The College Football Super League: A New Era or a Pipe Dream?

For decades, the possibility of a college football super league has been a recurring topic of discussion. This concept envisions a national conference comprising top college football teams from across the country, irrespective of their existing conference affiliations. Such a formation could necessitate participating schools to leave the NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), effectively creating an unsanctioned competition. The emergence of The European Super League in 2021 further intensified these discussions, prompting considerations of a similar model for college football.

The Genesis of the College Student Football League (CSFL)

Recently, a group of executives and administrators, operating under the banner of College Sports Tomorrow (CST), formally announced their proposal for a college football “Super League,” dubbed the College Student Football League (CSFL). This proposal, which has been in development for several months, outlines a significant reorganization of the 136 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) schools into two distinct conferences.

The core of the CSFL lies in its two-tiered structure:

Power 12 Conference: This top-tier conference would consist of the leading 72 programs, primarily those currently belonging to the Power 5 conferences. These programs would be divided into twelve six-team, geographically-based divisions.
Group of 8 Conference: The remaining 64 programs, largely from the current Group of 5 conferences, would form the second tier.

A unique feature of the CSFL proposal is a promotion system. Top teams from the Group of 8 would have the opportunity to be "promoted" to compete against the Power 12 in the following season. However, there would be no relegation among the Power 12 schools, ensuring a degree of stability at the top.

CST: The Driving Force Behind the CSFL

The advisory group for the CSFL, College Sports Tomorrow (CST), comprises a diverse collection of industry leaders in business and sports, as well as university presidents and athletic directors. CST envisions the CSFL as a means to address the existing disruption and disorder within college sports, particularly the numerous legal battles the NCAA is currently facing, including the proposed House settlement. Furthermore, CST aims to mitigate the financial and competitive imbalances that are prevalent in college football.

The Proposed Structure and Governance of the CSFL

The CSFL proposal outlines a comprehensive structure for the league, encompassing scheduling, postseason berths, and governance.

Scheduling: The CSFL would employ a geographical- and results-based scheduling model, designed to foster more competitive matchups while preserving traditional rivalries, even between teams in different divisions.
Postseason: Postseason berths and seeding would be determined by win/loss records, mirroring the NFL model. A 24-team playoff would feature division winners and wild card spots. The Power 12 season and postseason would span 21 weeks, from late August through early January, including multiple bye weeks.
Governance: The CSFL would be governed by a board encompassing all 136 schools, with a single commissioner overseeing the entire league. Smaller executive committees would operate within each conference, with the Power 12 executive committee holding a "key governance role."

Revenue Distribution and Financial Model

The CSFL proposal addresses the critical issue of revenue distribution, aiming for relative equality within each conference. However, a significant disparity exists between the two conferences, with 94 percent of revenue allocated to Power 12 programs and only 6 percent to the Group of 8. CST believes that the revenue generated by the league would negate the need for private equity funding, though "minimal" outside capital would be used to bridge financing during the initial transition.

Collective Bargaining and Player Representation

A notable aspect of the CSFL proposal is the emphasis on collective bargaining and player representation. The league would collectively bargain via a single, comprehensive players association, which CST suggests could lobby in tandem with the league for a special classification from Congress. This classification would enable athletes to seek collective representation without being deemed employees, offering them input on rules and compensation while providing the league protection from antitrust claims via the “non-statutory labor exemption.” The CSFL could also implement a salary cap for teams and pay scales for player earnings, as well as new guidelines such as limiting athletes to two transfers within a five-year window of eligibility.

Potential Benefits and Challenges of the CSFL

CST argues that the CSFL would remedy the disruption and disorder within college sports and address the numerous legal battles the NCAA is currently facing, including the proposed House settlement. It would also aim to reduce the financial and competitive imbalance that so often defines college football in particular.

However, the path to realizing the CSFL is fraught with challenges. It would require significant cooperation and coordination between the NCAA and its member institutions, most of which are bound by existing conference television contracts and grants of rights. The current College Football Playoff contract with ESPN extends through the 2031-32 season, and other conference deals extend even further. CST states that it would not interfere with or ask for any current media contracts to be renegotiated. The idea of college sports, which has long lacked any semblance of cohesion, moving away from the existing model and agreeing to a newly unified structure, seems - at the moment, at least - like a pipe dream.

Read also: Phoenix Suns' New Center

Alternative "Super League" Proposals

While the CSFL proposal has garnered significant attention, it is not the only "super league" concept being considered. Another proposal, known as "Project Rudy," has emerged from the venture capital firm Smash Capital. This plan would exclude the present Group of 5 entirely, dividing 70 programs across four conferences while expanding the postseason and creating revenue distribution tiers. The proposed $9 billion cash infusion underscores the primary objective of complete monetization.

The Specter of Greed and the Erosion of Tradition

The discussions surrounding college football super leagues have raised concerns about the potential for greed and the erosion of traditions. Critics argue that these proposals prioritize financial gain over the historical rivalries, regional connections, and unique aspects that define college football. The pursuit of the "almighty dollar" could lead to the abandonment of century-old rivalries and the homogenization of the sport.

The Future of College Football: Consolidation or Fragmentation?

The emergence of these "super league" proposals reflects a growing sentiment that consolidation is inevitable in college football. Either the Big Ten and SEC (and whoever else they want to poach) will break off to start a new NCAA, or a major sea change will keep whatever’s left of the current system temporarily afloat. The current system is driven by shortsighted cash grabs have driven much of modern realignment in ways that are inconvenient for football fans and legitimately harmful to student-athletes.

Ohio State's Potential Role in Super League Disruption

Hypothetical talks of a super league would gain steam if big brands like Ohio State get unhappy with conference structure. Ohio State president points to Buckeyes' television viewership as sign of its worth. If Ohio State gets greedy and demands more in media rights, that could threaten to disrupt the Big Ten.

Ohio State President Ted Carter alluded during an interview with USA TODAY that the Buckeyes could be deserving of a richer revenue distribution from the Big Ten. Carter drew attention to the whopper television ratings from Ohio State’s season opener against Texas on Fox. No matter a quarterback’s surname, though, games featuring top brands like Ohio State and Texas offer ratings bonanzas.

Read also: About Grossmont Community College

But, let’s be real, the thinking that Ohio State deserves a larger Big Ten media-rights payout than most of its conference cohorts is the first step toward: Why does Ohio State need the Big Ten at all?

The logic goes like this: A couple of Big Ten schools like Ohio State are much more valuable than the rest of the conference. These mega brands command the highest television ratings. So, why shouldn’t those schools get a greater percentage of the conference revenue distribution?

Carter gave no ultimatums, and we should note he said “we're a proud member of the Big Ten, and that's where we're going to stay.”

So, you could see how Ohio State’s thinking might jump to: When Ohio State plays a smaller brand like Purdue, why shouldn’t the Buckeyes receive a higher media-rights payout from that game than Purdue?

But, do you think Ohio State cares about playing nice with the Big Ten’s underbelly? Not when there’s another dollar to be made and another championship to be bought.

Get fellow mega-brand Michigan on board, and a spark becomes a flame.

Schools like Purdue wouldn't have to agree to unequal revenue sharing, but if the Big Ten’s undercard takes a stand against Ohio State, what’s to stop the Buckeyes from ditching Purdue and its kind altogether?

Why bother with the Big Ten, when Ohio State could take a place at the vanguard of forming an elitist super league?

Ohio State lacks the threat of leaving for another conference.

But, who needs conferences? That’s old thinking. A greedy wildfire could consume that structure. A spark came this week.

tags: #college #football #super #league