It is abundantly clear that there is no way for any other conference to match the revenue of the B1G and SEC? The trend of consolidation of the highest value athletic programs joining more lucrative leagues is clear. When do the highest value programs of the B1G and SEC leave their leagues to join a super league? Some may think it inconceivable, but imagine in 2004 telling Texas that in twenty years they would be following Texas A&M to the SEC.

Is the year over or under 2040?

So...I think I wii take the under and present a wag list.

Texas
Texas A&M
LSU
Tennessee
Kentucky
Alabama
Auburn
Georgia
Florida
South Carolina
Oklahoma
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Michigan State
USC
UCLA
Washington
Oregon
Colorado
Nebraska
??

I think it's the over. Similar to the comments that I've had elsewhere today, I think a lot of sports fans are in denial or don't want to believe about how much people in academia still want top academic associations regardless of whether they should matter in sports.

I'd also point out that not even the NFL - the most valuable sports league of them all - can have a league where it's just all Dallas Cowboys-level brands. If everyone is a Cowboys-level brand, then eventually no one is a Cowboys-level brand. The Big Ten and SEC each have their equivalents of the Jacksonville Jaguars. In the event that a Super League is formed, eventually a critical mass of those schools will go from Cowboys-level brands to Jaguars-level brands. So, I still think the advantage that the Big Ten and SEC have over other leagues is not just that they have the top level brands, but also most or all of their "Jaguars-level brands" are bringing *something* else to the table: a large market, academic prestige, a top basketball program, etc. There's little to no fat in the Big Ten and SEC already when you're looking at them as holistic leagues where *someone* has to finish in the bottom half for football (just like the NFL, MLB or NBA where not everyone can be a marquee franchise).

Having said that, I believe that a Super League is more likely than any Big Ten schools ever joining the SEC or vice versa. If you're in for a penny, then you're in for a pound.

I think Power 2 is here to stay for awhile.

2 Power Conferences (SEC/B1G)
2 Major TV Networks (ESPN/FOX)
CFP Playoff brings both Conferences together in a Multi-bid tournament.

The major hurdle on the horizon is the player compensation. If the players need to be paid as professionals that could accelerate the Super League. The earliest it could happen is the next round of media deals in the mid 2030s.

If that ever happened, I'd just watch the NFL. I like college sports in part because of how many schools are involved, like the English soccer system (college football should move in that direction, with pro/rel). It's our version of cheering for neighborhood teams, like how Europeans pick soccer teams.

If college football became NFL lite instead...why would I want to watch that? Just switch to the NFL if/when it happens, to see the top players. I don't need to follow minor leagues.

There can never be a “Super League” that has teams in it that aren’t even the best program in their state let alone one of the top programs in the country.

Any league that includes teams beyond Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Notre Dame, Michigan and Ohio State cannot be called a “Super League”.

I doubt we’ll ever see it.

It's the under. When the demographic shifts fully hit in 2036, as the dollar is slowly eroded by lack of enforcement of the WRC standards for trading commodities, and as higher education consolidates further within most states, the networks will no longer see the upside to greater inclusion when the audience popularity of team sports wanes. They'll pay for the Super League as a way of holding interest about 2036. Unless, the new system of a separate upper tier is successful and drives the interest they want. But if more doubts about the caveat than I do about the impact of the demographic shifts.

Think 32 schools. And Miner is Wisconsin substitute Notre Dame for question mark and you are pretty darned close to the core schools. You'll see a bit more inclusion for market reach which is why I suggested 32. To find your 32 look at those who consistently average earning more than 130 million a year. We have 31 of them now plus Rutgers which just arrived and several with better brands in the high 120's. #32 would come from among those.

Laughably, I don't understand gambling terminology as it pertains to this question.
What I can say for sure is that there is still much that has to be determined:

-Will players be determined to be employees?
-If so, will they be state employees?
-How will Congress and state legislatures react?
-Do media values increase or decrease in the future?
-What will youth athletic participation look like in the future?
-How many colleges would opt in or opt out of such athletic ventures?
-How will Title IX play into things?

The overall trend in athletics and in society for the past 100 years has been for greater participation rates in every aspect. I don't see this changing.

With regards to some of the questions above my hunch is that:

-Due to the fact that not all student athletes will be found to be employees none of them will. There is also a possible issue with whether or not students themselves can possibly be found to be employees, if you think about it...

