"College Sports Tomorrow"

[SomeBiz]

Wall Street Journal has a story this morning about a group proposal for realigning all of the FBS. As proposed, 72 teams form Tier 1, the balance form Tier 2. Tulane doesn't make the Tier 1 cut in this version, though Memphis and Navy do. It's behind a paywall:

https://www.wsj.com/sports/football/col ... lead_pos10

[SomeBiz]

Reporter notes that the propoposed College Student Football League "plan is audacious, intriguing—and, at this point, far-fetched."

Tier 1 teams would share 94% of renegotiated TV contracts, with the remaining 6% going to Tier 2 teams, which would get 2 of 24 playoff spots each year.

[Baywave1]

This plan would require a specific antitrust enabling exemption like NFL-AFL merger got in 1960’s. Otherwise the Billable Hours team will win CFP for next decade.

Do you think Congress would pass it and President Whoever would sign it?

Without that exemption, even Homer Simpson,Esquire, could win that anti-trust litigation with a 94% to 6% revenue split.

[Carolina Greenie]

Well. To start we beat navy and Memphis to ensure we are in the top 72. I would assume Vandy and Rutgers will eventually drop down…. :)

[PeteRasche]

Who is the "group" proposing this? Some real people with any authority, or the writer of the story and some drinking buddies?

I don't have a WSJ subscription.

[Carolina Greenie]

from WSJ

The group, spearheaded by Len Perna, the chief executive of executive search firm TurnkeyZRG, and former Major League Soccer deputy commissioner Mark Abbott, calls itself “College Sports Tomorrow.” And their plan is to unify the more than 130 teams that compete in the Football Bowl Subdivision into one nationwide competition.

[tulaneoutlaw]

I won't get into the feasibility of this, but I will note a couple of oddities. On the graphic presented, Navy is listed in the top 72. But in the fine print down below it's noted that Army and Air Force always get to "play up". So in other words they are members of the lower tier ostensibly for money purposes, but also get to play the big boys each season? That's an odd promotion system especially since its paired with no relegation

Also on the graphic, Tulane is nowhere to be found. We aren't in the top 72, but we also aren't officially listed with the lower group. In fact, there are supposed to be 64 teams in the lower group, but I only count 61 logos. Army, Air Force, and Tulane are three that are missing. Seems odd to me that those three are the ones missing, almost as if they specifically object to being kicked to the lower division and forced to fight for promotion.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/580968 ... e-student/

[GSx]

Yes, they omitted the best G5 Programs, but kept in place the bottom-feeders in P4 conferences.
So predictable.

[tjtlja]

Hooray, another stupid ass article.

[Carolina Greenie]

so, I am not suggesting that I support this idea- I don't know enough about it- I suspect, like many proposals, this is a first iteration

That said, if we are frustrated with the changes that are occurring - already mid stream- it doesn't make this "another stupid article". Two respected news organizations are sharing info regarding a proposal by a well connected and well funded group; this is important information to know.

Suggesting otherwise is putting your head in the sand, or your pillow over your face while screaming "make it go away!"


It is an interesting thing that Tulane is somehow absent. Strange- I don't know how to read that- an odd purgatory (since I was taught limbo didn't exist and is a place without hope)

I suspect the "P4 bottom feeders" aren't explicitly called out in the proposal as it would be counterproductive at this stage- but they know who they are

It seems to me that it would be paramount to START in the upper echelon, because the lower echelon is essentially old 1-AA

I hope Tulane's history of participation in the legal/political realm over the years gives us at least a smidge of advantage in any negotiations that may ensue-

I guess that would legitimize Troy Dannen's extensive committee membership?

[PJR]

I would suggest that Tulane is not listed because of the belief that Tulane will be part of the P4 at that time and not part of the G5.

