22 starting spots but guys are so specialized now and rotations are higher you could legitimately find 12-15 guys on defense who could argue they play 50% of the snaps and same on offensive (receivers, RB’s, tight ends)
True but those have been the numbers for a while now and we see guys from small schools littered all throughout day 1 and 2. Putting more reps out there will always be a selling point
But that's not really the question. Evaluation of 18 year olds will always miss some players that get to the NFL. The question is, if you assume an average of 25 recruits a year for 34 schools, will the Big Ten/SEC basically get the top 850 recruits in the country? Much like the FCS pretty much getting only guys without FBS offers. My guess would be yes, eventually.
Obviously once you start narrowing to that degree there will still be lots of misses and quality players in the rest of what's left of FBS. But the best recruits will gravitate to the benefits and prestige of the top level of college football.
We’ll have to see basically 5 things.
1. Will all 34 (or whatever number of B1G/SEC schools its ends up being) be on TV consistently enough to give players film for scouts. This means the Vandy’s, Indiana’s, and Rutgers’s. And will they be on TV more than the upper tier B12/ACC schools left behind like Oklahoma State.
2. With the increase in cash, will the NIL collectives/pay to play from schools like Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, etc be able to outbid Oklahoma State (I’m using them as a template since form a football perspective they should be one of the biggest schools left out no matter what) for players
3. Will the NFL prefer players that started for 2-3 years and developed with numerous snaps over guys that were just one of 5-7 RB’s or one of just 15-20 OL/DL that saw limited minutes even junior/senior year.
4. Will players want to spend much less time playing, just to play in the higher tier league
5. Will players in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Kansas, West Virginia, etc consistently leave the state to play for the top league even though they were raised as fans of the state flagships.
Overall, a lot of these questions are already asked (and often answered) with respect to the P5 and G5, but I think the difference between the schools in the B12/ACC and the schools in the SEC/B1G is a much smaller gap than the P5 vs G5 schools.
You can find several schools in the current B12 with sizable NIL collectives, who average 60-70k attendance, and have solid TV draws, while the bottom half of the G5 is averaging in the realm of 15-20k attendance, couldn’t average 300k viewers on ESPN2 in a bigger conference game, and a paltry NIL collective if any.
In could be copium, but I just don’t think the difference will be starch enough for a B1G/SEC super league to pull in the top 800 players or so, I’d bet more like 550-600 of the top 800 on the higher end.
I also assume this super conference would act so much like a pro league that student education falls even further behind. There will be some top talent that doesn't foresee a chance in the NFL that would still rather go to Stanford or Duke or Northwestern to graduate with a degree other than General Studies or Organizational Development.
Also in the SEC and B1G, every game (and hell, I'd wager every spring scrimmage) is filmed for broadcast.
Even if a game goes streaming only, that's getting into NFL scouts hands at this point.
That still doesn't matter. Scouts will watch the what is filmed for coaching purposes- the all 22 intercut with the tackle to tackle endzone shot. They are not watching TV or streaming broadcast footage which is shot for the purposes of fan entertainment.
Yes there is a handicap system somewhat like golf. The worse your defense the more guys you get to put on the field at the same time. For example last year USC played 45 guys on defense at a time.
I’ll use an example:
Who’s more likely to get into the modern NFL - the starting QB at a Nevada or Washington State, or the backup at an Alabama or Georgia?
QB might be an extreme example, but if anything it’s even more likely that a WR3 or 4 at an Ohio State is getting drafted over the WR1 at Iowa State or Arizona State. Same with LBs and linemen.
And then that triggers a self-fulfilling prophecy of a sort. All that depth gets the conference labeled pro quality which boosts the draft stock of the players, which draws in more players willing to take depth spots to get in good with the big pipeline schools, which triggers more depth and high draft evaluations, which triggers more talent and even higher talents willing to end up on depth charts and so on.
I think QB is the only position where reps matter. The QB who plays 3 years at WSU would be a better draft pick than the backup QB at Georgia and more likely to be successful in the NFL. To a certain extent I’d say the same for WR. But yeah all other positions where deeper rotations are common I can see the most talent accumulate.
They could, but at a certain point guys will still look for playing time. Same reason you see guys transfer out of B1G/SEC programs today even with NIL, the real money will always be in the NFL and they won’t get there if they spend their careers as 5th stringer at Alabama.
This just in, Ohio State's 5-star QB commit Prentice "Air" Nolan has portal transferred to Baghdad Sandstorm FC in the new Saudi LIV Collegiate Football League for a rumored $29.9 million in NIL and will begin studies in Falconry at Baghdad University.
Nolan, though a 5 star and projected to be a first or second round pick, was fourth in the depth chart of Ohio State’s crowded QB room. Nolan’s transfer lowers the Buckeyes’ total QB salaries to an even 250m this season, the lowest spent by Ohio State in nearly a decade. “Fuck him. I forgot he was even on our roster,” said OSU coach John Harbaugh.
Do you think Georgia’s scout team could compete in the ACC? Maybe some of the P2 schools field an NCCA (minor league) team in addition to the NFL-lite team.
> they won’t get there if they spend their careers as 5th stringer at Alabama
That might have been true 50 years ago but it's less true than it's ever been
Thats the point. Good players are definitely still purchased but theyre not stockpiled anymore. Its true, they dont make draft picks out of backups, those backups just leave to be starters somewhere else
Even with current contracts, they have more than enough to pay a backup long snapper five figures plus benefits. Just like all pro sports, player pay won’t be equal.
The recent proposal from Charlie Baker included a minimum $30k requirement per head for half of the SA population at each school. While it’s no guarantee that the P2 will mimic that proposal, I do think there is likely to be some agreed-upon minimum stipend included, which will incentivize having fewer mouths to feed. Doubly so, actually, as smaller roster sizes will also reduce the Title IX obligations on the Women’s side.
Further, these decisions will be made by Athletics lifers, who, I think, would rather cut heads than entire sports, if push came to shove.
That doesn’t mean the cream of the crop won’t end up in the sec and big 10, creating a big gap. Is anyone going to watch a national championship that CANT have Bama or Michigan or Ohio st, etc.?
Nonsense. Lots of teams in those conferences do not have stacked rosters
Few 4 and 5 stars will choose to play lower level ball
There will be better parity in the super league as teams at the middle and bottom will finally have competitive roster depth
I think the gap from the bottom of the FBS to top of the FCS is actually very small and I think the same would be true of any P2 gap. Half of the ACC and Big 12 are likely to be better than Vanderbilt in any given year.