-I guarantee that Congress will eventually get involved. Many state legislatures already get involved with athletics now and that involvement is likely to increase.

-There are arguments to be made that media values will decrease in the future. I don't know if it will happen but that will certainly dictate many decisions.

In short, I don't think that we have enough information to make any informed guesses at this time to the question being asked in this thread.

Over and probably only if we get to team conferences of 24 teams or more. If they stop at 20 then it either never happens or further slows down the desire to finally reach that P1. Like closer to or passed 2050 than 2040.

(04-13-2023 12:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's the over. Similar to the comments that I've had elsewhere today, I think a lot of sports fans are in denial or don't want to believe about how much people in academia still want top academic associations regardless of whether they should matter in sports.

I'd also point out that not even the NFL - the most valuable sports league of them all - can have a league where it's just all Dallas Cowboys-level brands. If everyone is a Cowboys-level brand, then eventually no one is a Cowboys-level brand. The Big Ten and SEC each have their equivalents of the Jacksonville Jaguars. In the event that a Super League is formed, eventually a critical mass of those schools will go from Cowboys-level brands to Jaguars-level brands. So, I still think the advantage that the Big Ten and SEC have over other leagues is not just that they have the top level brands, but also most or all of their "Jaguars-level brands" are bringing *something* else to the table: a large market, academic prestige, a top basketball program, etc. There's little to no fat in the Big Ten and SEC already when you're looking at them as holistic leagues where *someone* has to finish in the bottom half for football (just like the NFL, MLB or NBA where not everyone can be a marquee franchise).

Having said that, I believe that a Super League is more likely than any Big Ten schools ever joining the SEC or vice versa. If you're in for a penny, then you're in for a pound.

Frank, why do academic associations have to have any correlation to athletics in any way?

I'm going way over.

I think there's a key thing that people miss about this issue.

The major players don't actually want it because they get to beat up on other schools, have 9-3 seasons with mediocre teams, keep the fans happy, play 2/3 of their games at home, and still get basically all of their demands met anyway with only the *threat* that they theoretically could bolt. They don't actually need to do it. It doesn't really help them all that much.

Case in point...

They could just all play each other all the time right now, but they don't. They don't actually want to deal with the ramifications of that. Some schools do play one or two big matchups out of conference a year, but many don't even do that. My personal go-to SEC example is that the University of Kentucky hasn't play a P5 team out of conference, other than the obligatory matchup with Louisville, *since 2006.*...and they're trying to find a publicly justifiable way out of that series.

I see UK on this list, but do they (or many others like them) really want to go 4-8 or 6-6 (or worse) and only play half of their games at home when they can play seven or eight at home and win 8, 9, 10 games with good, but not great teams?

If the power players play teams other than each other it also gives them more inventory, which ESPN, etc. are willing to pay for. Games with two P2 teams draw really great numbers, but games with only one of them are still very, very good ratings-wise relative to almost anything else the networks could televise.

I'm not saying this could absolutely never happen, but the idea that it's imminent is way oversold. That's by design. The lingering idea that it's possible gets the G5 (and maybe even the middle three however long they last) to concede to almost any demand made by the SEC and the Big 10. Those other schools benefit by association in their own smaller ways, so they'll do anything they're asked to in order to keep the band together. Why risk an entirely new venture with potential pitfalls and drawbacks when you're already running the show like an emperor? It's nice to have others to push around. In the brave new world some of you are describing most of these schools would go from perennial bullies to, at least potentially, the bullied.

(04-13-2023 02:12 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(04-13-2023 12:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's the over. Similar to the comments that I've had elsewhere today, I think a lot of sports fans are in denial or don't want to believe about how much people in academia still want top academic associations regardless of whether they should matter in sports.

I'd also point out that not even the NFL - the most valuable sports league of them all - can have a league where it's just all Dallas Cowboys-level brands. If everyone is a Cowboys-level brand, then eventually no one is a Cowboys-level brand. The Big Ten and SEC each have their equivalents of the Jacksonville Jaguars. In the event that a Super League is formed, eventually a critical mass of those schools will go from Cowboys-level brands to Jaguars-level brands. So, I still think the advantage that the Big Ten and SEC have over other leagues is not just that they have the top level brands, but also most or all of their "Jaguars-level brands" are bringing *something* else to the table: a large market, academic prestige, a top basketball program, etc. There's little to no fat in the Big Ten and SEC already when you're looking at them as holistic leagues where *someone* has to finish in the bottom half for football (just like the NFL, MLB or NBA where not everyone can be a marquee franchise).

