(04-18-2022 07:43 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 03:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's not what the OP article is stating, though.

What the OP article is stating is that the networks (namely ESPN) would *like* to have a culled and curated super-conference that you've defined here.

However, the OP article then states that this effectively wouldn't be legal (likely true) and, as a result, there would need to be some type of objective criteria (namely willingness to spend money) to determine the top tier.

The OP article argues that would have a culling effect, but I believe that it would be the opposite. The P5 conferences are *already* using subjective culling criteria to keep the available supply of power school slots compared to the demand for them. Throwing it open to an objective spending standard saying, "If you spend $150 million, you're guaranteed to be at the top level," what you'll see is a mad rush of every single P5 school plus a whole swath of the G5 rushing to the door to say, "Take my money!"

We’ve played this game before, but we can play again. You are just never…. Ever going to have a clean P5 or even P4 split. Is it possible? Sure, but after the OU/UT move, things are so heavily skewed towards that region that the balance of power is lost. There is nothing to counter balance and make for a clean getaway.

Legally, the “big cats” schools can’t just pack their bags for a new playground to become captains that handpick their tag mates. That’s how I interpret it. So, when you have bridging conferences or tweeners so to say, in the Big 12 and AAC, the other P4s will never be able to get away.

The only kill shot on the table is a P2. That’s the mechanism that’s in play, because the ACC and PAC cannot contend in their current positions. It’s never going to change going forward. Kids just aren’t playing football in some parts of the country. That’s a problem.

The G5 is always going to be kept alive so long as tweener conferences exist. It’s so far fetched anticipating a scenario otherwise. Alliance schools are going to be sacrificed when all is said and done, should we get to a P2 (which is the only realistic mechanism on the table). I can’t see a mechanism for a P4 unless ND joins the ACC and the PAC and Big12 do some quasi merger. Then you’d have some balance to make that viable.

Oh - don’t get me wrong. I’m definitely not in the P5/G5 split Armageddon camp at all. While I can see scenarios that could heavily incentivize that type of split (and they often ironically have more to do with getting more basketball money as opposed to football money), I personally don’t believe that we’ll be seeing that happen.

There’s a question that I seem to be asking on so many of these threads proposing/predicting radical change: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” I’m not convinced that the juice is worth the squeeze when it comes to a P5/G5 split or consolidation into a couple of mega-conferences. It truly needs to be an exponential increase in value to make massive changes worth it (not merely a good increase).

(04-18-2022 01:53 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  https://twitter.com/GoPowercat/status/15...4953191430

https://247sports.com/college/kansas-sta...186370438/

The thinking in this article is that ESPN wants a select number of brand programs willing to meet very high monetary standards to create a super conference.

The Kansas St perspective is that in order to avoid litigation, the group would be open to any school willing to put their money where their mouth is and meet that very high standard and the article says that it could be as small as 32 schools.

Super Conference
FBS
FCS

What a horrible idea!

Unless such a "super conference" were to be created by merging two conferences (e.g., Big Ten and SEC), it would tend to have a absolutely devastating impact on the rest of the conferences and on the idea of holding a FBS playoff seriesin which every FBS school would have a reasonable chance of advancing to a national championship.

Traditions and comprehensive affiliations are a very important part of college athletic conferences. Ripping conferences apart would do great damage to many traditional rivalries, and to the traditional - including academic and collaborative - associations between conference universities.

Setting up a "super-conference" could create a chaotic situation resulting in a three-tier system within the FBS: 1) a super-conference, 2) the P5 remnants, which might respond by merging or expanding/backfilling with non-P5 programs, and 3) the G5 conference remnants, which themselves might be driven into merging or expanding/backfilling after being raided by the P5 remnants.

It would also set into motion an absolutely cataclysmic realignment scenario that would affect every conference and force every conference to renegotiate its broadcasting agreements, potentially on highly unfavorable terms.