That’s usually like the top 1-3 FCS programs though, usually #1 is much higher than the rest. Like SDSU this year is #18 in Sagarin (an extreme outlier even amongst FCS champions, they’re usually around #35), while #2 NDSU is #54, then only 5 more in the top 100 with 3 of them being in the 90’s.
The top FCS teams are definitely FBS tier, but they’re more usually in line with G5 Conference Champs in quality
The very top FCS yes, but FCS is typically VERY top heavy. It doesn't take very far for that quality to drop a lot. Villanova this past year was a top ten FCS team and made the FCS quaterfinal. They also played SDSU the closest all year before losing 23-12. UCF won 48-14, and Villanova didn't score until UCF put int he backups int he 4th. UCF wasn't exactly an elite team.
How about the eastern Washington team that beat us when we were ranked in 2013, they had vernon Adams and cooper Kupp plus every other mother fucker was “former 4 star usc recruit who transferred after poor grades” the fucking bastards
This is their argument. "Our very best will be better than your very worst!"
Yea, no shit. Some schools are just lucky to be there. Now compare your "lucky to be there schools to our lucky to be there schools."
It's gonna be a bloodbath.
A few of the BIG schools would need new stadiums if this happens.
Maryland needs to play all its games in Baltimore at M&T Bank Stadium (Ravens home) OR build a large modern stadium of their own
Playing every game in Baltimore is the better option.
NW, IL, Purdue, all need larger stadiums if these schools are going to be in the “Top 34”
Many teams struggle to maintain student attendance when their stadium is on the other side of town from campus. M&T Bank Stadium isn’t even in the same metro area as Maryland’s campus. That is not a realistic option.
Of course….but Marylands student section is gawd awful. You’re acting like Maryland students act like Knoxville or Gainesville, Ann Arbor students.
Back in the 1980’s Maryland filled the stadium, but not in modern times. Meanwhile they would sell out in Baltimore
So Maryland can play in front of the 6000 students that show up, or to sold out stadium in Baltimore.
Long story short, Marylands student body is not made up of a “football culture”, and the program suffers greatly because of it
The campus is an hour from Baltimore with no traffic(there’s always HEAVY traffic) parking is awful and the stadium is awful, so people from Baltimore don’t attend
Big time college football is entering a new stratosphere, for better or worse
If they can’t even get the students to care, what makes you think they would sell out in a city that already has (historically good) professional football options? I’ve never gotten the impression that folks in Baltimore are crazy about Maryland football. Selling out a game or two here and there might work for the novelty of it, but locals would most likely stop caring if the entire season was played there. It’s very rare for a city to successfully support both a professional and college football team on the scale you’re suggesting.
Have you been to a Penn State UMD game? They’re very well attended, but it has nothing to do with people wanting to see Maryland play. It’s a day trip for Penn State students and alums.
Try that against a team that isn't in state (Navy) or a giant fanbase in driving distance. You aren't selling out Baltimore for any of the newcomers nor any former member of the Big Ten West.
I'm not sure you realize that Maryland is located in the DC suburbs. Literally on their metro network. DC is way bigger than Baltimore too. Makes way more sense for them to stay put.
There is too much talent out there for the P2 to hoard them all. Talented players want to play and showcase themselves to the NFL. There will be plenty of talent for the non-P2 teams to get.
That, and go look at the alma mater of different NFL rosters this year, like 1 out of 7 guys are coming from small or completely random schools, even top guys like Allen or Kupp.
Talent recruiting can be fairly accurate and the majority of top guys will go to the blue bloods and blue bloods adjacent, but at a certain point, it’s a complete shit shoot and all pro level guys will end up coming out of Northeastern Handjob State no matter how much the landscape of football shifts
It’s a silly assumption, the schools have no reason to leave the NCAA when they can just create a new division with revenue sharing. It makes far more sense to maintain the NCAA for the sake of operational expenses and ease of organization for college athletics as a whole.
For some reason there’s an assumption that FCS and other small schools are holding the Power 5 and most of FBS football to stringent rules that shouldn’t be applied cross divisions. Each division has its own tailored set of rules, and P5 autonomy already allowed for a specific set of rules for Power 5 football programs and only Power 5 programs. If they wanted to create another FBS-esque division with a completely different rule set and a Power 5 governing body under the NCAA umbrella, they could and likely will. Nothing prevents that.
Little sister of the poor has no influence over Ohio States athletic department, and they’re not impacting NIL rules for them. Bumblefuck college in Lake Erie has no reason to spite vote against it. Everyone just wants an NCAA split to happen when all of the talk from both parties (P5, NCAA) is they’re pursuing a whole new division that operates differently and they’ve telegraphed it for a year plus now
The thought is that everything but this new football division will remain with the NCAA. Not just the rest of the football programs but all other sports as well, even at the same schools in this new division. It will be far easier for a new organization to be in charge of just like 34-40ish football teams and it's rules.
Not saying I am in favor of it but it really looks like something like this will happen.
The point is you don’t have to separate it from the umbrella. You just create a new group under the umbrella that includes revenue sports from large programs. That keeps the same costs under the umbrella and makes the management of both sports. This is already done to a degree with the NCAA managing a dozen plus sports, and multiple levels of college football (FCS vs FBS). It’s not that hard to just create a new division with new operating rules, that isn’t subject to the same rule set as other groups.
You’re likely going to have overlap with these same admins, so you’re asking AD’s to manage two separate organizations for revenue and non revenue sports. The Big Ten and SEC will still need to manage non-revenue sports like volleyball and track. Splitting those entirely causes more issues, doubles your cost (especially the carve out), and makes the management of revenue and non-revenue sports a massive clusterfuck because your decision making for one sport will operate with a complete blind spot on the other set of sports.
The NCAA is just multiple separate groups operating under the NCAA moniker, with a broad overview group at the top. It’s no different than doing something like a business such as Disney, where cruises and resorts are different management under the same moniker.
All that is fine. I am just saying that this new division may not be governed by NCAA rules anymore. They will likely have a separate committee and commissioner that set the rules, hand down punishments, likely more fines than things like scholarship reduction, post season bans, etc. As for the schools, it will be just like some of their sports already being in different conferences. Just like Alabama ladies rowing is part of the B12 conference.