Having said that, I believe that a Super League is more likely than any Big Ten schools ever joining the SEC or vice versa. If you're in for a penny, then you're in for a pound.

Frank, why do academic associations have to have any correlation to athletics in any way?

Lol. The academics part is just conferences wanting to associate with similar schools like their own. Networks care little about that. It’s all actually just a simple equation.

Brand + Following = $$$$$$

That’s what the networks care about.
And that’s what makes them happy.

How timely…

(04-13-2023 03:43 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

How timely…

Go take a nap Mack.

(04-13-2023 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's the under. When the demographic shifts fully hit in 2036, as the dollar is slowly eroded by lack of enforcement of the WRC standards for trading commodities, and as higher education consolidates further within most states, the networks will no longer see the upside to greater inclusion when the audience popularity of team sports wanes. They'll pay for the Super League as a way of holding interest about 2036. Unless, the new system of a separate upper tier is successful and drives the interest they want. But if more doubts about the caveat than I do about the impact of the demographic shifts.

Think 32 schools. And Miner is Wisconsin substitute Notre Dame for question mark and you are pretty darned close to the core schools. You'll see a bit more inclusion for market reach which is why I suggested 32. To find your 32 look at those who consistently average earning more than 130 million a year. We have 31 of them now plus Rutgers which just arrived and several with better brands in the high 120's. #32 would come from among those.

I expect you're right. I had a major brain fart leaving ND off the list.

(04-13-2023 03:52 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(04-13-2023 01:42 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It's the under. When the demographic shifts fully hit in 2036, as the dollar is slowly eroded by lack of enforcement of the WRC standards for trading commodities, and as higher education consolidates further within most states, the networks will no longer see the upside to greater inclusion when the audience popularity of team sports wanes. They'll pay for the Super League as a way of holding interest about 2036. Unless, the new system of a separate upper tier is successful and drives the interest they want. But if more doubts about the caveat than I do about the impact of the demographic shifts.

Think 32 schools. And Miner is Wisconsin substitute Notre Dame for question mark and you are pretty darned close to the core schools. You'll see a bit more inclusion for market reach which is why I suggested 32. To find your 32 look at those who consistently average earning more than 130 million a year. We have 31 of them now plus Rutgers which just arrived and several with better brands in the high 120's. #32 would come from among those.

I expect you're right. I had a major brain fart leaving ND off the list.

I just don't see the top level going down to say 32 teams, and fans and residents of left out states like Utah, Arizona, West Virginia, Kansas, Illinois, Colorado, etc. having that much interest suddenly rooting for Texas, Wisconsin, Ohio State, USC, or whomever else made the cut.

(04-13-2023 12:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's the over. Similar to the comments that I've had elsewhere today, I think a lot of sports fans are in denial or don't want to believe about how much people in academia still want top academic associations regardless of whether they should matter in sports.

I'd also point out that not even the NFL - the most valuable sports league of them all - can have a league where it's just all Dallas Cowboys-level brands. If everyone is a Cowboys-level brand, then eventually no one is a Cowboys-level brand. The Big Ten and SEC each have their equivalents of the Jacksonville Jaguars. In the event that a Super League is formed, eventually a critical mass of those schools will go from Cowboys-level brands to Jaguars-level brands. So, I still think the advantage that the Big Ten and SEC have over other leagues is not just that they have the top level brands, but also most or all of their "Jaguars-level brands" are bringing *something* else to the table: a large market, academic prestige, a top basketball program, etc. There's little to no fat in the Big Ten and SEC already when you're looking at them as holistic leagues where *someone* has to finish in the bottom half for football (just like the NFL, MLB or NBA where not everyone can be a marquee franchise).

Having said that, I believe that a Super League is more likely than any Big Ten schools ever joining the SEC or vice versa. If you're in for a penny, then you're in for a pound.

That's the key point, IMO. A big reason why Ohio State and Michigan are such powerful brands is that they have Northwestern, Indiana, Rutgers, Illinois et al to assure them of being perennial winners. That's true in the SEC as well. The very fact that Northwestern has lost so often makes them valuable to the Big Ten.

