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

B1G dead weights and even schools like Vandy would have to be cut from their existing conferences. I don’t want Rutgers involved in a farce like this. Keep it to the USCs, NDs, Bamas of the world.

I hope it happens. I assume most of the former Big East football conference schools will be left behind and that's fine with me. We can reform the conference. Maryland can come too if they want. I can go back to watching games against teams I actually care about. I can ignore the super conference the same way I ignore the AHL, AAA baseball and the G-League.

(04-18-2022 01:59 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  B1G dead weights and even schools like Vandy would have to be cut from their existing conferences. I don’t want Rutgers involved in a farce like this. Keep it to the USCs, NDs, Bamas of the world.

Disagree.

EVERYONE would rise up to meet whatever standards are in place.

If anything, it would actually go beyond the P5. If you give San Diego State, Boise State, Memphis, SMU, etc. a purely financial way to get up to whatever the top level might be (however it's defined) that doesn't involve a subjective conference membership barrier (e.g. the Pac-12 doesn't see them as academic fits), they will absolutely do it.

That's honestly a more open and less exclusionary system than the current P5 alignment where leagues like the Big Ten and Pac-12 can (and will) apply academic criteria and other factors that aren't dealing purely with sports.

We all know the answer to the question that the OP's article asks about whether Purdue and Vanderbilt are willing to make $50 million to win more games at a lower level or make $100 million to get their behinds kicked at the highest level. They will take the latter option with more money 1000 times over without hesitation. It's not even a debate and people need to stop pretending otherwise. Absolutely NO ONE is unilaterally disarming from the top level, especially the schools that are lucky enough to already be at that top level.

This long-time Vanderbilt fan will weigh in:

I would accept a scenario of VU going 0-12 in football for the next 50 years if that is what is required for all the other Commodore sports programs to continue to compete at the highest level of college sports.

TLDR: people are VASTLY underestimating how much the university president level cares about being in whatever group is considered to be the most elite in athletics. While university presidents may not be trained to understand the sports business as a whole, they absolutely, 100% understand the value of elite branding and know that if there's an elite tier within the university world (which is certainly the case with athletics with the P5), then their heads are on the chopping block if they move down from that tier on their watch. Whatever the amount it would take to compete would be a rounding error in the scheme of things to the vast majority of the P5 schools (if not all of them plus a lot of others).

(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 for admission - 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 10-12 schools from the other three current Power conferences to join them.

I imagine those schools would be:

PAC: Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, Oregon, Washington
ACC: UNC, Duke, UVA, Clemson, FSU

That's it. If a current SEC/B1G school or two decides not to meet it, like say a Vanderbilt, then an Arizona or Arizona State would be next up. But I don't expect that.

(04-18-2022 03:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  TLDR: people are VASTLY underestimating how much the university president level cares about being in whatever group is considered to be the most elite in athletics. While university presidents may not be trained to understand the sports business as a whole, they absolutely, 100% understand the value of elite branding and know that if there's an elite tier within the university world (which is certainly the case with athletics with the P5), then their heads are on the chopping block if they move down from that tier on their watch. Whatever the amount it would take to compete would be a rounding error in the scheme of things to the vast majority of the P5 schools (if not all of them plus a lot of others).

Yes, establish "objective money standards" for a super-conference and it would quickly become less-elite than the current P5, because not only would basically all P5 meet that standard, plenty of G5 would as well.

As I noted in my other post, give USF a chance to join the SEC by meeting some seemingly-too-high money standard, and we'd have it met by this weekend, LOL.

(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.

(04-18-2022 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Disagree.

EVERYONE would rise up to meet whatever standards are in place.

If anything, it would actually go beyond the P5. If you give San Diego State, Boise State, Memphis, SMU, etc. a purely financial way to get up to whatever the top level might be (however it's defined) that doesn't involve a subjective conference membership barrier (e.g. the Pac-12 doesn't see them as academic fits), they will absolutely do it.

That's honestly a more open and less exclusionary system than the current P5 alignment where leagues like the Big Ten and Pac-12 can (and will) apply academic criteria and other factors that aren't dealing purely with sports.