[tumbuuh]

I think the complaints here are that this "plan" was concocted by some dudes who follow college football, worked in other major sports, and are in private equity and have connections to financial publications (why is Wall Street Journal even reporting on college football, anyway? because these guys know a guy). They're spitballing ideas and using their connections to get them some PR. It doesn't seem like a single one of them is anywhere near a position of power in college football or in the NCAA. We too can put together a fun plan and then call in a favor to get it published like it's a serious proposal.

Not saying this doesn't reflect conversations that others are having, but the pushing of it as some sort of plan that's in the early stages is complete baloney. They just want private equity involved in college football and are pulling strings to air their ideas out to the public in hopes that the actual power brokers in college football get pressured to think about it more seriously.

[waverider]

Their plan has some big holes in it. If only the second tier can move up or down, does that mean the first tier will always be fluctuating with number of teams involved? If no tier 1 teams can be relegated, does that mean once you move up you can’t move back down? And, why does Texas Tech, Houston, Miss St, and all the other P4 bottom feeders get protected from being punished for bad seasons?

[Poseidon]

I think the complaints here are that this "plan" was concocted by some dudes who follow college football, worked in other major sports, and are in private equity and have connections to financial publications (why is Wall Street Journal even reporting on college football, anyway? because these guys know a guy). They're spitballing ideas and using their connections to get them some PR. It doesn't seem like a single one of them is anywhere near a position of power in college football or in the NCAA. We too can put together a fun plan and then call in a favor to get it published like it's a serious proposal.

Not saying this doesn't reflect conversations that others are having, but the pushing of it as some sort of plan that's in the early stages is complete baloney. They just want private equity involved in college football and are pulling strings to air their ideas out to the public in hopes that the actual power brokers in college football get pressured to think about it more seriously.

The plan is interesting, but the worst of both worlds. It takes money(by more equitable sharing), home games(no more 8 home games a year only 6 or 7), beloved conferences away(SEC and Big Ten) from the blue bloods and collectivizes management. They aren't going for it. They would rather do a 20-30 team upper crust division. It also relegates a number of schools who have shown on the field to be better than mid/bottom feeders of the upper division and are willing to pay athletes as employees. There should be legal ground to stand on if they were arbitrarily kept out simply because of current conference affiliation which would be done away with.

Where it does get it right is around the 70-80 number. Which correlates with the linear network inventory.

If there is a split my guess is you have a P2 of BigTen/SEC who get X money per school. Then Big 12/ACC who get .5 to .66 of X money per school. Call-ups will slowly still occur every few years as the market increases.

[randymc]

The sacred 72 may have roughly 12-to-14 times the revenue split as the bottom 8 divisional small fry that it will be impossible to rise up to the glorious upper tier (and stay there very long) and get real $$$. Without real revenue (did I read the split is 94 percent to the big guys and 6 percent to the small fry?) then it won't be long before fan attendance dwindles, revenue at the have-not schools shrinks even more, minor sports can't be funded and universities say to hell with swimming upstream against an unfair tide of finance and schools drop out of intercollegiate sports altogether (or at least football) as a losing proposition. This plan must die. Since football wouldn't be part of conference TV packages any longer, the AAC and others' take for hoops and other sports would dwindle to a pittance.

[randymc]

DId a little more research and I am guessing Memphis is the sole non-military academy non-Power 4 school in the Sainted 72 grouping at least in part due to connections politically among the Haslam family (as in Jimmy Haslam, founder of Pilot gas stations and former Tenn. Gov. Bill Haslam) and Fred Smith, head honcho at Memphis-based FedEx, big contributor to the University of Memphis. All that gang made six figure contributions to former President Donald Trump's inauguration a few years back and Smith/FedEx made a major expansion of the corporate hub in Memphis when Haslam was governor. Smith has made appearances at the Haslam School of Business at the University of Tennessee. I didn't try to check on Smith's possible contributions to Haslam for governor campaigns. But Jimmy and Bill Haslam and Fred Smith all were involved in major fundraising for then Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tenn. a decade ago. That's all from a 20-minute check of newspaper files but enough to suggest billionaires of a feather (Jimmy, $8 billion; and Fred $5.3 billion) flock and mess up college sports together.