That's not to say I don't believe we'll have mega-conferences built around those two behemoths in the SEC and B1G. I think we will. But I don't believe there are enough brands still out there for those leagues to expand to 24 each. I think beyond 20 would require current members to subsidize additional members out of their own pockets in the form of smaller per team payouts than they would have if they stopped at 20 (and maybe even at a number below that). Those payments might be more than they get under their latest contracts, but I think they would be lower than what they could be.

I suspect that at some point the B1G and SEC to at least take their football programs outside the NCAA even if they don't make a complete break in all sports. I think they would create a new umbrella organization to be one side of negotiations with players to adopt a collective bargaining agreement that will resolve the issues currently creating chaos in college football without running afoul of labor laws or the Constitution. I think that happens long before 2040 and wouldn't be surprised if it happened before 2030.

(04-13-2023 07:20 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-13-2023 12:09 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think it's the over. Similar to the comments that I've had elsewhere today, I think a lot of sports fans are in denial or don't want to believe about how much people in academia still want top academic associations regardless of whether they should matter in sports.

I'd also point out that not even the NFL - the most valuable sports league of them all - can have a league where it's just all Dallas Cowboys-level brands. If everyone is a Cowboys-level brand, then eventually no one is a Cowboys-level brand. The Big Ten and SEC each have their equivalents of the Jacksonville Jaguars. In the event that a Super League is formed, eventually a critical mass of those schools will go from Cowboys-level brands to Jaguars-level brands. So, I still think the advantage that the Big Ten and SEC have over other leagues is not just that they have the top level brands, but also most or all of their "Jaguars-level brands" are bringing *something* else to the table: a large market, academic prestige, a top basketball program, etc. There's little to no fat in the Big Ten and SEC already when you're looking at them as holistic leagues where *someone* has to finish in the bottom half for football (just like the NFL, MLB or NBA where not everyone can be a marquee franchise).

Having said that, I believe that a Super League is more likely than any Big Ten schools ever joining the SEC or vice versa. If you're in for a penny, then you're in for a pound.

That's the key point, IMO. A big reason why Ohio State and Michigan are such powerful brands is that they have Northwestern, Indiana, Rutgers, Illinois et al to assure them of being perennial winners. That's true in the SEC as well. The very fact that Northwestern has lost so often makes them valuable to the Big Ten.

That's not to say I don't believe we'll have mega-conferences built around those two behemoths in the SEC and B1G. I think we will. But I don't believe there are enough brands still out there for those leagues to expand to 24 each. I think beyond 20 would require current members to subsidize additional members out of their own pockets in the form of smaller per team payouts than they would have if they stopped at 20 (and maybe even at a number below that). Those payments might be more than they get under their latest contracts, but I think they would be lower than what they could be.

I suspect that at some point the B1G and SEC to at least take their football programs outside the NCAA even if they don't make a complete break in all sports. I think they would create a new umbrella organization to be one side of negotiations with players to adopt a collective bargaining agreement that will resolve the issues currently creating chaos in college football without running afoul of labor laws or the Constitution. I think that happens long before 2040 and wouldn't be surprised if it happened before 2030.

1. They will take football outside of the NCAA, and basketball as well.

2. Because of that 24 is possible. Get to 20 with major football brands. Add 4 major hoops brands and you get to 24, and you cover branding in both sports, and use the hoops brands to pad records for football and football brands to pad records for hoops, and add markets in the process.

3. You dream if you think hoops will remain unscathed and apart from for profit football. If it is for profit it will be impacted and part of any breakaway.

(04-13-2023 11:32 AM)LeeNobody Wrote:  It is abundantly clear that there is no way for any other conference to match the revenue of the B1G and SEC? The trend of consolidation of the highest value athletic programs joining more lucrative leagues is clear. When do the highest value programs of the B1G and SEC leave their leagues to join a super league? Some may think it inconceivable, but imagine in 2004 telling Texas that in twenty years they would be following Texas A&M to the SEC.

Is the year over or under 2040?

Media market is rapidly changing. It is possible that their advantage narrows, especially as conference networks die.

I think there most likely will be a superleague, and I will take the over. But I don't think it will look like many of you think. It won't be a separation. It will be a secession like the MWC.

There will be 16 or so top brands form a new nationwide conference. They will only play 7 or 8 conference games so that they can rack up wins against teams outside the conference.
It could be something like
USC, UCLA, Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., FSU, Clemson + 3 others out of UW, Oregon, A&M, Tennessee, Auburn, Miami, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Notre Dame if willing.