We all know the answer to the question that the OP's article asks about whether Purdue and Vanderbilt are willing to make $50 million to win more games at a lower level or make $100 million to get their behinds kicked at the highest level. They will take the latter option with more money 1000 times over without hesitation. It's not even a debate and people need to stop pretending otherwise. Absolutely NO ONE is unilaterally disarming from the top level, especially the schools that are lucky enough to already be at that top level.

We have no idea what the metrics are going to be... what if the networks want a national conference with bellwethers from every state? You really think they'd want NWU and Purdue types? Obviously those schools could come up with the money, but if it's some hard cutoff at 32, 40, or 48, then a lot of existing P5 schools are out.

I don't foresee B1G schools getting cut, but I do foresee PAC and and ACC deadweights getting cut if there is a hard cutoff. The SEC could throw some schools a life line as well, but let's say both conferences end up with 24 max, you are going to have a 2-league super division... with the remnants of the PAC/ACC merging with the Big 12/American. I don't think that second tier will be it's own subdivision per say, as they should remain with the rest of (and incoming) FBS schools.

For example, you can put 9 AAU PAC schools plus ND and land yourself a 24 team B1G like I discussed in the other thread.

Duke/UNC/Clemson/FSU/UVa (+2 more) could easily round out the SEC. And that would be your 2-league super division. Rest of the ACC and most if not all of the Big 12 would be out.

(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.

It depends on how high the monetary investment is.

The easiest way to make it exclusionary is to make the financial commitment high enough that even schools like Iowa and Auburn would struggle to pay it.

I don't know how high that level is. But if they require a football budget of $150 million, then my school (Cincinnati) would certainly back out because we don't generate enough revenue to make that commitment worthwhile.

All this is more ammunition for the elites to simply leave the NCAA. As Frank states, schools will do whatever it takes to get in the higher club.

The only way to avoid this is to exit the NCAA and start your own invitationals in which you (or your conference group) are owners, have absolutely no standards whatsoever. Free association. No exclusions, but also no invites. Your association of conferences can agree to whatever standards they want.

As for the ESPN super league, that strikes me as a last ditch effort by ESPN to stave off the coming explosion in the number of players for sports content and the end of their near monopoly on college football. They are scared shitless of all the new tech players and all the money they can throw at whatever they want. They know the Silicon Valley money is far greater than theirs.

(04-18-2022 03:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 03:11 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  TLDR: people are VASTLY underestimating how much the university president level cares about being in whatever group is considered to be the most elite in athletics. While university presidents may not be trained to understand the sports business as a whole, they absolutely, 100% understand the value of elite branding and know that if there's an elite tier within the university world (which is certainly the case with athletics with the P5), then their heads are on the chopping block if they move down from that tier on their watch. Whatever the amount it would take to compete would be a rounding error in the scheme of things to the vast majority of the P5 schools (if not all of them plus a lot of others).

Yes, establish "objective money standards" for a super-conference and it would quickly become less-elite than the current P5, because not only would basically all P5 meet that standard, plenty of G5 would as well.

As I noted in my other post, give USF a chance to join the SEC by meeting some seemingly-too-high money standard, and we'd have it met by this weekend, LOL.

Liberty: From FCS to Super-Conference in a few short years

(04-18-2022 03:21 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(04-18-2022 03:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Disagree.

EVERYONE would rise up to meet whatever standards are in place.

If anything, it would actually go beyond the P5. If you give San Diego State, Boise State, Memphis, SMU, etc. a purely financial way to get up to whatever the top level might be (however it's defined) that doesn't involve a subjective conference membership barrier (e.g. the Pac-12 doesn't see them as academic fits), they will absolutely do it.

That's honestly a more open and less exclusionary system than the current P5 alignment where leagues like the Big Ten and Pac-12 can (and will) apply academic criteria and other factors that aren't dealing purely with sports.