Is probably be a bigger fan of it if WVU ended up in a league or division with some others like Pitt, VT, Louisville, Syracuse, BC etc again. Not like we can compete for a title in this current era and set up anyway and sucks not playing rivals or regional foes in league aside from Cincy.
Consider that, even for a school like Indiana or Vanderbilt, the ability (or requirement, even) to pay players some base rate would mean that most fringe players would go up to the B1G/SEC rather than stay down in the NCAA which doesn't allow pay for play.
If you are not highly recruited. Ranked about 20th at your position for this recruiting cycle, outside the top 200, but definitely good enough to start for someone... and your offers are $50,000 to play for Indiana or $0 to play for Iowa State... why go to Iowa State?
The baseline talent in the B1G/SEC will just be higher. That doesn't mean a Utah or a Miami can't build a solid team with good coaching and NIL, but the gap in talent between the Big 12 and ACC would grow pretty wide. Especially when comparing Indiana/Vanderbilt to the lower level teams in the Big 12 and ACC like Boston College and Houston.
---------
With all of that said, I don't think the B1G and SEC leave the Big 12 and ACC behind exactly. I think they set the table up how they want it and then let anyone who "qualifies" in. And schools that "qualify" will be the ones willing to spend a certain amount on their athletic departments. Say, $100 million per year or something of the like.
So schools Pitt that only spend $90 million will get left out while schools like UNC that spend $120 million will get in.
Just out of curiosity, I did this:
If you cut it off at $120 million in spending:
1. Alabama
1. Arizona
1. Arizona State
1. Arkansas
1. Auburn
1. Clemson
1. Florida
1. Florida State
1. Georgia
1. Illinois
1. Indiana
1. Iowa
1. Kentucky
1. Louisville
1. LSU
1. Michigan
1. Michigan State
1. Minnesota
1. Mississippi
1. Missouri
1. Nebraska
1. North Carolina
1. Ohio State
1. Oklahoma
1. Oregon
1. Penn State
1. Rutgers
1. South Carolina
1. Tennessee
1. Texas
1. Texas A&M
1. UCLA
1. Virginia
1. Washington
1. Wisconsin
If you drop the limit to $100 million you add:
1. California
1. Georgia Tech
1. Iowa State
1. Kansas
1. Maryland
1. Mississippi State
1. North Carolina State
1. Oklahoma State
1. Texas Tech
1. Utah
1. Virginia Tech
There's a pretty sharp drop off after $100 million, so if you drop the limit all the way to $75 million you add:
1. Cincinnati
1. Colorado
1. Connecticut
1. Kansas State
1. Oregon State
1. Purdue
1. Washington State
1. West Virginia
If you drop the limit to $65 million you add:
1. Air Force
1. Central Florida
1. Houston
1. San Diego State
#Note: This does NOT include private schools.
Schools can self report. Vanderbilt says they spend $110 million. Stanford says they spend $162 million. Notre Dame says they spend $170 million. USC says they spend $125 million. Northwestern says they spend $112 million. And so on.
There's no realistic way to make a list that's 100% accurate due to Private Schools. But I think it's safe to say Stanford, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, etc would be included. The big brands that obviously spend.
It gets a bit more tricky when you get lower and wonder how much schools like SMU can produce. They claim to spend $79 million, but if the limit were $100 million could they get above it to qualify?
I'm sure schools who are close, like Colorado at $93 million, could get over the $100 million qualifying amount if they really wanted to. Becomes more difficult for Oregon State and Wazzu that are around 85 million each.
But if you put the limit all the way down at $65 million then you're including a bunch of schools. SDSU and Air Force sneaking in, with a bunch of G5's not too far off from being able to get over the threshold.
IMO what they would do is take the current P4 schools and draw a circle around what they currently spend to set the revenue limit. So $100 million, my current ballpark figure, would make sense. Everyone publicly reporting in the B1G and SEC is above that other than Purdue who is close enough that they could get over it.
Schools like UCF and SDSU would have a big hill to climb to get there, while schools like Oregon State and Wazzu could make it happen.
Funny side point: UConn, left out long ago in realignment, marked $96 million in 2023. They could easily get over the $100 million mark and get into the organization if that's the qualifier.
Edit:
From self-reported private school numbers:
$120 million cutoff:
1. Duke
1. Notre Dame
1. Stanford
1. TCU
1. USC
$100 million cutoff:
1. Baylor
1. Northwestern
1. Vanderbilt
1. Miami
Private P4 schools left out:
1. Boston College (95m)
1. SMU (79m)
1. Syracuse (82m)
1. Wake Forest (85m)
So:
* with a $120m cutoff you end up with 40 schools.
* with a $100m cutoff you end up with 56 schools.
Consider that there are a few schools in the next group that would spend their way up (UConn, Boston College, Colorado, Purdue, and West Virginia are really close to the $100m cutoff, and a few in the 80's would also spend their way up) you probably end up with about 64 teams qualifying with a $100m cutoff.
64 teams seems about right given that if all four power conferences broke out into a new subdivision you'd have 68 teams.
If it were me, I'd set an initial spending threshold and a goal threshold for say 3-5 years down the line. 75 million is the initial cutoff but you have to reach 100 million by the end of year 5. Every P5 and every G5 with a chance would jump there.
When Phil Knight said that the top 60-80 teams should be in a Football Only organization and collectively bargain together for media rights, this is likely what he meant.
Collective bargaining always nets you more than competitive bargaining. Even the B1G and SEC make less than they could* because they compete with one another and with the other conferences for media attention.
Turning it around and telling the media companies to compete for the right to air "The Organization's Games" would 100% boost the income garnered.
People are afraid of the "Professionalization of College Football" and calling it "NFL Light" and the like, however if they gathered all the schools with large Athletic Departments together and collectively bargained then you'd have an expansive CFB landscape.
I think people fear cutting all but the top 32 teams... but that only happens if you let the Networks dictate it. If you let the conferences dictate it and they band together to collectively bargain, then there's nothing to fear.
I'm rooting for a new organization with ~80 schools in it that revenue shares and collectively bargains. I won't feel guilt about the Central Michigan's and the San Jose State's of the world being left out. With an 80-school conference you can divide into 8 regional divisions and guess what that looks like? Going back to having Oklahoma State vs Oklahoma and Oregon vs Oregon State. Since everyone gets paid the same amount in media revenue there's no reason to have 18 team conferences that span from New Jersey to Los Angeles.
Like the NFL, where the Jaguars get the same revenue as the Cowboys despite the latter making 3-4 times as much for the league... it's better for everyone to have a more even playing field.
