Oh I know.
I’m just saying the folks that put this together probably need to make some adjustments in version 2.0.
Law, haven’t you said a 48-50 school Super League was too many parasites, now you’re ok with 72!?!?!
No, I said that a 48 team P2 breakaway is too big. A breakaway like that would NOT be that large and would certainly not include UH.
A 72 team power conference, by contrast wouldn’t be all that much different, than the current P4. And as you can see, it includes UH, as a member of the current P4.
I think the folks that put this out there have little to no chance of gaining any traction as long the B1G & SEC want to keep their power and control over their media rights and athletic programs.
1 Like
Probably
I think four conferences with 20 teams each is the right number and UH would definitely make that cut
WAY too many parasites in a 72 team model.
A 48 team model allows 4 (12 ) school divisions that only highlight the premiere matchups people care about.
UH vs ISU featured a ranked team and was only watched by 372k fans.
Notice the matchups near the top:
I’ve said it before, but I think any n conferences of m teams model is unlikely. I think the future of big conference football looks a lot like the B1G’s Flex Protect+ model, where each team has whatever number of rivals they want and the other teams in the conference just rotate as they can. The fact that Texas has 3 rivals they want to play every year shouldn’t mean that, say, South Carolina also has to be locked into three different permanent matchups.
The difference is that it wouldn’t be a P2 breakaway.
A P2 breakaway would certainly not include 48 teams, much less UH. In fact, it might even jettison a few existing P2 parasites. It would ultimately have less than 40, and probably 34-38 teams like every major pro league does.
THIS model, by contrast, is essentially the existing P4, plus a few other teams (while inexplicably excluding others; Navy but not Army and Air Force???), “repackaged” for greater regionality than the current P4.
Of course, that latter part wasn’t really well thought out either because it puts Ohio State and Michigan, the MOST WATCHED rivalry game in college football, inexplicably in different conferences.
Does that make sense?
Hint: NO.
As I said, even this 72 team model, designed to be a regionalized version of the current P4, needs to be revised into a version 2.0 for greater discussion. It’s not quite right just yet.
72 is WAY too many schools.
48 is the perfect number.
They have 34 now (16 + 18), so they would only need to add 14 to get to 48:
- North Carolina
- Virginia
- Florida State
- Clemson
- Colorado
- Utah
- Kansas
- Arizona or Arizona State
- Duke
- Miami
- Iowa State or Kansas State or BYU
- A Texas School (Houston, Texas Tech or TCU)
- 2 of Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Louisville, Pitt
- " " "
They can DEFINITELY absorb 14 extra fro that 4 x 12 division sett up.
One less spot if Notre Dame makes the jump.
Those are the type of high profile matchups that the networks want…not this 72 team mess…that’s headed in the opposite direction of what they want.
We won’t make the cut at 48 sorry to tell you but we are in the 60-80 group at best
Actually, I disagree, as I’ve said MANY times before.
In my view, a P2 breakaway, though not implausible, is improbable, for the following reason: there won’t be enough teams to program enough content for all of the sports networks that broadcast college football. Too many content providers with too few teams. Even 48 teams isn’t enough in that regard.
That’s why I’ve always said that there will always be AT LEAST THREE “power” conferences with 16-24 teams each (probably only the Big 12 would go over 20). That would provide enough “big time” matchups each week to fill the slots on every sports TV content network out there.
This 72 team model comes closer to that, though it promotes some teams to “power” status (Navy, Wazzu, OSU, Memphis, etc) that probably shouldn’t be there, and puts teams that should obviously be in the same division (like Ohio State and Michigan) in the wrong divisions. As I said, this model NEEDS WORK. After reworking, I’ll happily take a look at version 2.0
That said, 48 is HARDLY a perfect number for any breakaway. NO pro league operates that way, and any P2 breakaway would be, for all intents and purposes, a PRO league.
If 48 teams were ideal…then why doesn’t ANY OTHER pro league have that number? Hint: because it AIN’T ideal.
30-36 is the model for professional sports. To achieve that, the P2 would have to jettison a few parasites, add ND and perhaps a few of the largest ACC teams (FSU, Clemson, North Carolina), and call it a day.
Adding a Texas school would NOT be necessary, and would most likely NOT happen.
Why?
Because any P2 breakaway would ALREADY HAVE the two biggest Texas brands (UT and aTm). They won’t need any other Texas school, nor particularly want any others, because none would add a lot of value, and some (like UH and TCU) would be dilutive in value for football.
And in the highly UNlikely event that they did want another TX school (sure), it wouldn’t be UH or TCU; those football brands are too small and dilutive, as I said. It would be Tech, which fills a 60K seat stadium every week at home. But even that wouldn’t happen. Once you have UT and aTm, you’ve got all you need from a Texas brand perspective. NO need to add any others at that point.
