And if you missed it, last week’s mailbag examined which schools would make a college football super league.
A college football super league with 32-to-40 teams would present each member with an outrageously difficult schedule — much worse than what NFL teams face. Maybe more teams need to be added? Am I missing something? — Dave W
Largely due to the Protect College Sports Act winding its way through the U.S. Senate, the super league concept remains top-of-mind for many fans and observers. As such, the Hotline constructed a three-part series using the mailbag as our vehicle.
Two weeks ago, we explained how the league might form. (Hint: It’s not the way Senator Ted Cruz, who co-sponsored the bill, thinks.)
And last week, we examined which schools would be invited, depending on the league’s size.
This installment looks at the money, which, in our view, would be significant enough to offset the very real hurdle noted in the question above.
Yes, losing would be an issue for schools not used to losing.
Using the framework offered by Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua during his Senate testimony, a 24-to-30 team super league would feature all the top brands in the sport and absurdly compelling schedules “where a team like Notre Dame would play Alabama, Georgia, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan.”
But even in that universe, somebody has to lose. Schools accustomed to winning nine or 10 games every year would win two or three. How would that be received by fans and donors?
Skeptics justifiably point to this reality as a reason blue bloods might balk at the idea of a super league so small that there are no cupcakes on which to feast.
That would not be the case with a super league of 60 or 70 teams. Dozens of schools with decades of mediocrity would provide the fodder craved by the blue bloods.
But that size isn’t financially efficient because the TV networks would not pay top dollar for so-so matchups. Only a structure limited to the biggest brands would command the largest paycheck.
“Flooding the market, aggregating the market, bringing it to an aggregate form to major media companies — I’m not sure that’s going to drive the value some say it will,” Bevacqua, the former chair of NBC Sports, told the Senate Commerce Committee.
Our view: Despite the unsettling prospect of losing seasons, the blue bloods simply could not reject the money available through media rights to a limited version.
As Bevacqua noted:
“If you wanted to maximize media value around college football, I think you would take 24-to–30 teams, create unbelievably competitive scheduling … and start to get a number that more closely resembles an NFL number.”
What’s an NFL number?
The league generates $11 billion annually through its contracts with NBC, ESPN, CBS, Fox and Amazon that, crucially, include the playoffs.
That’s $344 million per team.
The biggest brands in the Big Ten and SEC take home roughly $65 million to $70 million in media rights from the regular season packages and the College Football Playoff agreement with ESPN.
Next season, their CFP payouts will increase by about $20 million under the terms of a new contract cycle. For Ohio State and Alabama, for example, media revenue from the conference deals and the postseason will approach $100 million.
Now consider the amount available through the 24-to-30 team super league model that Bevacqua believes “more closely resembles an NFL number.”
Even if the super league (including the playoffs) received just 50 percent of the NFL’s revenue, or $6.5 billion annually, a 30-team structure would spin off $217 million per school — more than double what Ohio State and Alabama will receive.
And if the super league produced two-thirds of the NFL’s cash, or $7.4 billion annually, the revenue would climb to roughly $250 million per school.
They won’t turn down that cash, folks, even if it means enduring a few 2-10 seasons.
I recently heard Ted Cruz say that if a super league formed with just 36 or so schools and didn’t “take everyone,” he had more than enough votes in the Senate and House to pass into law a new standalone bill to block it. — JR
The Hotline won’t begin to count votes for a non-existent bill resulting from a theoretical competitive structure. But from the comments we’ve seen, Cruz’s vision for a super league is based on the SEC and Big Ten joining forces.
That’s not how it would form, as we outlined two weeks ago.
Any combining of the conferences would instantly produce an antitrust lawsuit from the excluded schools or their state attorneys general.
The easier (albeit still complicated) path forward for the blue bloods would be to create something new with only the top football programs from the various conferences.
If half the schools in the Big Ten leave the other half behind, the Big Ten cannot be accused of collusion by the ACC, for example.
That said, political and legal scrutiny would assuredly follow. The workaround is a promotion-and-relegation system similar to European soccer that provides access to the super league for every major college football program.
In a 30-team league, for example, the bottom four (or six) finishers would be demoted to the sport’s second tier, while the top-four on that tier would be elevated into the super league.
Clearly, there are thousands of hurdles. But the roiling landscape and mounting frustration across the sport, especially at the highest level, have made a super league feel increasingly inevitable.
In a recent article, you said that the non-behemoth FBS conferences pooling their media rights would be “a momentous step that would reduce the massive financial and competitive advantages currently held by the sport’s twin behemoths.” Please explain how/why? — Dave B
That comment appeared in an article about the Pac-12’s decision to support the Protect College Sports Act alongside every conference not named the SEC or Big Ten, a collection of leagues the Hotline has come to refer to as the Group of Eight.
The PCSA includes a pathway for all 10 conferences and Notre Dame to pool their media rights in a fashion similar to the NFL, with basic laws of supply-and-demand at the core: Reduce the number of sellers and you increase demand, leading to more competition for the product and larger paychecks for all the schools.
We won’t dive into the weeds, at least not here, but the Hotline’s best sources in the media rights world are hardly convinced pooling rights would generate two or three times the revenue generated by selling inventory on a conference-by-conference basis.
But this much is abundantly clear: The top 12 or 15 football brands in the Big Ten and SEC (and Notre Dame) would be responsible for the majority of revenue in a rights-pooling scenario. Everyone else would benefit, naturally undermining the advantage held by the blue bloods.
