2025 NCAA Football Thread

[Deleterious]

Can SoFi handle a crowd of 15,000?

 

[buddha]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

something tells me this is going to get ugly.

I've watched this dynamic before, where the weaker/poorer members of an organization try to dictate to the stronger/richer because they think they have voting numbers. It almost always turns out poorly.

Think UM or USC would be welcome in the ACC or SEC? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

That is such a shady deal.  i hope michigan doesnt cave like they did with the ncaa.  their recent history is to talk loud and then back off.

those are public institutions with governance structures who are responsible - in theory - to the people of the state who provide the financing for those schools (except northwestern and usc)  to sell off future assets like that without their approval should not be legally possible.

they should file an injunction.

i'm really surprised ohio state is going along with this; although their finances are worse than michigan's, i believe.  penn state is deep into a stadium renovation.  everyone else other than usc needs cash.

[Deleterious]

That type of deal probably kills the super league talk.  Maybe OSU sees value by remaining a big fish in a small pond.  

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

i'm really surprised ohio state is going along with this; although their finances are worse than michigan's, i believe.

IDK. UM athletic dept was in the hole because of the fines but OSU is generally the conference income leader aren't they? I guess if you blow through it all it doesn't matter what your income is!

At UM, with Grasso being an interim, plus a guy with no major college sports experience anyway, I don't see him with a big personal interest in his own sports legacy - IOW, I don't think he's likely to try to push the regents one way or the if they make a decision. But who knows?  OTOH, I don't suppose any of the Regents want to go down as the 'guy that blew up the Big Ten" even if that exactly the kind of thing that all this is driving inevitably towards.

Edited Sunday at 09:17 PM by gehringer_2

[buddha]

4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

IDK. UM athletic dept was in the hole because of the fines but OSU is generally the conference income leader aren't they? I guess if you blow through it all it doesn't matter what your income is!

osu is deep underwater.  you like to take shots at michigan - many of them warranted - but osu is like $25 million in the hole every year.  psu is deep underwater because of the stadium rebuild.  michigan's finances are better than both, i believe.

and in principle, michigan is correct: this is a short term payday loan to bail out those who cannot manage their finances.  except this time its public institutions and they play by different rules.

so......michigan, usc, and notre dame to the sec?  or to the acc?

does a big ten with only ohio state, penn state, and....oregon?  make more money than an acc with notre dame, michigan, usc, florida state, and north carolina?  

[buddha]

and if michigan bolted the big ten with usc and notre dame, would penn state leave and return to its eastern roots?

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

and if michigan bolted the big ten with usc and notre dame, would penn state leave and return to its eastern roots?

LOL - if you are Penn state at this point wouldn't you rather play Pitt than Indiana?

[MichiganCardinal]

5 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

something tells me this is going to get ugly.

I've watched this dynamic before, where the weaker/poorer members of an organization try to dictate to the stronger/richer because they think they have voting numbers. It almost always turns out poorly.

Think UM or USC would be welcome in the ACC or SEC? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I agree. This could be the beginning of the end. Depending on your definitions of the beginning and the end.

Ten more years of sharing revenues with Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, and Northwestern? Might be okay if it's on the big dogs terms. But if they're going to try to throw their non-existent weight around?

I'm curious where Ohio State sits with this. It would be really easy for a small group of powerhouses to eschew the rest.

[casimir]

8 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

I agree. This could be the beginning of the end. Depending on your definitions of the beginning and the end.

Ten more years of sharing revenues with Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, and Northwestern? Might be okay if it's on the big dogs terms. But if they're going to try to throw their non-existent weight around?

I'm curious where Ohio State sits with this. It would be really easy for a small group of powerhouses to eschew the rest.

So what is this super league supposed to look like?  Would the Purdues and Rutgers be invited to it?  The Globetrotters didn’t win all of those games without the Washington Generals.  I can’t see a league with only “blue bloods” knocking the snot out of each other every week.

[MichiganCardinal]

22 minutes ago, casimir said:

So what is this super league supposed to look like?  Would the Purdues and Rutgers be invited to it?  The Globetrotters didn’t win all of those games without the Washington Generals.  I can’t see a league with only “blue bloods” knocking the snot out of each other every week.

I think it looks at who brings money. I agree that it won't be just the top ten programs of all time. I don't think being a founding member of the Big Ten will guarantee you a seat though. 