For that reason, alone, many well-endowed, influential universities would be very likely to band together and seek to prevent such a super-conference from coming into existence, using a combination of political (Governors, Senators, State governments) and legal strategies (class-action lawsuits, anti-trust ligitation). The other major broadcasters might join or even lead the effort, adding their political and legal muscle.

Further, since there would inevitably be upper/middle/lower-tier teams in every conference, some of the programs in such a super-conference would end up being adversely affected. The top-10 FB programs (most likely, those that have played in multiple CFP playoffs) would probably maintain their dynasty status. 10 to 15 teams in the middle (e.g., Michigan, Penn State, USC, Florida, Oklahoma State, Tennessee) would tend to be stuck in the middle, and 8-12 others (e.g., Nebraska, Wisconsin, Florida State, UCLA) would most likely become perennial cellar-dwellers. The cellar-dwellers might earn more income than the top teams in the P5 remnants, but many their fans would probably prefer to see them playing and winning games in one of the "non-super" conferences.

Over time, the top programs in the "non-super" conferences would win a higher and higher % of their games, since few of them would rarely play more than one OOC game vs. super-conference teams. Accordingly, they would gradually rise up, year after year, in the national rankings. Super-conference teams with 7-5 records probably wouldn't end up ranked in the Top 25, since there would be quite a few "non-super" conference teams with 11, 12, or 13 wins.

Eventually - - perhaps within as little as a decade, the so-called "super-conference" wouldn't necessarily be quite as "super," any longer, as a result. The only way to maintain stature of the "super-conference" would be through some kind of relegation procedure analogous to European soccer. However, every relegation would have such cataclysmic effects that the non-super conferences would probably do anything in their power to block it from going into effect.

.

(04-18-2022 01:53 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  https://twitter.com/GoPowercat/status/15...4953191430

https://247sports.com/college/kansas-sta...186370438/

The thinking in this article is that ESPN wants a select number of brand programs willing to meet very high monetary standards to create a super conference.

The Kansas St perspective is that in order to avoid litigation, the group would be open to any school willing to put their money where their mouth is and meet that very high standard and the article says that it could be as small as 32 schools.

Super Conference
FBS
FCS

Okay guys, let me break it down for you. Yes, there will be a super/premier league. Actually, there will be two: the SEC and the B1G. And yes, neither will be in the NCAA tourny when it is all said and done. Both have already been making preparations for that. That's why the ACC and the PAC 12 aren't safe. I don't know if there will be promotion to the premier leagues or not. My guess is that it would be difficult. Frank the Tank already talked about the B1G's standards. JRSec has already covered the SEC's standards, IMO. And yes, they are different.

(04-18-2022 10:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 07:43 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 03:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's not what the OP article is stating, though.

What the OP article is stating is that the networks (namely ESPN) would *like* to have a culled and curated super-conference that you've defined here.

However, the OP article then states that this effectively wouldn't be legal (likely true) and, as a result, there would need to be some type of objective criteria (namely willingness to spend money) to determine the top tier.

The OP article argues that would have a culling effect, but I believe that it would be the opposite. The P5 conferences are *already* using subjective culling criteria to keep the available supply of power school slots compared to the demand for them. Throwing it open to an objective spending standard saying, "If you spend $150 million, you're guaranteed to be at the top level," what you'll see is a mad rush of every single P5 school plus a whole swath of the G5 rushing to the door to say, "Take my money!"

We’ve played this game before, but we can play again. You are just never…. Ever going to have a clean P5 or even P4 split. Is it possible? Sure, but after the OU/UT move, things are so heavily skewed towards that region that the balance of power is lost. There is nothing to counter balance and make for a clean getaway.

Legally, the “big cats” schools can’t just pack their bags for a new playground to become captains that handpick their tag mates. That’s how I interpret it. So, when you have bridging conferences or tweeners so to say, in the Big 12 and AAC, the other P4s will never be able to get away.

