IMO next round of realignment is going to be the top 18-20 programs in the country making a super league and cutting everyone else loose...so not sure there's any chance duke is at that table.
Conference Realignment
- Thread starter DavidBenAkiva
- Start date
Mike Petrik
Member
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your prediction but would note that if it turns out to be true, the only private academically oriented school in that mix will be ND. Perhaps we could create a league of similar institutions with similar profiles of advantages, disadvantages and pressures. Thinking Duke, Stanford, NU, BC, Wake, Vandy, Rice, SMU, etc. Maybe some like-minded public institutions, too, such as the military academies, Cal, GT, UVA, etc. Just a thought.
Last edited:
AustinDevil
Member
It's got to be more than 18-20. Off the top of my head: Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Michigan, USC, Ohio State, Tennessee, Florida, Penn State, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, LSU, Rutgers, Auburn, Ole Miss, Oregon, Washington, Notre Dame. That's 18 right there, and there are a whole lot of proud names with huge support and bucks that I didn't even get to.
OK, kidding about Rutgers. But that's not a big enough league.
This may (eventually) make the most sense, Mike. I'm not sure what the alternative will be, IF the top 15 or 20 (primarily) football schools form their own super league. Everyone else will have to fend for themselves and it may be wise for Duke to try to team up with other similar institutions.
I caught "private academically oriented", but fwiw, for all private, i suspect
ND, USC, TCU, SMU (last two depending on how they ramp up in real conferences) would be the only ones anywher enear consideration
If there is eventually a real Super Conference, I expect it will be with schools that want to dispense with any academic requirements, and simply hire players to play for their schools. That's when some of the Big 10+ schools, like Michigan and Northwestern, and Notre Dame will have to decide whether they want to completely abandon the student athlete pretense.
HereBeforeCoachK
On Holiday
Hmm...I think the next "round" will be stasis for a while. I think it suddenly dawned on the SEC that scooping up every single good team not in the Big Ten might backfire....due to tough scheduling and beating each other up in the W/L record. Now all the talk is about "strength of schedule" and teams backing OUT of big time games.
I'm not saying your prediction might not eventually happen...but I think we'll go through at least two more iterations first.
SoCalDukeFan
Member
Lets suppose a super conference is formed with the 24 schools who are the best football schools in recent history. They divide into 4 6 teams divisions and then the division champs have a four team playoff to determine the super conference champion and therefore the national champion.
How much interest will there be for any other college football games? Suppose another 24 teams form a sub super conference. How much will their broadcast rights go for. Half the super conference?
The notion of a conference with academically oriented schools is interesting, but what would be ratings for say Brown vs Penn?
The "geniuses" who are running college football have a playoff system that might require some teams to play 17 games. Boise State and Arizona State get first round byes but Ohio State and Texas do not.
SoCal
How much interest will there be for any other college football games? Suppose another 24 teams form a sub super conference. How much will their broadcast rights go for. Half the super conference?
The notion of a conference with academically oriented schools is interesting, but what would be ratings for say Brown vs Penn?
The "geniuses" who are running college football have a playoff system that might require some teams to play 17 games. Boise State and Arizona State get first round byes but Ohio State and Texas do not.
SoCal
Agreed. I think next year the conference champion will only be guaranteed a first round home game. Nobody in the Big 10/SEC would complain with #9 IN @ #8 Clemson while the other 2 byes went to TX and OSU.
sagegrouse
Member
You are entitled to your opinion, but I don't share it. I don't think a top team wants to join a super league and go 5-7 (or 4-8). Have you heard the grousing from the SEC folks about all the losses the "top league" incurs playing each other -- and worse now that Texas is a member? There was dsome envy directed at the Big Ten and even thr ACC.
The Big Ten is a staid and conservative league. Do you really see Ohio State and Michigan leaving the historic conference that values academics so highly (sound of violins playing).
HereBeforeCoachK
On Holiday
well I was a little gentler, but yeah......this ^^^
Stray Gator
Moderator
You're entitled to your opinion as well, but the only "grousing" I've heard from SEC members relates to the disparities in relative strength of schedules -- for example, the fact that the two ACC teams in the CFP are Clemson, which played only 3 ranked teams (and lost to two of them, both from the SEC), and SMU, which played only 2 ranked teams (and lost to one of them, Clemson). In the SEC, by contrast, South Carolina had to play 6 ranked teams, and all three of its losses were to other ranked SEC teams during the first half of the season; and at the end of the season, the Gamecocks beat ACC Champion Clemson at Clemson.