What’s more, creating a centralized entity to sell the rights would give the Group of Eight schools seats at the same negotiating table as the Big Ten and SEC.
But the Big Two have no interest in elevating the Group of Eight in any form or fashion. They enjoy lording over the sport.
If the PCSA provision on pooling rights doesn’t change through the legislative process, it’s difficult to envision the Big Ten and SEC supporting the bill.
Nick Saban’s testimony before Congress stated he thought there should be regional conferences: “USC playing Rutgers is just crazy.” That was music to my ears. Here’s my latest suggestion: Four Conferences with nine teams. Would that work? — Gerry W
It is crazy, and everyone in their right mind would agree. (That’s even more true for the Olympic sports than football.)
We view the early 2020s realignment wave as akin to Prohibition: The world spun off its axis for a period of time, but order will eventually return.
The specific shape remains unknown, however.
If a super league forms, the divisions will be based on geography.
If the Big Ten and SEC expand again (without a super league format), they will split into divisions.
Only the status quo could prevent a restructuring along geographic lines, and we have a difficult time seeing the status quo continuing well into the 2030s.
Remember, the media rights contracts holding everything in place — not just the conferences but the CFP and NCAA Tournament — expire in the first half of the next decade.
As roster costs continue to soar, the market inefficiencies will become more pronounced and a breaking point will arrive.
The X factor is a collective bargaining agreement that would provide a desperately-needed compensation structure and protection from lawsuits.
The SEC is seriously considering a self-governing framework that would create collective bargaining. The Big Ten likely would do the same. Would the other conferences?
Keep an eye on that issue.
The selection criteria for your Ivy League-on-steroids concept would have to include AAU membership, decent football and men’s basketball programs, TV markets and other factors, correct? — N Langland
For those who missed it, the Hotline opined in this space last week that FBS schools with elite academics could form a more competitively rigorous version of the Ivy League — but only if they were excluded from the super league.
As long as there’s a chance to be included in whatever structure emerges, to compete alongside Michigan and USC and Texas, there will be intense pressure on university presidents to claim a seat at the table.
But if the super league forms with 24 or 30 elite football schools, we could envision Cal, Stanford, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, Rice and a few others (the service academies?) linking arms and creating a conference of their own.
We haven’t thought deeply about the selection criteria, but yes, membership in the Association of American Universities would be a requirement. I’m not sure TV ratings or media markets would matter — this would not be a money play, after all.
Rather, it would constitute an acceptance of the competitive landscape at the highest level of the sport, an embrace of higher education and a doubling down on the academic reputation of the schools involved.
Because if the super league excludes 90 or 100 teams, the top academic schools might prefer to form their own club.
College football and basketball teams have contracts to play non-conference opponents, but there’s no need to have yearly contracts to play conference peers, right? So there would be no buyouts for cancelling games with a conference member right? — @dukestainer
The background to this question — and it’s a good question — lies in the controversy currently engulfing the Big 12.
Several campus officials have raised the possibility of boycotting games against Texas Tech if quarterback Brendan Sorsby, who wagered on his own team while redshirting at Indiana in 2022, takes the field.
No, league games don’t have yearly contracts similar to non-conference matchups. If Houston, which hosts the Red Raiders on Sept. 18, opted to cancel, the Cougars would not owe Texas Tech a game guarantee.
However, the Red Raiders could respond with a lawsuit, either against the schools or the conference itself, citing tens of millions of dollars in damages.
In fact, they have already signaled an intent to pursue legal action if sanctioned for playing Sorsby, who recently received a temporary injunction that deemed him eligible.
Whether Texas Tech’s strategy succeeds is another matter. As Tom Mars, an attorney who has beaten the NCAA in court many times, posted on the social media platform X:
“A super majority of the Big 12 directors (schools) already have almost unlimited discretion to sanction Texas Tech.
“What’s more, they also have the authority to amend the Big 12 Bylaws at any time to specifically require the immediate suspension or dismissal of any school which knowingly plays an athlete who has admitted to placing bets on his own team.”
The folks in Lubbock tell us that quarterback Brendan Sorsby being allowed to play “is not murder.” If it were murder, would they argue that the player is a serial killer addicted to murder, is seeking help, and should be allowed to play? — Jon J
Texas Tech’s public relations campaign supporting Sorsby has been as bad as Texas Tech’s performance in the Orange Bowl.
Remember the 26-0 loss to Oregon? Yep, the PR has reached that level of futility.
It doesn’t matter who’s attempting to message.
It could be billionaire donor Cody Campbell, master of the false equivalence.
It could be president Lawrence Schovanec, who on Thursday suggested the NCAA should relax rules against gambling on your own team because betting apps are now available on cell phones. (Oh yes he did.)
It could be coach Joey McGuire, who uttered the following:
“For some reason, as a society, we’ve been OK with other things that happen and allowing players to play, and this has been the one thing that has united people, that they were against. It’s crazy because it’s not murder, it’s not beating somebody.”
They are making a giant mess even worse, and here’s why: The Red Raiders have no justification for supporting Sorsby’s return — even though he willingly, knowingly and repeatedly violated the one unbreakable rule in all of sports — other than a desire to win at all costs.
Honestly, one of them should just admit it.
That would be a better PR move than the conga line of drivel they have produced thus far.
*** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@
*** Follow me on the social media platform X: @WilnerHotline