Agree on the 20 team league, but that’s not what is being floated here, right? Closer to a 40 team break off?
Here comes the doomsday thread, sorry
- Thread starter byebye
- Start date
Everyone - $100 million is not the final number - it's not a cutoff - it's a number shared by a dying organization facing irrelevancy trying not to scare EVERYONE at once, while signaling to those that matter that they don't want to get left in the cold - in the end, the top schools & the networks will decide what this looks like & it'll be something similar to the size of the NFL & will not include Iowa State
I mean based on the reporting it’s going to be the P4. Between media deals and payouts very few of those schools wouldn’t be able to compete in this. Also if it’s a hard figure then the schools that are hurting have an exact number they can ask the big time donors to support. It’s possible you could see a shift from NIL donations to the school it’s self to meet the need.
Yep.
It also keeps alumni engaged and brings people back to town. Opens up great fundraising opportunities. There's a reason small schools are fighting for the chance to join the lower rungs of FBS, and there's a reason SMU ponied up close to $100 million to join the P4.
Honestly, if $6 mil/year is the price to play, I imagine it's well worth it and should be doable for a power 4 budget.
Depends when it happens.
If it happens now most definitely includes B12/ACC. If it happens after 4-6 ACC schools and Notre Dame align with SEC/Big Ten who knows.
Last edited:
Yeah, but I could see tv producers and executives not getting that. It’s also possible that we are dramatically underestimating the number of people who will continue to watch
I read it as no one is forbidden. There’s a minimum amount of $$ that you need to invest in to “get in the door” once you’re in the door it’s up to you to decide how much you want to spend. There’s not going to be a cutoff at this is the 40 teams we want and the rest of you can rot.
They want schools to invest more because that means they will ultimately get a better tv product. Look at how the Big 10 is operating with their new financials. You think Indiana would have paid a $20 million buyout 10 years ago.
If I’m the Big 10 I’m saying: look we got you the big payday but you better use it for a better product on the field to help us out.
I'm not sure you can transfer title IX over to pro sports. Logically, legally or both. It makes sense when you're giving out scholarships, especially at state funded schools. The US Womens Soccer team only has an excellent point about their pay because they generate as much or more revenue as the USMNT. Outside of figure skating, gymnastics and maybe tennis it's hard to find another example like that in the world of sports.
If/when they become just real pros (many are already) they need to have more loose affiliation with the schools. It's a true mess but paying a star QB who generates millions the same as a freshman crew rower (male or female) is going to eventually fall apart just as much if not more than the status quo.
This is it exactly, it essentially cuts out the G5 so they don’t get a payout amount or compete in the same bowls. Cinci getting into the playoff was the main driver behind this. I have a massive G5 bias so I’m in the same camp but I also realize this is going to hurt a bunch of G5 schools
I personally agree with you
But the decision makers haven’t made their decisions based on the long-term health of the sport. They’ve made (and will continue to make) their decisions based on maximizing short-term revenue.
If it keeps on raining the levee's gonna break.
When the levee breaks got no place to stay
Sport gambling from our phones has been a huge driver of viewership for college and pro sports. And the pro sports leagues are really embracing it.
It's not about forming a super league. Its about addressing the issue of schools paying players. There is no break off per se. Each school, and probably each conference in reality, is going to have to decide if they and their members can afford it. This has been an issue that's been percolating since NIL happened. It was only a matter of time before they tried to figure out a way for schools to pay players if they can afford it.
So this is an interesting point, could a conference have some members that can’t afford it and how does that affect conference affiliation and the media contracts. Like is this a crazy way to break up the ACC saying that schools like Wake, Cal, and BC wouldn’t be competing at the same level of FSU/Clemson? Round about way of doing it but could have ripple effects for the ACC and schools like cinci in the big12.
I have thought that for a while now. If more money means more winning, it is good, but all they do is spend it on something and up the costs for fans to also pay for it. If they are a "non profit" i wonder what schools like Vanderbilt do with all their money. They don't win, fans don't go, and their facilities aren't exactly top of the line. When the goal of athletics is winning and they don't win, what good does money do?
I'll be curious to see what schools can't actually afford what is being proposed. At the end of the day the NCAA represents the member institutions so it can't exclude a bunch of members that don't want to be excluded. My guess is they'll find numbers that work for everyone that needs it to work.
One thing to keep in mind - the networks need sports content, and a lot of it. And it won’t help their ratings if half the P4 conference teams get relegated.
Half the P4 isn’t getting relegated, the G5 is getting relegated.