In any event, I'm not aware of any SEC fans who have directed any envy at the Big Ten or the ACC. I do, however, see a fair amount of skepticism and outright disdain expressed by SEC fans towards the relative competitive strength of ACC football.
I have no idea what will happen, but there is going to be a LOT of pushback on one league of anywhere near that size.
We have to keep in mind that ALL of this is about TV football revenue, and there is a TON of revenue because ESPN, CBS, NBC et al televise a lot of games from a lot of leagues...it would not seem to be in the networks' best interest to reduce the size of their viewership, nor to make a lot of current teams also rans.
OK, maybe you could combine the SEC and B1G, but I'm not sure what that accomplishes....both of those leagues love their big fat payouts, while the ACC and Big 12 have significant, if smaller payouts...we may be near the point where doing nothing makes the most sense...a lot of money is flowing into a lot of coffers, even those of the whiners (lookin' at you, Clemmons and fsu).
Furthermore, as others have noted, everyone can't win 8-9-10 games/season, math doesn't work out well...if I'm tOSU or Mishygan or PSU I'm grateful I don't have to play Alabama, Georgia, Auburn and other tip top programs every single week.
Have a good league (including perennially beatable teams), get a big payout, what's not to like?
I can you tell that the prevailing view among Big 10 powers that be, at least for the time being, is that there is real value in having the ACC and Big 12 as viable, if somewhat lesser, partners under the new playoff structure and TV environment.
It makes perfect sense. A lot of teams are making a lot of money now, quite a few of whom aren't particularly good. Seems like the current system works for a lot of schools. And if some of the ACC and Big 12 schools (hint, hint) would get over the green eyed envy, they'd realize their current fat payouts, while not the biggest, are good for them and good for their entire athletic department.
ChillinDuke
Member
Agree with this. A proposed super league will not be small. It would be 50ish teams. Maybe 64 in four 16 team conferences. And I'm not saying I believe that likely just yet, but possible someday.
One of the ways you maximize money in this scenario is by giving tons of teams (and fans) a shot. It's the same concept as the NCAAT just in a different format. If you only give 18 teams a shot, you're excluding a lot of people with dollars from contributing their dollars. Won't happen.
Right now, the dynamic playing out is a microcosm of professional sports. In professional sports, the flavor of the week is ultra billionaires buying sports teams as trophy assets. And then spending their billions as a measuring contest. The scarcity of assets is what makes these prizes so expensive. Very limited supply and a relatively large (believe it or not) demand from billionaires or millionaire groupings.
Take that dynamic and drop down a peg. That's what you have going on in college sports, to my eye. You have enterprises like the Mormon Church and BYU, the LifeWallet guy in Miami, the Hunts (trucking) at Arkansas. These types may not have pro sports team type money, but they have college sports team money in a world where you can explicitly back college sports teams. If you thought the amount of billionaires out there was surprising, just imagine the amount of these types out there. It's way more than 64 teams.
Until there are rules in place, and even despite rules, we may have opened a box here that can't be shut. Rich people with the money to spend can freely choose to spend it on a college sports team of their choosing. And there are so many rich people that can afford this type of spending (a shocking number, to some) that the collective powers that be would be idiotic to limit the teams that can benefit from this. You want the market to keep growing!
This is a crazy, crazy time.
- Chillin
Grasshopper
Member
I've long imagined something like this. Maybe it could actually get spurred by the creation of a super league. Or maybe the dysfunction of NIL and the portal and the complete lack of centralized NCAA authority will get to the point where heavily academically minded schools can no longer justify claiming that their revenue sport athletes are actually "students" at the school--or can no longer compete when they insist on treating their student athletes as students.
Presumably, the Ivy League will keep doing its thing. But you could create a conference of top-25ish (in academics) private Division One schools that share a mindset when it comes to balancing academics and athletics--hoping to find a sensible middle ground between the super league and the Ivy League. Stanford, Duke, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern would all seem to be ideal candidates. Georgetown would be great too, even though their football chops are a sizable step below the others. Notre Dame and USC would fit the profile as well, but I'm skeptical that they would turn down super league invites and make that kind of commitment to academics over semi-professional athletics if put to the choice.
