This is eye-opening. This is less “the Big 12 cut in line” and more “the PAC completely misjudged the market.” It’s like they were staring at the menu too long, so the XII walked up to the register and bought the last cheeseburger.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
This is eye-opening. This is less “the Big 12 cut in line” and more “the PAC completely misjudged the market.” It’s like they were staring at the menu too long, so the XII walked up to the register and bought the last cheeseburger.
I sometimes struggle to understand the viewpoints of college football fans, given my strong allegiance to the ISU Cyclones. But let's entertain the idea of a college football "super league."
I personally wouldn't tune into such a league. Because it doesn't relate to the Cyclones, what I am passionate about in college sports. It's similar to my relationship with professional leagues. I rarely watch the NFL and never watch the NBA because they don't hold the allure of college sports for me. My interest lies in the Cyclones and whomever they might eventually encounter. Really, during a particular season, I am watching the teams they might play IF I watch any game outside of ISUs.
If my goal was simply to watch the most elite athletes face off against each other, shouldn't I just watch the NFL? Or if I were in the mood for something slightly less polished, maybe the XFL or other emerging professional leagues? What's the appeal of watching "elite" college teams that have no relevance to my own? Why would a resident of Colorado be interested in a Clemson vs. Ohio State matchup? Why would that matter to them, or even to you? This isn't meant to be confrontational — I'm genuinely curious about the logic behind it.
To me, college sports are more than a showcase of top-tier talent. They bring together competition and rivalries, the school vs. school battles, the pride of state against state. With the inception of a super league, I believe that these passionate elements would fade. Such a league would likely limit its audience to the specific institutions it encompasses. My suspicion, and I'm open to being proven wrong, is that this would actually diminish their overall viewership. By failing to cater to a broader audience and focusing only on elite teams, they'd miss out on the diverse markets that college football currently thrives on. I don't believe that a large portion of the existing college football audience would opt for direct subscriptions to a super league.
I'm open to hearing anyone's counterargument. If there's a financial model or logic that suggests such a league would be more profitable than the current system, I'd genuinely like to understand it. As it stands, from my viewpoint as a dedicated team fan, the concept seems flawed.
Two points:
1. Don't underestimate ESPN/FOX/Media ability to go all in on a stupid idea.
2. would it kill national interest though? If ISU was in the "2nd tier" with 40-50 other teams (just less the Bamas and Ohio Sts), and had a separate championship, wouldn't the fans of the schools still watch the 2nd tier games? I would. I would not watch the Tier 1 though.
which is I think what would happen. Half the viewership now would go to the Tier 1 and half would go to the Tier 2. Which would completely wreck the media goal of concentrating viewership on the Tier 1, allowing them to pay more for less content that would become significantly more valuable due to higher viewership. IDK, maybe they will realize this and it will be enough to overcome point 1...
I agree with you and I think the average fan would too. I don't have any interest in watching LSU play Georgia or USC play Oregon. I'll watch ISU and the teams ISU plays against, or even regional teams like Wisconsin vs Nebraska with a bit of interest.
But I think you're missing one glaring point when it comes to sports viewership - gambling.
I get where you're coming from. I want to agree, but I'm not sure that I can.
The link between school and fan is strong. I wouldn't turn on a super league game because I know this league would mean something bad happened to ISU. I'm that petty.
But does Joe Saturday Night give is **** about the forgotten or just about watching a game with the pageantry of 100,000 in the stands and a top match-up?
My guess is the super league teams would benefit greatly from the cash and exposure, but the overall sport would have less interest?
Eyeballs would focus on the top and look great, but scratch the surface and it would show a contracting sport.
This is the point. Any argument other than this is from someone who doesn’t get it. Super leagues May happen, but if they do, thus is why they will fail.
OK, good point. I think you and I agree mostly. Question, who is Joe Saturday night? Are they someone that was watching NFL primarily and now needs to fill their Saturday with another league so they can waste their entire weekend by watching both the BEST football and a couple levels down? OR is Joe Saturday night someone that has a team in the leftover college leagues that needs to see what is happening to the other schools that are now making a bunch of money and getting most of the potential new adds to the NFL. OR are they someone that used to love college sports, but now needs to keep up with the best college sports (the super league) and they will just drop their former affiliations?
I think your point here is the key. What is the persona providing the eyeballs for the super league and what is the value proposition that causes them to watch? I am biased, so I can't envision enough eyeballs for the "super league" to work. But, the persona / value proposition could sway me.
If ISU isn't in tier one, I won't watch it. Probably lose some interest in ISU as well. It would be like following UNI. Meh. I would just become a bigger NFL fan.