We all know the answer to the question that the OP's article asks about whether Purdue and Vanderbilt are willing to make $50 million to win more games at a lower level or make $100 million to get their behinds kicked at the highest level. They will take the latter option with more money 1000 times over without hesitation. It's not even a debate and people need to stop pretending otherwise. Absolutely NO ONE is unilaterally disarming from the top level, especially the schools that are lucky enough to already be at that top level.

We have no idea what the metrics are going to be... what if the networks want a national conference with bellwethers from every state? You really think they'd want NWU and Purdue types? Obviously those schools could come up with the money, but if it's some hard cutoff at 32, 40, or 48, then a lot of existing P5 schools are out.

I don't foresee B1G schools getting cut, but I do foresee PAC and and ACC deadweights getting cut if there is a hard cutoff. The SEC could throw some schools a life line as well, but let's say both conferences end up with 24 max, you are going to have a 2-league super division... with the remnants of the PAC/ACC merging with the Big 12/American. I don't think that second tier will be it's own subdivision per say, as they should remain with the rest of (and incoming) FBS schools.

For example, you can put 9 AAU PAC schools plus ND and land yourself a 24 team B1G like I discussed in the other thread.

Duke/UNC/Clemson/FSU/UVa (+2 more) could easily round out the SEC. And that would be your 2-league super division. Rest of the ACC and most if not all of the Big 12 would be out.

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!"

(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

None of this really surprises me; JRSec has been saying this for awhile now. However, I do believe that E$PN will account for basketball as well and is expanding its premier league out to include top basketball brands also. This premier league has no problem not being in the NCAA tourny.

Quick note here that came to me as I was driving: FOX may have one chance to get back in the game: get either one of FAANG or Elon Musk to buy FOX. That would completely change the equation and put E$PN on the defensive.

I just don't see a new super conference that get's that small, at least not in it's inception. I have said for a while that I believe the number lies somewhere between 60 and 80 teams for a breakaway. IMO it's just to messy to try and exclude teams from any given conference. The easiest way to breakaway is to include entire conferences (All of the P5) and then give the rest the options to join but make the schools meet certain requirements that all of your current schools and conferences meet. Maybe it's stadium size, or revenue generation, or viewership, or all three or maybe something else. I don't have the answer and I honestly would rather not give ESPN any ideas because I really don't want it to happen, but it is what it is at this point.

After the initial breakaway has happened, I could see more or new requirements added to the existing members in order to maintain membership as a way to further Cull the herd. Even this would be tricky.

I could be wrong but I really think that ESPN will never get their 30-40 team super league, breakaway yes, but getting below that 65 (69 with the NB12 additions) team mark seems highly unlikely at this time.

(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.

(04-18-2022 07:23 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  I just don't see a new super conference that get's that small, at least not in it's inception. I have said for a while that I believe the number lies somewhere between 60 and 80 teams for a breakaway. IMO it's just to messy to try and exclude teams from any given conference. The easiest way to breakaway is to include entire conferences (All of the P5) and then give the rest the options to join but make the schools meet certain requirements that all of your current schools and conferences meet. Maybe it's stadium size, or revenue generation, or viewership, or all three or maybe something else. I don't have the answer and I honestly would rather not give ESPN any ideas because I really don't want it to happen, but it is what it is at this point.

After the initial breakaway has happened, I could see more or new requirements added to the existing members in order to maintain membership as a way to further Cull the herd. Even this would be tricky.

I could be wrong but I really think that ESPN will never get their 30-40 team super league, breakaway yes, but getting below that 65 (69 with the NB12 additions) team mark seems highly unlikely at this time.

Inclined to agree with you. ESPN is not pulling strings. Offering carrots, yes, but not pulling strings. The presidents might work in the future at a current conference mate, so they won't cut them out. The flagships and land grant schools along with P5 privates are a club. As Frank pointed out, there aren't many fitting that mold in the G5 so you mostly already have your group.

Excluding small state flagships, its a very small group in the G5 and none are football powerhouses-Colorado St., SMU, Rice, Tulane, Buffalo, UConn, UMass. Memphis, USF and Temple aren't flagships or land grants although they are similar to the Big 12 additions.

I don't see the "club" getting much smaller than 69. And if there is a break, it won't be more than 100.

(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?