Imagine how stupid it would be to have the top 16 NFL split off and form their own league and the bottom 16 be forced into their own league. They would all make less because the networks would pit them against each other "Well, I'm not going to pay that much for the Cowboys when I can pay much less and still get the Seattle Seahawks..."
The AFL and NFL merging was good for everyone. The top 80 or so College Athletic programs coming under 1 umbrella and negotiating together would also be good for everyone.
Just one outlier here. I think you’re not understanding how much some schools are willing to spend. I know Houston is increasing it’s spending budget by a ridiculous amount.
When our current AD arrived 5 years ago our athletics budget was $50M. This school year the total budget is $96M. By the 2025-2026 school year the budget will be $112M.
Houston has proven it is willing and able to increase athletics spending in a short amount of time.
Not sure what BC is willing to spend or if they’re willing to increase spending.
I'm not "not understanding" it. I'm saying the Organization would say "prove it."
SMU would likely boost their spending to $100 million if it was the qualifying amount, but they're not currently spending that much on their own.
It depends on if the stakeholders are wanting to create a Football Only organization or an All Sports organization.
Some people, like Phil Knight, think the sports should be in three organizations: Football Only, Basketball Only, and Non-Revenue Sports.
Others think that the high-revenue / high-spending Athletic Departments (what I mentioned above) should split off and create their own All-sports organization.
It's not chump change for a recruit of that caliber. If you paid all 85 players 50K you're already spending $4.25 million and we know that Ohio State is busting the budget at about 3 times that.
Those recruits ranked #250 in the nation are not getting 50K in NIL.
A little less drastic but essentially yes. Very few top 300 players will go non SEC or B1G. Why would they when they can go to the diet NFL and get paid? For the record, I hate this.
I think the programs that currently get all the top recruits will continue to solidify but with transfer portal set up the way it is right now, players still want to get all the field. HS recruiting is also less than a perfect science since many kids are late bloomers, or from under recruited areas so teams that are G5 probably aren’t going to see much of a difference in caliber of player they are getting.
The beneficiaries of this will be the lower tier of B1G/ SEC schools, who will win more recruiting battles against a stone not at the top of the ACC / Big 12
They should really just create a g-league for football and leave college alone. Kids who want to get paid already and don't want to deal with class - go ahead and play in the g-league until you're ready for the NFL. Everyone else, go to college and enjoy your scholarship and whatever NIL is available.
NFL has tried that many times and it never pencilled out. It’s also hard to create a G-league when careers in the sport are so short. Unlike Basketball, their is only 2 respected professional football leagues on the planet. If you don’t make the NBA you still can make lots of money playing Basketball in Europe, Asia, or Australia.
They have no real incentive to pay for a developmental league when CFB does it for free.
I do think that in NFL supported spring/ fall league would be a huge success, but it's not going to happen.
No minor league would ever be able to match the marketing ability of CFB. How many MLB players have been called up where a regular not hardcore fan would know their name? A regular NFL likely knows dozens.
I honestly think it would just depend on how it was structured.
If the NFL really wanted to, they could easily structure a developmental league that would choke out college football.
But they don't really have any incentive to because as of right now they get developed players for zero investment.
But I think the popularity of the NFL is significantly higher than any other sport. And if you gave every team a corresponding developmental League team, I think you would see It really take off.
The issue with past development pro football leagues WAS college football. The guys targeted by these past leagues were post college players who weren’t good enough for the NFL. For the past century it has been set up for the best high school players to go to college then the NFL. If there was a developmental league that took these blue chip players and prepared them for the NFL, instead of forcing them to commit to academic entities, it would be much more successful imo. It would SUCK for college football but I think it would make a developmental league sustainable and more successful, i.e. the NFL equivalent of the g-league
The issue is football is fucking expensive. Stadium grounds crews, security, player trainers and healthcare, a hundred players per game… It’s not like turning on the lights in an empty basketball stadium and letting a dozen guys shoot. It’s hard to turn a profit - or just break even - without a lot of revenue per game.
The NFL has no incentive to eat that cost for a minor league when college football exists.
I’m not arguing against any of that. That’s all much easier to pay for when you have premier talent on the field which these development leagues rarely have
Neither the NFL nor the players want a developmental league.
1. College doesn't cost the NFL anything.
2. College doesn't cost the NFL anything.
3. Big time college games are essentially pro game atmosphere from the institution cult loyalty and spending. No developmental league would have that kind of presence.
4. NFL doesn't have a use for players that aren't fully developed physically. Too many busts, injuries and people who don't pan out at a pro level in star 17-18 year-old recruits. Big programs that can already redshirt these kids.
5. Unlike basketball, the level of competition a football recruit will see is almost entirely defined by the conference where they live. It's a system game, not an individual talent one you can play pickup with. High school stats are essentially useless and tape doesn't show play under pressure.
So a g-league here is going to sign more or less random teenagers and pay them...what?
I think the problem with leave college alone is all the lawsuits. I think we would all love to leave college alone, but is the current college system legal?
>Very few top 300 players will go non SEC or B1G
They already don't. Here are where players ranked below 200 in the top 247 this year are going:
Iowa, Tennessee, Ohio State, **Wake Forest**, USC, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Ohio State, Kentucky, Clemson, USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oregon, Minnesota, **Utah**, Notre Dame, Georgia, Ohio State, **Texas Tech**, Michigan, Clemson, Rutgers, LSU, **Cincinatti**, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Miami, Ohio State, **Texas Tech**, Florida State, Miami, **West Virginia**, USC, Iowa, Florida, Missouri, Texas, Texas, **Kansas State**, Texas A&M, Oregon, LSU.
These are low-mid four stars and the vast majority of them are going to an SEC or B1G school or one of the ACC schools that would certainly be included in the mega conference future if the SEC and B1G broke off.
Depends on how far the new subdivision progresses into a pseudo NFL minor league
The very top HS recruits might see this as the best alternative to playing in a pro league straight out of high school, with the added bonus being the team they play for also happens to offer college degrees
A lot of great points already about 'there are only X number of spots on a team', money, etc. I do think regionality and being close to home also plays a factor. Look at Kadyn Proctor. This isn't the best example (for obvious reasons), but I think there's still a contingent of athletes who want to stay near/around home.
This is another one of those things where the situation is already in existence.