The only kill shot on the table is a P2. That’s the mechanism that’s in play, because the ACC and PAC cannot contend in their current positions. It’s never going to change going forward. Kids just aren’t playing football in some parts of the country. That’s a problem.

The G5 is always going to be kept alive so long as tweener conferences exist. It’s so far fetched anticipating a scenario otherwise. Alliance schools are going to be sacrificed when all is said and done, should we get to a P2 (which is the only realistic mechanism on the table). I can’t see a mechanism for a P4 unless ND joins the ACC and the PAC and Big12 do some quasi merger. Then you’d have some balance to make that viable.

Oh - don’t get me wrong. I’m definitely not in the P5/G5 split Armageddon camp at all. While I can see scenarios that could heavily incentivize that type of split (and they often ironically have more to do with getting more basketball money as opposed to football money), I personally don’t believe that we’ll be seeing that happen.

There’s a question that I seem to be asking on so many of these threads proposing/predicting radical change: “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” I’m not convinced that the juice is worth the squeeze when it comes to a P5/G5 split or consolidation into a couple of mega-conferences. It truly needs to be an exponential increase in value to make massive changes worth it (not merely a good increase).

Why do you think that the B1G is renegotiating itts tv contract right now, Frank?? I would expect FOX to start flinging the megabucks at the B1G unless E$PN beats them to the punch.

(04-18-2022 09:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 07:43 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 03:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's not what the OP article is stating, though.

What the OP article is stating is that the networks (namely ESPN) would *like* to have a culled and curated super-conference that you've defined here.

However, the OP article then states that this effectively wouldn't be legal (likely true) and, as a result, there would need to be some type of objective criteria (namely willingness to spend money) to determine the top tier.

The OP article argues that would have a culling effect, but I believe that it would be the opposite. The P5 conferences are *already* using subjective culling criteria to keep the available supply of power school slots compared to the demand for them. Throwing it open to an objective spending standard saying, "If you spend $150 million, you're guaranteed to be at the top level," what you'll see is a mad rush of every single P5 school plus a whole swath of the G5 rushing to the door to say, "Take my money!"

We’ve played this game before, but we can play again. You are just never…. Ever going to have a clean P5 or even P4 split. Is it possible? Sure, but after the OU/UT move, things are so heavily skewed towards that region that the balance of power is lost. There is nothing to counter balance and make for a clean getaway.

Legally, the “big cats” schools can’t just pack their bags for a new playground to become captains that handpick their tag mates. That’s how I interpret it. So, when you have bridging conferences or tweeners so to say, in the Big 12 and AAC, the other P4s will never be able to get away.

The only kill shot on the table is a P2. That’s the mechanism that’s in play, because the ACC and PAC cannot contend in their current positions. It’s never going to change going forward. Kids just aren’t playing football in some parts of the country. That’s a problem.

The G5 is always going to be kept alive so long as tweener conferences exist. It’s so far fetched anticipating a scenario otherwise. Alliance schools are going to be sacrificed when all is said and done, should we get to a P2 (which is the only realistic mechanism on the table). I can’t see a mechanism for a P4 unless ND joins the ACC and the PAC and Big12 do some quasi merger. Then you’d have some balance to make that viable.

About the bolded, why not? What stands in their way?

FWIW, I do not anticipate the formation of a super-conference or any kind of P5/G5 split. IMO, the P5 likes and benefits from being in contact with the G5.

But if I am wrong, I don't see a legal reason as to why an elite super-conference could not break away and form their own organization. Maybe a lawyer can enlighten me?

I'm not a lawyer, but I tend to agree with you just by looking at prior history.

Did anybody cry antitrust when the schools in the Big Ten formed an exclusive club for members only? Or the SEC, or the ACC or any other conference? How is that any different? Are not all other universities able to form their own exclusive club?

And if some of those conferences were to join together in a new organization (let's call it the NISF - the National Intercollegiate Sports Federation) How is that different from other conferences joining the NCAA, or from schools moving from one division of the NCAA to a higher one?