OK, so the persona of the new "super league" viewer is someone that can't find enough action in the NFL, so they need to turn to college sports to place more wagers and they would not want to bet on "lesser league" teams. So, they watch the "super league" becuase it is more inventory on which to place bets.
I think the value proposition proposal is that the "super league" teams provide action on a different day than the NFL, that is a level above the "lesser league" teams, which brings more money options? Does this make sense?
The media equation is not that a super league wouldn't lose some viewers, but that the brand matchups would hold them relatively better than what they are paying for now.
There are maybe a dozen programs that can draw 5M+ weekly viewers because of their BRAND value independent of the matchup. If you are wondering if your team is one of those, it ain't one of those.
Last edited:
We are the hard core. We understand the implications of conference realignment and the economics of the sport better than an average person.
Throw an Alabama vs Texas game on ABC in prime time and it'll get eyes. Be it casual fans, degenerate gamblers, football fans, or folks at the bar.
Football is obviously king and college has enough brand power to pull viewers (unlike the XFL). The Hall of Fame game drew better numbers than the NBA playoffs.
So super league teams play as usual and maximize revenue for them. The rest can all go D-III as far as they would be concerned.
I hope I'm ******* wrong.
Couldn't have said it better.
I have a vested interest in ISU football, and by extension the B12 conference. I only really watch OOC games that mean something for either or both. I love watching Iowa get beat... etc. They are direct competition. I watched the OOC teams vying for the playoff last year because TCU was going to have to play one (or two) of them.
I have ZERO interest in LSU vs. Florida if neither are sniffing the playoffs. I'd have ZERO interest in Alabama vs. Georgia in a game where the B12 (or ISU) had no ramifications no matter who won. Makes no sense to me to tune in to a separate super league at all.
That's the gist of my point- fans with teams in tier 2 wouldn't necessarily watch tier 1, especially with a lot of them feeling screwed over by the change. I know I would feel that way, and I'd actively hope for their demise.
This last week i been reading a lot of WSU and OSU boards to see how they been reacting to the pac-12 news. I honestly was shocked how many people said they are going to stop watching, give up their tickets, and lose interest. I 100% sympathize with their position because over 10 years ago ISU could've been in the same situation with being on the outside looking in, but that would never stop my support of the Cyclones. Even if ISU was in the MW or AAC, you would find me in the stands.
Maybe I'm just a cfb nut or just loyal. college football is just fun at any level. ISU could be D2 and I still would keep track of how they are doing.
It doesn’t have to be “super league” the way the b10 homers are thinking.
Let’s say one of the two conferences starts trending toward an extra 10-15 million a team over the other. Step one is a group moves to that conference for the cash like Texas always does, that step leaves behind some small brand legacy “takers” in a conference with less marquee brands that now likely has payouts no different than big 12. Then at some point in the highest payout league you start paying NW or Vandy like the Washington Generals that they are to take a loss.
It could be that easy to effectively relegate a third of the SEC and Big Ten.
The only question is we don’t know who will emerge between big ten and SEC. They won’t always get identical deals and it’ll drive some programs nuts if they don’t get the most.
Kinda agree. I don't watch a ton of other college football with any real interest. I catch some games in passing if they happen to be on at the bar or restaurant I am currently at, but rarely do I turn them on at home for any length of time. I do check in on other Big XII teams, as it affects ISU, and I always check in on the Hawks, especially if they are losing. Outside of that, it's a cursory check of the scores of the top 25 and then on the NFL Sundays.
Does this mean that the NFL could play their London and Germany games on Fridays and Saturdays during that time frame? Or does it state that NFL games can't be broadcast during those time frames?
Since I'm guessing that's partly aimed at me, the only reason I've been addressing it as a "super league" is because that's the way it's consistently presented by non-b10 homers.
That sums up well how I feel about it, and probably how 80% of CFB fans feel about it. But TPTB in the media probably don't understand the fan interest very well.
What they DO understand is bigger brand teams bring higher viewer numbers, and matchups between those teams bring even higher viewer numbers. And higher numbers increase marketing/advertising value exponentially. So if you can get a league with ONLY those brands, then every game will be a huge revenue bonanza - just like the NFL. Plus you have to pay less overall for content, since less teams to feed.
The risk is that they only see dollar signs and the numbers, and fail to understand your point about the viewership. Then they throw money at a superleague, and all the big brands go for it because of fear of being left behind - they almost can't risk not going for it. And it fizzles for the reasons you explain in your post.
If we are lucky, very very lucky... then maybe NIL and paying player type issues that are now unregulated and uncontrolled, will force some kind of universal governance on CFB, which would keep the playing field more level and prevent this kind of thing. Congress is working on something apparently, though I've not a ton of faith that TPTB won't game the system in that process.
Stay tuned!