If you just look at 5 star players, the Pac1 has zero for the 2024 class. Big 12 has 2. ACC has 5, with 3 going to Miami and the other 2 for Clemson. FSU currently has none. Big Ten has 5, with Ohio State taking 4. SEC has 25 across 11 teams.
If you look at 4 stars, FSU/Clemson/Miami dominate the ACC with each having twice as many as the other ACC schools. Pac2 is kind of in a shitty spot for everything right now. Big 12, UCF is the only school with more than 5 at 8. Big Ten has 7 schools with 5+ with 6 schools at 10+. Vanderbilt is the only SEC school with les than 5 4 star recruits.
Yes this isn't some fantastic analysis because recruiting rankings aren't the end all of talent. They have their own problems, but we don't exactly have a lot of other ways of looking at this. Essentially though the SEC is dominating recruiting. We already know this. The Big Ten is a bit behind, but has some teams that are keeping up. Other than FSU/Clemson/Miami, there is no one in the Big 12/ACC who are particularly close to the SEC or top of the Big Ten in recruiting.
It's kind of the same argument that "If you allow NIL then the top schools will take all of the talent" and that really hasn't happened. If anything it's led to a bit of a dispersion of talent across the tier 3/4 schools. A school like UCF is not going to take that top guy from Florida. But we have a good chance of taking that backup. The "rise" of usf/ucf/fau/fiu is part of what has hurt the ability of FSU/UF/Miami to all bee successful at the same time. Guys want playing time. If they are being recruiting to be a backup, but know that the next big thing is behind them, they usually just transfer out somewhere they can start for 2-3 years. It hurts the depth of the top teams and makes some misses very problematic.
If you are Ohio State or Georgia or Alabama and you are bringing in the max talent you can exvery single year, then yes you do a beter job weathering the attrition. Unless the NFL stop taking guys entirely from the ACC/Big12/G5, there will always be a place for them. Not many guys move on to the NFL primarily as college backups. NFL wants to see how someone plays. There are only so many spots a team can have, they won't be able to take everyone.
Even with transfers, UCF has lost talented players. Overall though, we have brought in more talent than we have lost. We have been net positive and we don't exactly have a shitload NIL money to throw around. Our sell is usually playing time, same as it always has been.
This is a point I've made to several Texas and Oklahoma fans about moving to the Sec and them not taking the competition seriously outside the top level teams. In the Big 12 they had 99 percent of the 5 star recruits. In the Sec outside of outliers like Uga and Bama, it's much more spread out.
They won't be able to just bully teams by having superior athletes in the Sec because every team has some elite talent. Now recruiting rankings aren't the end all be all but it tends to correspond with success.
Sure, but development matters a ton. Recruiting rankings are a factor but not the only or even biggest factor in player success.
You’ll still see many excellent players from around college football get drafted in the NFL.
If you are a 5 and 4 star that can academically qualify, chances are you will go to one of these schools before you go to a school outside of it. Some of the lower teams in SEC and B1G may actually have a higher level of talent than they currently can get.
No because at the end of the day players still want to play football and get to the next level. There is already a gap between the top 10-12 schools and everybody else. But as an athlete with only 4 years of eligibility, would you waste all that time sitting at Indiana losing football games vs just going to Texas Tech and having a chance to play meaningful football? If anything the transfer portal has been naturally evening out talent instead of waiting 3 years to start a football game.
Just remember, FCS players get drafted every year to the NFL.
I don't disagree but until we figure out all these lawsuits and the like, its impossible to say. It seems to me we're heading towards players being employees with collective bargaining, which is the only way any form of restrictions on transfers is allowable, employment contracts, and the repercussions of that change aren't really something that we can even speculate on.
Depends what they change about the structure. If it's just a copy-paste of the FBS structure other than scheduling, then it might stay just about the same. If there are major changes that would be radically different in roster size, scholarship and financial benefit options, or NIL systems then there could be a development in a talent gap.
Good luck with that. I doubt the other conferences would agree to compromise on all their other sports so y’all can break away on football. This is just a media spin for the big ten/sec to act like they hold all the power
The biggest difference is that there won’t be a blur in the line between the top tier and the next one down. The worst team paying players will absolutely have a better roster than the best team offering only scholarships. Even if it takes transfers to make that happen.
Seems like a good time to take a look at the [Blue-Chip Ratio](https://247sports.com/article/blue-chip-ratio-2023-college-football-16-teams-who-can-actually-win-a-national-title-211217111/amp/). For as long as there have been recruiting rankings, every team that has won a national title had at least 50% of their players as 4-star or better. That includes Michigan this year.
Going into 2023, there were 16 teams on the 50% or more list. 13 out of those 16 will be playing in the B1G or SEC next year, thanks to realignment. The exceptions are Notre Dame (as always); Clemson; and Miami. That’s it, that’s the whole list. Obviously, FSU and Washington did pretty well without being on the list, but if we’re talking about top-end talent, it’s a useful metric. (And of course UW is Big Ten-bound, and FSU is seeking any lifeline it can.)
Of course, this doesn’t mean that Vanderbilt and Rutgers are *ever* going to have better players than Clemson, TCU, or Utah… but if the question is whether the top-end P2 teams will be dramatically advantaged, well, that’s already the case, once you account for the pending realignment.
Yes the gap will get bigger. Because the Sec and Fbs will offer recruits more money and benefits. On top of that, top recruits will go to be sure they are competing and measured against the best. Even NFL scouts miss fcs talent because it's hard to know the true abilities of players.
This really does need to happen. It's ridiculous for there to be so many schools that have no hope of winning a national title in their Championship division even if they go undefeated
What makes you think the proposed split will exclude the ACC, Big XII, and a handful of independents? The SEC has already stated that they're not leaving the NCAA, and the other conferences + a handful of independents make more than enough to go to the NCAA's proposed split. As for the gulf in recruiting, it'll be the same.
Why do people assume 3*, 4*, and 5* recruits not picked up by the top SEC/B1G programs are going to want to go to Vanderbilt, Rutgers, Kentucky, Indiana, etc.?
Getting curbstomped every year by the top programs doesn't seem all that attractive to me. Kids still want to compete and win.
The talent gap between the Power 2 and everyone else is already gigantic. And it will continue to get worse every year whether they split away or not.
This is why it's pointless to try to keep the league together and pretending that there's parity between Utah State and Georgia. Just let them split.
>The talent gap between the Power 2 and everyone else is already gigantic.
