Perhaps one of the most notable aspects of the extensive media coverage surrounding the proposed college football “super league” is the absence of certain key players. In a recent article by Andrew Marchand and Stewart Mandel in The Athletic, executives from only two schools that are not typically considered national title contenders, namely Syracuse and West Virginia, provided on-the-record statements:
A new initiative put forth by the group “College Sports Tomorrow” envisions an 80-team configuration. This setup includes 70 permanent members comprising all teams from the five major conferences, along with Notre Dame and the new ACC addition, SMU. These teams would be divided into seven 10-team divisions, with an additional 10-team division involving promotion and relegation for the remaining FBS schools beyond the initial 70.
While notable figures such as NFL chief media and business officer Brian Rolapp, Philadelphia 76ers owner David Blitzer, and lead organizer Len Perna of TurnkeyZRG are linked to this proposal, the individuals quoted within the realm of college sports are West Virginia President Gordon Gee and Syracuse Chancellor Kent Syverud. It is somewhat surprising to see representatives from these institutions playing significant roles in the discussion of college athletics restructuring. The reluctance of major conferences to engage with this proposal, as highlighted in the article, underscores the challenges faced by the “Super League” advocates in gaining traction.
The narrative put forth by Syverud and Gee paints a picture of an impending crisis within the current collegiate sports model. Despite their dire warnings, the piece reveals the uphill battle faced by the group in garnering support from conferences essential to the success of their proposed league. The reluctance of established leagues to disrupt existing broadcast partnerships further complicates the feasibility of this initiative.
Contrary to its grandiose title, the proposed “Super League” fails to present a clear strategy for enhancing television revenue. The lack of concrete proposals and the absence of a compelling argument for increased network engagement raise doubts about the viability of this venture. Moreover, the emphasis on maintaining the status quo among power conference teams diminishes the league’s potential to revolutionize the college football landscape.
While the promotion and relegation system in the eighth division may offer a novel approach to fan engagement, its overall impact remains uncertain. The prospect of attracting new audiences through this mechanism is overshadowed by the league’s reinforcement of the existing hierarchy dominated by the powerhouse conferences.
Despite the potential for progress, the reluctance of SEC and Big Ten schools to relinquish their dominant positions in college football suggests a challenging road ahead for the CST group. The disparity between schools like Syracuse and West Virginia, which struggle to compete at the national level, and perennial contenders further underscores the complexities inherent in reshaping the collegiate sports landscape.
In conclusion, the emphasis on perspectives from schools that stand to benefit from the proposed league raises questions about the motivations driving this initiative. As discussions evolve, the contrast between schools positioned to gain from a revamped structure and those already entrenched in the elite echelons of college football adds a layer of intrigue to the ongoing debate.