[buddha]

26 minutes ago, casimir said:

So what is this super league supposed to look like?  Would the Purdues and Rutgers be invited to it?  The Globetrotters didn’t win all of those games without the Washington Generals.  I can’t see a league with only “blue bloods” knocking the snot out of each other every week.

like a european champions league.

the top 20 college football teams in two leagues playing every week would be very sustainable and would be very popular.

texas-ohio state does 16 million.

purdue-northwestern does 1.6 million.

[casimir]

27 minutes ago, buddha said:

like a european champions league.

the top 20 college football teams in two leagues playing every week would be very sustainable and would be very popular.

texas-ohio state does 16 million.

purdue-northwestern does 1.6 million.

So 20 teams total or 40 teams total?  Are they also suggesting the promotion/relegation foolishness?

[buddha]

44 minutes ago, casimir said:

So 20 teams total or 40 teams total?  Are they also suggesting the promotion/relegation foolishness?

america doesnt do promotion/relegation.  we do guaranteed profits.

promotion/relegation is amazing.  it actually gives you consequences for losing!   unlike american sports, which rewards you for failure with the ability to bring in the most talented players the next season.  you all complain about tanking but none of you are willing to do the one thing that would end it: relegation.  so keep whining about europe and soccer.  they got it right.

the top 40 college football programs could definitely start their own league and the ratings would be amazing.

that's why this is a great deal if youre purdue/northwestern/iowa etc.  you know that ohio state and penn state are desperate for cash right now.  what better time to lock them into a grant of rights deal than now?  what better way to make sure they dont leave by dangling a sweet $190 million in front of them now?  its brilliant timing by pettiti and company, selling out the future at the perfect time when your big brand names are struggling in the new environment.

michigan is pretending to be ethical and usc is pretending its still an elite program.  they'll both cave.  michigan ALWAYS caves.

the one real impediment would be the law.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

america doesnt do promotion/relegation.  we do guaranteed profits.

promotion/relegation is amazing.  it actually gives you consequences for losing!   unlike american sports, which rewards you for failure with the ability to bring in the most talented players the next season.  you all complain about tanking but none of you are willing to do the one thing that would end it: relegation.  so keep whining about europe and soccer.  they got it right.

the top 40 college football programs could definitely start their own league and the ratings would be amazing.

that's why this is a great deal if youre purdue/northwestern/iowa etc.  you know that ohio state and penn state are desperate for cash right now.  what better time to lock them into a grant of rights deal than now?  what better way to make sure they dont leave by dangling a sweet $190 million in front of them now?  its brilliant timing by pettiti and company, selling out the future at the perfect time when your big brand names are struggling in the new environment.

michigan is pretending to be ethical and usc is pretending its still an elite program.  they'll both cave.  michigan ALWAYS caves.

the one real impediment would be the law.

Do you think guys like Bernstein and Acker are big time sports fans? I really have no idea. Denise Ilitch maybe is. 

"According to the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the Regents have “general supervision” of the institution and “the control and direction of all expenditures from the institution’s funds.”"  

Pretty clear I think. This would also be true at MSU,  but we don't seem to be hearing anything from East Lansing one way or the other.

 

Edited Monday at 03:13 AM by gehringer_2

[Deleterious]

6 hours ago, buddha said:

osu is deep underwater.  you like to take shots at michigan - many of them warranted - but osu is like $25 million in the hole every year.  psu is deep underwater because of the stadium rebuild.  michigan's finances are better than both, i believe.

and in principle, michigan is correct: this is a short term payday loan to bail out those who cannot manage their finances.  except this time its public institutions and they play by different rules.

so......michigan, usc, and notre dame to the sec?  or to the acc?

does a big ten with only ohio state, penn state, and....oregon?  make more money than an acc with notre dame, michigan, usc, florida state, and north carolina?  

You don't think the SEC and ACC will have PE deals by 2036?

 

[gehringer_2]

40 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

You don't think the SEC and ACC will have PE deals by 2036?

 

10 years is an eternity in the current universe. But the maybe the surprise here is that it wasn't the SEC that went first. Or maybe it goes back to Buddha's point that nobody in the B10 is solvent. But think about what that implies. What is the  point of the chase here if all it's doing is putting schools in debt? If Expenses are apparently still exploding at a rate faster than revenues even for schools in the B10, who exactly has any prospect of ever being solvent in the current mess?  Everyone is making out here, the players, the media, the fans (in terms of more product to consume), except the institutions, which are ending up subsidizing  everyone else's gains. All those people who are supposed to be smart are getting played by smarter ones who just have fewer initials after their names.

[Deleterious]

If Michigan jumps then there's no way other Conferences don't follow. That's obviously speculation on my part, but it seems pretty logical. 