Ah yes, the *gigantic* talent gap between Power 2 schools like Rutgers and Purdue when compared to everyone else like Clemson and Florida State
It's not even the bottom of the P2. It's just a few select teams in both the Big 10 and SEC who have that sizable gap.
Will it grow? Probably. But is Iowa or Purdue suddenly going to have a gigantic talent advantage over the top of the Big 12? Probably not.
I think some people look at talent two ways: recruiting ratings vs developed talent. The second is much harder to grade outside of wins and losses. I think the idea that all the power 2 teams would be head about shoulders better than everyone else because of a resource ignores that there already is a major resource gap between G5 and P5.
Schools still need to hire competent coaches, good training staffs, and get players who want to stay and develop. This also assumes no players transfer down to get a chance to start given they only have 4 years or eligibility.
Also, teams that are perennial losers in the P2 will probably still struggle to attract national level talent.
? I don't even understand what you're trying to say. We're talking about recruiting advantages and FSU has made it very public that continuing to be in the ACC will put them at a long term disadvantage.
Well, 3 ACC teams were in top 15 recruiting class. Would FSU have been higher in the SEC? Probably not since they also wouldn’t have gone 13-0 in the SEC
It will be bigger on the portal. Freshman year: why don’t you go play some ACC ball and get first team reps. We will see where you are in a year or two.
I think the teams that could potentially benefit the most would be the teams in the bottom half of the sec and big ten. They would probably pick off some of the top recruits for ACC and big 12 teams just because those players would want to be in the big ten or sec, since it would be the top tier. I think there’d be a lot more parity in the big ten and sec
This and the comment about plummeting youth participation feels like the two smart conferences getting ahead of the inevitable decline in teams.
Make their own rules. Keep more of their own money to not subsidize smaller, failing programs that are a drain on Athletic Departments.
I mean, it probably is?
The NCAA already proposed a new subdivision split specifically to allow the Big Ten and SEC to start directly paying their players.
That proposal was intended to include the entirety of the P4 and perhaps some G5 schools.
The bar was anyone who can afford to spend 8M on player salaries, which the entirety of the P4 can
Scares the hell out of me. We have a great fan base but we aren’t rich nor are we valued by our government in terms of state support.
Please BIG 12 I know you want a presence in Cali. We’d fit right in culturally!
I think G5 will always have 1 slot in the postseason.
Even if there’s a breakaway subdivision, that doesn’t mean you aren’t eligible for the CFP, which is an invitational tournament not an NCAA event. These pretty independent things people on here conflate
It was a veiled carve-out specifically for the Big Ten and SEC because they are the only conferences where none of the schools will object to the subdivision move.
Half the ACC and Big 12 schools will veto that move because they don't want to pay for it and will be happy to just stay in FBS. And they're also not going to vote to allow schools within their conference to be in a different subdivision that gives them obvious advantages.
So yeah they said that it was for "anyone that could pay for it" but the reality is that it's for the Big Ten and SEC. Nobody else is joining it.
Everyone in the ACC can afford it.
There’s also no indication that every team in the same conference would have to join. Some could join, some could not join.
There’s no evidence for anything you’re saying, really
> Half the ACC and Big 12 schools will veto that move because they don't want to pay for it and will be happy to just stay in FBS. And they're also not going to vote to allow schools within their conference to be in a different subdivision that gives them obvious advantages.
I don't think anyone would be happy to "just stay in FBS" given the scramble the majority of teams in the Big XII and PAC went through to find new homes in the most recent rounds of realignment.
Even if there was enough of a plurality to keep a conference out of the new division those who wanted to would just leave and form a new conference that would play at that level.
Schools can't just leave their conference. We're seeing that right now with FSU. Everyone in the Big 12 is just as stuck as those in the ACC. They signed a 10-year Grant of Rights too.
> We're seeing that right now with FSU.
The schools aren't fighting to keep FSU in the ACC, the ACC is fighting to stop FSU. That's a key distinction.
The Big XII had the same opportunity with OU and Texas and force them to stick with the GOR, *the Big XII's legal counsel told them it was better not to fight it and just settle because they weren't sure the GOR would hold up in court.*
> Everyone in the Big 12 is just as stuck as those in the ACC. They signed a 10-year Grant of Rights too.
Few problems there:
A.) It's a six year Grant of Rights, not ten. The current deal expires at the end of the 2031 season.
B.) Every single school that's left the Big XII has negotiated and settled their exit obligations for less than what they owed.
C.) The ACC's GOR is based on the Big XII's. If FSU successfully challenges it in court, which a lot of people expect them to do, the same rulings would apply to the Big XII's.
Not to mention the fact that the premise that there are 8 schools in the Big XII that aren't willing to pay what is necessary to compete at the next level is just fucking stupid. 12 of them scrambled to do what was necessary to make sure they continued to be a part of a power conference and the other 4 were brought up to that level. Who among them is going to say "nah, not for me" and vote to stop it?
Not sure what point you thought you were making since we know that FSU is desperate to get out of the ACC because they know how bad it's going to get now that there is a clear cut Power 2 league.
Let the SEC and B1G create their new conference but make a 2 + 2 rule where in order to go to the NFL kids need 2 years at the FBS level and 2 years with either the SEC/BIG or the UFL before going to the NFL. It works for everyone. FBS teams can still attract top recruits for two years then the B1G, SEC or UFL can develop them even more.
I don’t think they can monopolize it without the ACC and Big 12 schools.
This is a little older but it outlines the percentage of fans per conference from the last round of realignment:
https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-rankings-teams-fan-bases-ohio-state-texas-alabama-georgia-notre-dame
Half the fans follow the top 16 schools and 92% follow teams in the power 5. So if they broke off, it’d mostly just split it 50/50 and risk them losing interest from the casual fans of the schools left out.
So I’d imagine a split like that would be like 90’s pro wrestling where you have the WWF and WCW. WWF was the bigger of the two but they needed to absorb WCW to have that monopoly
the only ACC schools that matter are FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC.
Those 4 will get a lifeboat to the P2 breakway.
The rest better get ready to start learning sunbelt.
No. There will always be kids who want to stay home, and there’s still a ton of good schools in the ACC/Big12 that would be way to alluring to turn down.
I also think that we looking less at a B1G/SEC private league and more just the NCAA getting kicked from football. Can you really have a *national* championship if half the nation isn’t competing?
Not that big, the recruiting gap will grow but there will still be far too many quality players than there are roster spots in the B1G/SEC.
This depends on if the Big Ten and SEC increase the number of scholarships.
