|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 4, 2024 8:32:25 GMT -6
Actually only some of the problems mentioned. Not the least of which is that the SEC and B10 conferences would be dismantled and myriad scheduling issues for the 80 team league not likely to equal revenue for schools in those conferences.
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Apr 4, 2024 10:18:05 GMT -6
Actually only some of the problems mentioned. Not the least of which is that the SEC and B10 conferences would be dismantled and myriad scheduling issues for the 80 team league not likely to equal revenue for schools in those conferences.
"According to Marchand and Mandel, the idea may not even be able to get off the ground, though. While the ACC board of directors reportedly listened to a presentation from CST officials, the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 all canceled plans for a similar sit-down. ESPN just agreed to a media rights deal for the expanded College Football Playoff, while the SEC and Big Ten aren't close to the expiry of their respective television contracts. It's almost impossible to wrap your head around the logistic behind ripping up the current TV deals and figuring out the broadcasting rights for a two-division college football "Super League." If nothing else, this might be the opening salvo in what promises to be a much larger fight." Sounds like more talking heads throwing shit at the wall.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 4, 2024 10:55:28 GMT -6
It's an attempt to dilute the power of the SEC and B10, pretending there are 80 schools that are "equals."
There are about 30 or 40 with much greater resources. The two super conferences have a few hangers on they are happy enough to have for scheduling, do not need 40 more schools destined to be second among "equals" to fuss with.
The idea of relegation which has some appeal, has the rather silly assumption there are schools outside the top tier of 80 with resources to move into that group some way. And if they did would that make them "equal" to any other than the bottom 40 0f 80. And for how long? How would that benefit the big boys who are going to control media?
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 4, 2024 11:26:45 GMT -6
Reads like a panic move by the ACC and Big 12 trying to keep up with the Big Ten and SEC, with some corporate folks trying to line their own pockets.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Apr 4, 2024 12:10:21 GMT -6
“Athletes need to be paid and are going to be paid,” Syverud said. “Most of the rules against paying athletes, including some of those that are still in place, are likely to fall in the courts. We’re going to need to sustain women’s sports, Olympic sports and we’re going to have to have competitive equity and some methods to have a labor structure that is sensible. For all that, I think you need a more centralized national college league.”
As usual, the word "equity" means taking the money somebody earns and giving it to somebody else who is politically favored. In this case, everybody knows women's sports will never produce the revenue to fund themselves. And the ladies will certainly never be expected to pay for it themselves. So the huge amount of money produced by the male athletes in a few football and basketball programs is the obvious target for skimming. And at schools like BSU where there is no football or basketball revenue surplus, the other students will still have to fund women's sports at the current lavish level. "Equity", you know.
One looming problem for the ladies is that the basketball/football surpluses are produced by athletes who are disproportionately black, which raises the specter of the dreaded race card being played against them.
|
|
|
Post by grass on Apr 4, 2024 18:23:58 GMT -6
“Athletes need to be paid and are going to be paid,” Syverud said. “Most of the rules against paying athletes, including some of those that are still in place, are likely to fall in the courts. We’re going to need to sustain women’s sports, Olympic sports and we’re going to have to have competitive equity and some methods to have a labor structure that is sensible. For all that, I think you need a more centralized national college league.”As usual, the word "equity" means taking the money somebody earns and giving it to somebody else who is politically favored. In this case, everybody knows women's sports will never produce the revenue to fund themselves. And the ladies will certainly never be expected to pay for it themselves. So the huge amount of money produced by the male athletes in a few football and basketball programs is the obvious target for skimming. And at schools like BSU where there is no football or basketball revenue surplus, the other students will still have to fund women's sports at the current lavish level. "Equity", you know. One looming problem for the ladies is that the basketball/football surpluses are produced by athletes who are disproportionately black, which raises the specter of the dreaded race card being played against them. 100%.
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Apr 5, 2024 9:16:53 GMT -6
It's an attempt to dilute the power of the SEC and B10, pretending there are 80 schools that are "equals." There are about 30 or 40 with much greater resources. The two super conferences have a few hangers on they are happy enough to have for scheduling, do not need 40 more schools destined to be second among "equals" to fuss with. The idea of relegation which has some appeal, has the rather silly assumption there are schools outside the top tier of 80 with resources to move into that group some way. And if they did would that make them "equal" to any other than the bottom 40 0f 80. And for how long? How would that benefit the big boys who are going to control media? Yeah, but I do like the promotion and relegation system to let the cream rise to the top, and the turds sink.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 5, 2024 9:19:51 GMT -6
It's an attempt to dilute the power of the SEC and B10, pretending there are 80 schools that are "equals." There are about 30 or 40 with much greater resources. The two super conferences have a few hangers on they are happy enough to have for scheduling, do not need 40 more schools destined to be second among "equals" to fuss with. The idea of relegation which has some appeal, has the rather silly assumption there are schools outside the top tier of 80 with resources to move into that group some way. And if they did would that make them "equal" to any other than the bottom 40 0f 80. And for how long? How would that benefit the big boys who are going to control media? Yeah, but I do like the promotion and relegation system to let the cream rise to the top, and the turds sink. If the Super League had 20 or 30 members, that would make more sense. There may be 30-40 schools who can afford to compete for those spots. Not 130...