The league could expand to schools like Wake, BC, Villanova, Tulane, SMU, GW, etc. But that would both increase the size of the league by what might be too much and water down the elite academic brand. (Obviously, those are all great schools. But, at least from a traditional rankings standpoint, they are a meaningful notch below the others.)
The league could also, in theory, expand to include the academically comparable public schools -- Michigan, UVA, UCLA, Cal (maybe UNC (ugh), Texas, William and Mary, GT). But I suspect that at least Michigan, and probably most of the others, would be highly unlikely to choose this path.
I'm not sure what this would mean for Duke basketball--whether it would be possible for us to remain a perennial national championship contender. And so I'm not sure that I would actually support it. But I do see a tremendous upside.
SoCalDukeFan
Member
The problem is that this leagues football games would not be attractive for TV. What would the ratings be for Ivy League games. I would watch Duke Vandy for example but many more will be looking for games in the super league. It would be fine for me if this could happen but there would be economic ramifications.
Grasshopper
Member
Agreed 100%. That's why I'm skeptical that teams that were offered the choice would choose this league over the super league. (Though part of me thinks that, if the current farce gets bad enough, some schools might surprise us. Money doesn't always have to drive every decision, especially at institutions of higher education that purport to have integrity.)
But I'm mostly speculating about what schools like Northwestern and Stanford and maybe Duke would do if the super league were created and didn't invite them. Or maybe what they would do, even in the absence of a super league, if the NIL/transfer chaos only gets worse in the coming years.
But I'm mostly speculating about what schools like Northwestern and Stanford and maybe Duke would do if the super league were created and didn't invite them. Or maybe what they would do, even in the absence of a super league, if the NIL/transfer chaos only gets worse in the coming years.
If the money is available, they might choose the Super League. Last month, I spoke with a senior administrative official in the P5 athletic department. He said that even the Big 10 and SEC aren't safe.
He had an interesting point: The revenue of the top college football teams is artificially constrained. A typical Alabama football game draws roughly 40-50% of the TV viewership of an average NFL game, while an Alabama vs. Georgia game draws nearly 80% of the TV viewership typical NFL game.
However, the delta in media revenues between Alabama and an NFL team is massive (something like $375M vs. $50M). That is because Alabama props up Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Kentucky, etc.
His conclusion. There are ~25 teams that can draw huge audiences regularly. If they were to be in their own league and marketed as a super league, they could make $100M+ more annually. It's not NFL money but a ratio more akin to the audience they generate. As far as records go, teams would lose more, just like NFL teams do. But ultimately would be judged by their ability to make and have success in the playoffs.
His take is that college football is increasing in popularity. The top programs know they are sacrificing significant revenues and continue to do so out of respect for natural rivalries and some allegiance to the past. But at some point, especially as college expansion, transfers, etc., change how people view the sport, he thinks they will want what they believe is their fair share. A super league operating on Saturday generates revenues more proportional to the league that operates on Sunday (and Monday and Thursday).
I'm not saying any of this is going to happen, but I thought his point of view was fascinating.
He had an interesting point: The revenue of the top college football teams is artificially constrained. A typical Alabama football game draws roughly 40-50% of the TV viewership of an average NFL game, while an Alabama vs. Georgia game draws nearly 80% of the TV viewership typical NFL game.
However, the delta in media revenues between Alabama and an NFL team is massive (something like $375M vs. $50M). That is because Alabama props up Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Kentucky, etc.
His conclusion. There are ~25 teams that can draw huge audiences regularly. If they were to be in their own league and marketed as a super league, they could make $100M+ more annually. It's not NFL money but a ratio more akin to the audience they generate. As far as records go, teams would lose more, just like NFL teams do. But ultimately would be judged by their ability to make and have success in the playoffs.
His take is that college football is increasing in popularity. The top programs know they are sacrificing significant revenues and continue to do so out of respect for natural rivalries and some allegiance to the past. But at some point, especially as college expansion, transfers, etc., change how people view the sport, he thinks they will want what they believe is their fair share. A super league operating on Saturday generates revenues more proportional to the league that operates on Sunday (and Monday and Thursday).
I'm not saying any of this is going to happen, but I thought his point of view was fascinating.