If the 80 schools of this NISF (the P5 and Big East) want to also play some games against schools in the NCAA, what's to stop them? Or from inviting them to play in a post season basketball tournament? The only thing stopping them would be if the NCAA prohibited its members from playing in such contests. In that case, who is the party restraining trade?

I believe that fear of antitrust action is very overblown. Would the NISF be sued? Maybe. Anybody can file a suit. But prevailing in such a suit is another matter. Do the schools in the MAC really want to give up an annual body bag game against a B1G team over some questionable principle? I doubt it. I don't believe college sports would change all that much if 80 schools out of the 1,000 or so in the NCAA were to form their own association.

(04-19-2022 06:42 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 09:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 07:43 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 03:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's not what the OP article is stating, though.

What the OP article is stating is that the networks (namely ESPN) would *like* to have a culled and curated super-conference that you've defined here.

However, the OP article then states that this effectively wouldn't be legal (likely true) and, as a result, there would need to be some type of objective criteria (namely willingness to spend money) to determine the top tier.

The OP article argues that would have a culling effect, but I believe that it would be the opposite. The P5 conferences are *already* using subjective culling criteria to keep the available supply of power school slots compared to the demand for them. Throwing it open to an objective spending standard saying, "If you spend $150 million, you're guaranteed to be at the top level," what you'll see is a mad rush of every single P5 school plus a whole swath of the G5 rushing to the door to say, "Take my money!"

We’ve played this game before, but we can play again. You are just never…. Ever going to have a clean P5 or even P4 split. Is it possible? Sure, but after the OU/UT move, things are so heavily skewed towards that region that the balance of power is lost. There is nothing to counter balance and make for a clean getaway.

Legally, the “big cats” schools can’t just pack their bags for a new playground to become captains that handpick their tag mates. That’s how I interpret it. So, when you have bridging conferences or tweeners so to say, in the Big 12 and AAC, the other P4s will never be able to get away.

The only kill shot on the table is a P2. That’s the mechanism that’s in play, because the ACC and PAC cannot contend in their current positions. It’s never going to change going forward. Kids just aren’t playing football in some parts of the country. That’s a problem.

The G5 is always going to be kept alive so long as tweener conferences exist. It’s so far fetched anticipating a scenario otherwise. Alliance schools are going to be sacrificed when all is said and done, should we get to a P2 (which is the only realistic mechanism on the table). I can’t see a mechanism for a P4 unless ND joins the ACC and the PAC and Big12 do some quasi merger. Then you’d have some balance to make that viable.

About the bolded, why not? What stands in their way?

FWIW, I do not anticipate the formation of a super-conference or any kind of P5/G5 split. IMO, the P5 likes and benefits from being in contact with the G5.

But if I am wrong, I don't see a legal reason as to why an elite super-conference could not break away and form their own organization. Maybe a lawyer can enlighten me?

I'm not a lawyer, but I tend to agree with you just by looking at prior history.

Did anybody cry antitrust when the schools in the Big Ten formed an exclusive club for members only? Or the SEC, or the ACC or any other conference? How is that any different? Are not all other universities able to form their own exclusive club?

And if some of those conferences were to join together in a new organization (let's call it the NISF - the National Intercollegiate Sports Federation) How is that different from other conferences joining the NCAA, or from schools moving from one division of the NCAA to a higher one?

If the 80 schools of this NISF (the P5 and Big East) want to also play some games against schools in the NCAA, what's to stop them? Or from inviting them to play in a post season basketball tournament? The only thing stopping them would be if the NCAA prohibited its members from playing in such contests. In that case, who is the party restraining trade?

I believe that fear of antitrust action is very overblown. Would the NISF be sued? Maybe. Anybody can file a suit. But prevailing in such a suit is another matter. Do the schools in the MAC really want to give up an annual body bag game against a B1G team over some questionable principle? I doubt it. I don't believe college sports would change all that much if 80 schools out of the 1,000 or so in the NCAA were to form their own association.