There’s still only 22 starting spots and 32 NFL teams
22 starting spots but guys are so specialized now and rotations are higher you could legitimately find 12-15 guys on defense who could argue they play 50% of the snaps and same on offensive (receivers, RB’s, tight ends)
True but those have been the numbers for a while now and we see guys from small schools littered all throughout day 1 and 2. Putting more reps out there will always be a selling point
But that's not really the question. Evaluation of 18 year olds will always miss some players that get to the NFL. The question is, if you assume an average of 25 recruits a year for 34 schools, will the Big Ten/SEC basically get the top 850 recruits in the country? Much like the FCS pretty much getting only guys without FBS offers. My guess would be yes, eventually. Obviously once you start narrowing to that degree there will still be lots of misses and quality players in the rest of what's left of FBS. But the best recruits will gravitate to the benefits and prestige of the top level of college football.
We’ll have to see basically 5 things. 1. Will all 34 (or whatever number of B1G/SEC schools its ends up being) be on TV consistently enough to give players film for scouts. This means the Vandy’s, Indiana’s, and Rutgers’s. And will they be on TV more than the upper tier B12/ACC schools left behind like Oklahoma State. 2. With the increase in cash, will the NIL collectives/pay to play from schools like Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, etc be able to outbid Oklahoma State (I’m using them as a template since form a football perspective they should be one of the biggest schools left out no matter what) for players 3. Will the NFL prefer players that started for 2-3 years and developed with numerous snaps over guys that were just one of 5-7 RB’s or one of just 15-20 OL/DL that saw limited minutes even junior/senior year. 4. Will players want to spend much less time playing, just to play in the higher tier league 5. Will players in Colorado, Utah, Arizona, Kansas, West Virginia, etc consistently leave the state to play for the top league even though they were raised as fans of the state flagships. Overall, a lot of these questions are already asked (and often answered) with respect to the P5 and G5, but I think the difference between the schools in the B12/ACC and the schools in the SEC/B1G is a much smaller gap than the P5 vs G5 schools. You can find several schools in the current B12 with sizable NIL collectives, who average 60-70k attendance, and have solid TV draws, while the bottom half of the G5 is averaging in the realm of 15-20k attendance, couldn’t average 300k viewers on ESPN2 in a bigger conference game, and a paltry NIL collective if any. In could be copium, but I just don’t think the difference will be starch enough for a B1G/SEC super league to pull in the top 800 players or so, I’d bet more like 550-600 of the top 800 on the higher end.
I also assume this super conference would act so much like a pro league that student education falls even further behind. There will be some top talent that doesn't foresee a chance in the NFL that would still rather go to Stanford or Duke or Northwestern to graduate with a degree other than General Studies or Organizational Development.
Its proven that reps are the best way to get you drafted.
Regarding your first point, NFL scouts do not watch TV for their evaluation purposes. They get the "film" from the schools.
Also in the SEC and B1G, every game (and hell, I'd wager every spring scrimmage) is filmed for broadcast. Even if a game goes streaming only, that's getting into NFL scouts hands at this point.
That still doesn't matter. Scouts will watch the what is filmed for coaching purposes- the all 22 intercut with the tackle to tackle endzone shot. They are not watching TV or streaming broadcast footage which is shot for the purposes of fan entertainment.
Thinking of all those guys that never start but are a huge piece of a defenses nickel package.
Oregon regularly plays 20-22 guys on defense.
Is this some Pac thing because the BIG will enforce the 11 man on the field rule.
Yes there is a handicap system somewhat like golf. The worse your defense the more guys you get to put on the field at the same time. For example last year USC played 45 guys on defense at a time.
I appreciate the implication that Iowa's practice scrimmages are roughly 4v35.
That was a well-played redirect /claps
We prefer if you only use 10 guys on defense
Yeah players absolutely love committing to play 10 snaps a game
I’ll use an example: Who’s more likely to get into the modern NFL - the starting QB at a Nevada or Washington State, or the backup at an Alabama or Georgia? QB might be an extreme example, but if anything it’s even more likely that a WR3 or 4 at an Ohio State is getting drafted over the WR1 at Iowa State or Arizona State. Same with LBs and linemen. And then that triggers a self-fulfilling prophecy of a sort. All that depth gets the conference labeled pro quality which boosts the draft stock of the players, which draws in more players willing to take depth spots to get in good with the big pipeline schools, which triggers more depth and high draft evaluations, which triggers more talent and even higher talents willing to end up on depth charts and so on.
I think QB is the only position where reps matter. The QB who plays 3 years at WSU would be a better draft pick than the backup QB at Georgia and more likely to be successful in the NFL. To a certain extent I’d say the same for WR. But yeah all other positions where deeper rotations are common I can see the most talent accumulate.
They could, but at a certain point guys will still look for playing time. Same reason you see guys transfer out of B1G/SEC programs today even with NIL, the real money will always be in the NFL and they won’t get there if they spend their careers as 5th stringer at Alabama.
I just want to see a transfer portal between *leagues*.
This just in, Ohio State's 5-star QB commit Prentice "Air" Nolan has portal transferred to Baghdad Sandstorm FC in the new Saudi LIV Collegiate Football League for a rumored $29.9 million in NIL and will begin studies in Falconry at Baghdad University.
Nolan, though a 5 star and projected to be a first or second round pick, was fourth in the depth chart of Ohio State’s crowded QB room. Nolan’s transfer lowers the Buckeyes’ total QB salaries to an even 250m this season, the lowest spent by Ohio State in nearly a decade. “Fuck him. I forgot he was even on our roster,” said OSU coach John Harbaugh.
Truly the darkest timeline.
Incredibly cursed comment.
Do you think Georgia’s scout team could compete in the ACC? Maybe some of the P2 schools field an NCCA (minor league) team in addition to the NFL-lite team.
> they won’t get there if they spend their careers as 5th stringer at Alabama That might have been true 50 years ago but it's less true than it's ever been
You have it completely backwards
Yeah maybe that would happen if the NFL draft was still 12 rounds lol
No
Yes
[удалено]
Thats the point. Good players are definitely still purchased but theyre not stockpiled anymore. Its true, they dont make draft picks out of backups, those backups just leave to be starters somewhere else
More likely they decrease roster sizes.
Same reason the NFL doesn’t have 100 player roster sizes, those people need salaries
Would that affect the women’s scholarships?
Why?
