outside of the networks as well as to why this probably isn't feasible.
But for all of these games, the mega-conference shutouts (e.g., Pitt, UVA, Oregon State, Stanford) are still in the same league as the mega-conference participants. So you can't use this data to just assume "oh people will still watch college football, because they're doing it now."
The question is whether fans of the former teams will watch league games for a completely different league. I think that's an open question. You can speculate about it but there's very little data to go by. You'd have to look at things like the percentage of Clarion and IUP football fans who also watch Ohio State-Michigan games.
This makes sense. It benefits the fans, the athletes, especially the other sports who ridiculously have to take cross country coach flights to play a tennis match. But TV rules. And TV made these superconferences. We blew up college football just so the networks can televise USC/Michigan or Texas/Georgia once every 4 years.
The sport sold its soul. The Greg Sankey's of the world will not let this happen. The greed of the big $$$ programs will not give up revenue and definitely wouldn't want to share it. As long as individual conferences are negotiating national TV deals, this will never, ever happen.
The sport sold its soul. The Greg Sankey's of the world will not let this happen. The greed of the big $$$ programs will not give up revenue and definitely wouldn't want to share it. As long as individual conferences are negotiating national TV deals, this will never, ever happen.
I think it's an awful gamble to trade away current college football fans for speculative from-the NFL-to-college fans.
What's the upside to watching college rather than the NFL? The players are less talented, less physical, you have less familiarity with them since they have 24/7/365 free agency. Where's the upside in that for the fan?
People watch college football because of school affiliation. If you try to compete on product with the NFL, you will lose. Just like the USFL and every other pro league (which a 40 team college environment with paid players would be).
Right. Like me, no way I'm watching Bama/LSU if I dont have a team in the league. But they may feel that although they lose some percentage of the audience, it isnt enough. And like someone else said, over time, maybe they win more fans. Maybe SMF's grandkids or great grandkids are Ohio State or Penn State (God I hope not) because those are the local teams with Pitt not really in the picture. That may be the thought.