Also, such a breakaway would NOT include Duke, Kansas, either Arizona school, any of the Texas schools you mentioned (as I said), or any team in #12 through #14 listed above except ND and North Carolina.
None of those schools have a football brand or overall sports brand big enough to add value to a P2 breakaway except ND, Florida State, Clemson, North Carolina, and perhaps one or two others.
Utah wouldn’t make it. Colorado wouldn’t make it unless Sanders really turns them around in football. UVa wouldn’t make it.
P2s are always looking to add the biggest brands, especially in football; markets don’t mean as much as they used to mean.
Many of the schools you listed aren’t close to being big enough football brands.
The big networks are trying to CONSOLIDATE the football schools that they pay big money to.
Sorry, 72 schools as ‘Power’ schools is not happening…they are reducing the number not increasing it.
Currently, there are 68 Power Schools.
Why would they bump up 4 more after the 5 G5s that just got the bump up?
I must have missed when UT or TAMU joined the B1G.
As of today, the B1G does not have a presence in Texas and yes it matters.
As I said, this model promotes some schools to “power” status that shouldn’t be there.
That’s ONE of the reasons why I say that this “needs work.”
As for consolidation, what they are really trying to do is to consolidate the number of “power” conferences.
They already partially did that by killing the PAC. That consolidated power conferences down from four to three without really reducing the number of teams.
Not sure they’ll be able to kill the ACC, but if Clemson and FSU leave, then the remaining sports viewership in the ACC will be pretty low. It’s already over ten million behind the Big 12 thus far, and that’s WITH their two most watched teams (Clemson and FSU). Without those two…the ACC will be CONTINENTS behind the Big 12. At that point, a further consolidation of top ACC brands to the other P3 is likely. What remains of the ACC may not be a “power” conference, money or viewership-wise, leave three “power” conferences of 16-24 teams, as I suggested.
At that point, a further consolidation down to three power conferences cannot be ruled out.
They don’t have to join the B1G.
Remember, this is a P2 BREAKAWAY. This P2 would be separate from the rest of college football.
A brand new “pro league” with its own separate TV contract, and no NCAA restrictions (presumably).
That new league would already have the two biggest brands in Texas.
It wouldn’t need to add any others, and given that they’d already have the two biggest brands in Texas, I cannot imagine why they would even want to add any others, especially if those programs wouldn’t add value to said P2.
They already broke away…both from a money and competition and profile standpoint.
Not sure which sport you are watching…lol
wait till the playoff starts, it will be 3 schools from the Big 12+ ACC + G5 and the P2 + ND will get ALL of the remaining spots.
And NO…the B1G does not have a presence in Texas…their schools don’t play in the state and they don’t get the cable B10N carriage money in Texas because they do not have a presence here.
Huge difference from B10 playing an OOC game vs UT/TAMU once very few years.
But the P2…DOES!!!
Remember, this is a P2 breakaway, not merely a B1G breakaway.
This new P2 would presumably have its own new and separate TV deal…and given that it would already have the two biggest Texas Brands, wouldn’t need any other.
As for the playoffs, THIS playoff will be different, of course, but every model I’ve seen proposed for 2025 and beyond calls for the Big 12 to get at least two bids.
Could that change with a P2 breakaway? Sure it could. But at that point, the P2 will be completely separate from the rest of college football, and have its own separate playoff. It will already have the biggest brands, will be able to jettison some, and add the few remaining ones that truly add value.
UH will NOT be one of them.
If you are thinking that the P2 would breakaway and still have separate TV deals for the B1G and SEC, as opposed to one brand new TV deal for the breakaway league, then again, there will be no need to add a Texas team to the B1G.
Why?
Because the B1G is already the biggest money conference WITHOUT a Texas team, and has never needed a TX team in order to be #1. Adding any Texas team other than UT or aTm wouldn’t increase their value, or increase their lead over the SEC, and given that the B1G is already ahead of the SEC money-wise without a TX team, adding a dilutive brand like UH or TCU wouldn’t be necessary to maintain that lead. If anything, it might cost them that lead.
If those two conferences are leaving…they likely won’t take everyone with them, and will invite only a small number of the remaining largest brands to maximize their value.
Again, I don’t see a P2 breakaway, really. Add up three major networks, four ESPNs, CBS sports network, B1G network, SEC Network, Fox and FS1, and others…all wanting to broadcast 2-4 games each week.
That calls for a minimum of 24 and probably more like 33-48 games (or more) per week.
With only 34 teams in the P2, at least two of which would be idle every week, you only would get 16 games per week at the most out of those teams.
To fill up the rest of those slots, you need at least one more “power” conference. Consolidation refers to a reduction in the number of power conferences…not necessarily in the number of “power” conference teams. Remember, so far we have had more “power” conference promotions than demotions, as even YOU have pointed out.