Yes, I agree with this.

To my understanding, courts look askance at elite groups from an anti-trust POV when they compel membership, not when they break away. The NCAA gets in trouble - with TV in the 1980s and pay now - because it acts like a cartel, it forces members to engage in acts that restrain trades. That's classic cartel behavior, as in with the old Oil Trust - you will charge this much for oil, or you will be punished, we will refuse to do business with you. IOWs, the bigwigs who control the cartel engage in coercion to compel others to fall in line, like the NCAA tried to do when the CFA wanted to do its own TV deal.

In contrast, an elite breakaway of a P5 kind wouldn't be demanding anything of the G5 or other levels of football. It would be an act of getting away from them, not trying to compel them to do anything, and to my understanding there isn't anything wrong with that. UAB has no inherent right to be associated with LSU, and LSU is not obligated to associate with UAB if it doesn't want to.

As you say, the only 'restraint of trade' angle that seemingly could develop would be if the P5 or superconference breakaway tried to compel its schools to not play games against non-member teams. But they would have IMO no reason to want to do that and would know it would be legally problematic. So I don't see that happening.

Heck, the TV cases of the early 80s is IMO instructive - the CFA was an elite group, the top 60 or so football schools, that wanted to break away and do their own TV deal. The NCAA was the larger group including all football schools, and it tried to keep the CFA in the TV-deal fold. The CFA won at all levels of the courts.

(04-18-2022 03:18 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 03:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 01:53 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  https://twitter.com/GoPowercat/status/15...4953191430

https://247sports.com/college/kansas-sta...186370438/

The thinking in this article is that ESPN wants a select number of brand programs willing to meet very high monetary standards to create a super conference.

The Kansas St perspective is that in order to avoid litigation, the group would be open to any school willing to put their money where their mouth is and meet that very high standard and the article says that it could be as small as 32 schools.

Super Conference
FBS
FCS

About the bolded, I don't think a "super conference" will have any objective monetary standard - because all of the undesirable schools, or at least way more than most would imagine - would immediately meet it no matter what the price.

Heck, if you told my USF that if we could commit to spending $150 million a year on athletics we could be in the SEC, hell we'd figure out a way to do that faster than I could pull my thumb out of my mouth. That's how badly schools, particularly those in the G5 on the outside, want to be on the inside.

So IMO the only way a super-conference happens is by mutual invitation. The elites that are unquestioned - the SEC and B1G and Notre Dame - basically invite about 10 schools from the other three current Power conferences to join them.

Exactly! If money is "all" that it takes to be at the highest level, we'd have 100-plus power schools as opposed to the 65-70-ish power schools because so many more schools would rise up to meet whatever standard might be put into place. It would be an expansion of the power ranks as opposed to a culling exercise.

I agree with all the points made on the board so far but a few thoughts:
1) As much as I would love consolidation, going from 130 to 30 would be disastrous for fans. Somewhere in the 60-80 range is just fine IMO. The beauty of CFB for me was that I has 50 games to pay attention to instead of only 14 on Sundays. And on Sundays I was forced to watch only 2 teams play.

2) when people say add the $150m to compete, how would the lower schools just instantly do that? If they could do it now wouldn't they? Do they have these deposits ready to go or questionable donors on the line?

The one thing people who cream in their shorts about a 25-30 Super League is that they think the fans of the 35-39 P5 and high G5 will stop watching their alma mater and latch on to one of the anointed. It's not going to happen, the ratings for the "best of the rest" will still be pretty darn good. There are a lot of strong bands that would not make the cut of a 30 team SL that garner some pretty good ratings.

The other thing the fans of the 30 team league forget is that someone will wind up being the UConn/Kansas of that league and be pitiful. A lot of the teams that are used to 9-10 win seasons every year will have to get used to 6 wins. Schools that get 12+ will have to get used to 9 wins.