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 5, 2024 9:39:20 GMT -6
We're gonna be one of the top 80, right? Right? RIGHT? Hello?
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Apr 5, 2024 9:50:41 GMT -6
Top 70 or 80 won't be the end of it.
I don't even think there are 30-40. Once they split off an upper chunk then the real top tier money makers will start weeding the lower part of the top group. I'm thinking more like 20 are on par with each other and they will not be happy sharing or having a level playing field even with teams in the 30-40 range.
Unless there are regulations in place to level spending Michigan and Ohio State are going to bury schools like Purdue and Indiana very early in the process.
We are witnessing the death of college athletics. It will be interesting to see what happens after everything implodes. Some very selfish people don't know how good they've had it and they are going to ruin it for everyone but just a few.
There is going to come a point where they cross a line and piss off a big chunk of the public. Personally I think many people will reject a college NFL.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Apr 5, 2024 11:03:53 GMT -6
We're gonna be one of the top 80, right? Right? RIGHT? Hello? 80 such a wrong number. How many of bottom 50 can really hope to move up for more than a year. Having moved up their schedule is jacked around playing top 80 teams. Don't kid me and think that means much if any chance UMich or ND comes to Muncie in such à deal. Or we play on TV.
|
|
|
Post by redbirdman on Apr 5, 2024 11:34:41 GMT -6
Eighty is way to many half that at most for the top group. The schools outside the B10, B12, ACC & SEC should know they no chance just like IU, NW, Vandy, WF & Duke. It may take 10 yrs but their won't be 80 schools in the top group in ten yrs.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Apr 5, 2024 11:51:39 GMT -6
Top 70 or 80 won't be the end of it. I don't even think there are 30-40. Once they split off an upper chunk then the real top tier money makers will start weeding the lower part of the top group. I'm thinking more like 20 are on par with each other and they will not be happy sharing or having a level playing field even with teams in the 30-40 range. Unless there are regulations in place to level spending Michigan and Ohio State are going to bury schools like Purdue and Indiana very early in the process. We are witnessing the death of college athletics. It will be interesting to see what happens after everything implodes. Some very selfish people don't know how good they've had it and they are going to ruin it for everyone but just a few. There is going to come a point where they cross a line and piss off a big chunk of the public. Personally I think many people will reject a college NFL. You are not wrong. I think you're spot on on every point. College athletics as we know are dying and have been dying since the free for all of the portal and NIL really kicked in. Especially in college football. Basketball, the mids can kinda hang in there because the overhead isn't that much. 13 scholarships, smaller travel budgets, etc. You don't have to carry 85 scholllies plus another 30 paid ""walk ons." Hell, those top 10 or so might even just purchase their own bus lines/private planes. You'll see the top 10 or so in massive bidding wars for those freaking "walk ons to keep those additional really good players away from other schools, including BSU level programs. They'll just make sure those guys get paid enough to be willing to be buried and most likely never play on super bloated rosters just so no other program can get them. And the portal within that group of 10-20 power football schools will be insane. (unless they write their own rules, which, they will, that do things like prohibit willy nilly transfers) There will be contracts binding players to said programs and they will only be able to move about if they get released or earn some sort of free agent period. Yep, the top 20ish programs will be professional football. Above the table, no longer under the table. If schools like BSU are able to sustain some sort of football program, we'll just be a minor league to the top 20ish schools. We'll develop kids pretty much just so the Big Whatever can then offer them a contract we could never afford and poof, our best talent is gone. Every year. Just like now, only more so. Maybe we could negotiate affiliate agreements with a team or teams and have them pay a portion of our football budget to serve as their minor leages. Maybe a revenue sharing thing.
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Apr 5, 2024 12:23:21 GMT -6
This is not going to work and will never pass.. Regulation is fun though
|
|
|
Post by Lurkin McGurkin on Apr 5, 2024 12:25:56 GMT -6
Having 70 permanent members, that can't be relegated, is crap. Everyone should have the fear of relegation. Why should Vanderbilt, Rutgers, and such be protected?
|
|