If Michigan wants to remain free from PE deals other conferences are not the path. Going the independent route is 

[gehringer_2]

5 hours ago, Deleterious said:

Going the independent route is 

i don't think they have the imagination to try that - and TBH, I don't think they could pull it off if they did. 

[buddha]

11 hours ago, Deleterious said:

You don't think the SEC and ACC will have PE deals by 2036?

 

i dont know if the acc and sec will exist in 10 years.

in 10 years the entire structure of college football could be done through "PE" money.  i've thought for a long time that the top leagues would breakaway from the ncaa when it comes to football.  why tie yourself to a grant of rights for 20 years?

and the other element is - again - that these are public institutions, not private companies.  there are rules they have to follow and other constituencies they have to satisfy other than just making money.  i know that sounds naive, but its also the law.  these are not private corporations who have a duty to increase value for shareholders.

they could be sued into oblivion for this.

[buddha]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

i don't think they have the imagination to try that - and TBH, I don't think they could pull it off if they did. 

agree 1000%.  michigan is a conservative institution with a long history of being tied to the big ten.  its not notre dame.  it doesnt even have the "**** dem rules" attitude of osu (which is why harbaugh was too much of a culture change for many at the school).  its not going independent.

it will cave.  it always caves.

[RedTeamGo!]

As an OSU fan, it is a bummer to see OSU on the wrong side of this. I was hoping UM and OSU would team up on this and put a stop to this. With that said, yeah, this is shady AF in general, and if this goes through and Michigan leaves the B1G, college football is officially dead. It might already be, but that would be the final nail in it. 

[gehringer_2]

42 minutes ago, buddha said:

that these are public institutions, not private companies.

Of course, just for context for why UM may or may not feel all that tethered by it's 'public' obligations, this year the disbursement to the general fund from the endowment was 40% more $ than UM's State appropriation. 🤑

[MichiganCardinal]

The year is 2029. The new Coalition of Collegiate Football Institutions (CCFI) kicks off its inaugural season after coming to a settlement with the NCAA, Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big 12, and a number of excluded schools, the culmination of more than three years of litigation. The NCAA and its conferences keep basketball and all non-revenue sports under the purview of the NCAA, as well as football for non-member schools, and agree to a complicated form of revenue sharing with the member institutions. The CCFI also agrees to not poach additional schools from the NCAA for the next 50 years.

CCFI North: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois, Clemson

CCFI East: Florida, Florida State, Miami, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

CCFI Midwest: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue

CCFI Plains: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky

CCFI South: Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

CCFI Rockies: Utah, BYU, Colorado, TCU, Arizona, Arizona State

CCFI Texoma: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas

CCFI West: Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal

[buddha]

37 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

The year is 2029. The new Coalition of Collegiate Football Institutions (CCFI) kicks off its inaugural season after coming to a settlement with the NCAA, Big Ten, SEC, ACC, Big 12, and a number of excluded schools, the culmination of more than three years of litigation. The NCAA and its conferences keep basketball and all non-revenue sports under the purview of the NCAA, as well as football for non-member schools, and agree to a complicated form of revenue sharing with the member institutions. The CCFI also agrees to not poach additional schools from the NCAA for the next 50 years.

CCFI North: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois, Clemson

CCFI East: Florida, Florida State, Miami, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina

CCFI Midwest: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue

CCFI Plains: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Kentucky

CCFI South: Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State

CCFI Rockies: Utah, BYU, Colorado, TCU, Arizona, Arizona State

CCFI Texoma: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Arkansas

CCFI West: Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal

interesting, but too much dead weight.  the politics of who gets an invite are going to be crazy.  especially since you'll have so many politicians involved.

[MichiganCardinal]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

interesting, but too much dead weight.  the politics of who gets an invite are going to be crazy.  especially since you'll have so many politicians involved.

I think the dead weight will necessarily ultimately over-inflate the new model, at least initially. Do Florida, Georgia, and Alabama really want Mississippi State, Missouri, and Arkansas? Probably not. But it's easier to bring them aboard than have it never happen because they all join up to destroy the whole thing. That's why I ultimately kept the entire current B1G and SEC. UNC and Duke are probably marginally more profitable than Northwestern and Illinois, for starters.

Maybe there's a way to structure the revenue sharing to compensate for it. It would be a bit unprecedented to not have the Yankees keeping the Marlins afloat. Wouldn't that be something though, if a new model forms and instead of teams clamoring to jump on board, five years pass and the Arizona States and Purdues are seeking to get out because they aren't competitive enough to make a profit?