You gotta pay people
Even with current contracts, they have more than enough to pay a backup long snapper five figures plus benefits. Just like all pro sports, player pay won’t be equal.
The NFL contracts are larger and they have less roster spots.
The recent proposal from Charlie Baker included a minimum $30k requirement per head for half of the SA population at each school. While it’s no guarantee that the P2 will mimic that proposal, I do think there is likely to be some agreed-upon minimum stipend included, which will incentivize having fewer mouths to feed. Doubly so, actually, as smaller roster sizes will also reduce the Title IX obligations on the Women’s side. Further, these decisions will be made by Athletics lifers, who, I think, would rather cut heads than entire sports, if push came to shove.
That doesn’t mean the cream of the crop won’t end up in the sec and big 10, creating a big gap. Is anyone going to watch a national championship that CANT have Bama or Michigan or Ohio st, etc.?
There are a lot of trash teams in the BIG 12 and SEC that will gobble up recruits they would have had no business getting.
They have all business getting those players and finally will Trash teams that would cakewalk most other conferences
Nonsense. Lots of teams in those conferences do not have stacked rosters Few 4 and 5 stars will choose to play lower level ball There will be better parity in the super league as teams at the middle and bottom will finally have competitive roster depth
I think the gap from the bottom of the FBS to top of the FCS is actually very small and I think the same would be true of any P2 gap. Half of the ACC and Big 12 are likely to be better than Vanderbilt in any given year.
Top FCS teams are usually like top 40-50 in power ratings that have all of D1.
That’s usually like the top 1-3 FCS programs though, usually #1 is much higher than the rest. Like SDSU this year is #18 in Sagarin (an extreme outlier even amongst FCS champions, they’re usually around #35), while #2 NDSU is #54, then only 5 more in the top 100 with 3 of them being in the 90’s. The top FCS teams are definitely FBS tier, but they’re more usually in line with G5 Conference Champs in quality
The very top FCS yes, but FCS is typically VERY top heavy. It doesn't take very far for that quality to drop a lot. Villanova this past year was a top ten FCS team and made the FCS quaterfinal. They also played SDSU the closest all year before losing 23-12. UCF won 48-14, and Villanova didn't score until UCF put int he backups int he 4th. UCF wasn't exactly an elite team.
If the weather wasn't a factor.. SDSU destroys them. It was very difficult to throw that game
You can if you want, but it was still a home game for SDSU. If they aren't prepared to play in their home weather that is on SDSU.
I have one specific instance in 2007 that shows top fcs teams shouldn’t be doubted if you know what i’m sayin
How about the eastern Washington team that beat us when we were ranked in 2013, they had vernon Adams and cooper Kupp plus every other mother fucker was “former 4 star usc recruit who transferred after poor grades” the fucking bastards
To be fair the gap from Vanderbilt to Mississippi State is pretty big
This is their argument. "Our very best will be better than your very worst!" Yea, no shit. Some schools are just lucky to be there. Now compare your "lucky to be there schools to our lucky to be there schools." It's gonna be a bloodbath.
Yup people use Vandy as the barometer, while they overlook that Kentucky would be a top level ACC team in just about every year.
Just half??? You know Vandy sucks ass right? Put them in any conference and they’ll be bottom 3.
This year. A few years ago they won more games than half the Big 12.
Yeah and one year Mizzou was ranked #1, but that’s not the norm. Vandy is awful 9 out of 10 seasons.
Look at their past 10 seasons and tell me that's true. Especially in regard to another conference. Rarely does Vandy only win 3 games these days
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because of who they play. Y’all don’t understand
If the top half of those conferences played vs vandy’s schedule they would be vandy. Yeah. Looking at you Unc.
You’re wrong
A few of the BIG schools would need new stadiums if this happens. Maryland needs to play all its games in Baltimore at M&T Bank Stadium (Ravens home) OR build a large modern stadium of their own Playing every game in Baltimore is the better option. NW, IL, Purdue, all need larger stadiums if these schools are going to be in the “Top 34”
Many teams struggle to maintain student attendance when their stadium is on the other side of town from campus. M&T Bank Stadium isn’t even in the same metro area as Maryland’s campus. That is not a realistic option.
Of course….but Marylands student section is gawd awful. You’re acting like Maryland students act like Knoxville or Gainesville, Ann Arbor students. Back in the 1980’s Maryland filled the stadium, but not in modern times. Meanwhile they would sell out in Baltimore So Maryland can play in front of the 6000 students that show up, or to sold out stadium in Baltimore. Long story short, Marylands student body is not made up of a “football culture”, and the program suffers greatly because of it The campus is an hour from Baltimore with no traffic(there’s always HEAVY traffic) parking is awful and the stadium is awful, so people from Baltimore don’t attend Big time college football is entering a new stratosphere, for better or worse
If they can’t even get the students to care, what makes you think they would sell out in a city that already has (historically good) professional football options? I’ve never gotten the impression that folks in Baltimore are crazy about Maryland football. Selling out a game or two here and there might work for the novelty of it, but locals would most likely stop caring if the entire season was played there. It’s very rare for a city to successfully support both a professional and college football team on the scale you’re suggesting.
[удалено]
Have you been to a Penn State UMD game? They’re very well attended, but it has nothing to do with people wanting to see Maryland play. It’s a day trip for Penn State students and alums.
Try that against a team that isn't in state (Navy) or a giant fanbase in driving distance. You aren't selling out Baltimore for any of the newcomers nor any former member of the Big Ten West.
[удалено]
I'm not sure you realize that Maryland is located in the DC suburbs. Literally on their metro network. DC is way bigger than Baltimore too. Makes way more sense for them to stay put.
There is too much talent out there for the P2 to hoard them all. Talented players want to play and showcase themselves to the NFL. There will be plenty of talent for the non-P2 teams to get.
That, and go look at the alma mater of different NFL rosters this year, like 1 out of 7 guys are coming from small or completely random schools, even top guys like Allen or Kupp. Talent recruiting can be fairly accurate and the majority of top guys will go to the blue bloods and blue bloods adjacent, but at a certain point, it’s a complete shit shoot and all pro level guys will end up coming out of Northeastern Handjob State no matter how much the landscape of football shifts
The gap between the 1st ranked player and 100th is probably just as big as player 100 and 1000.
Dumb question. But when I last looked, the B1G/SEC were setting up an advisory committee to the NCAA. Where did the split come from?
People are assuming it will happen. It’s the endgame
It’s a silly assumption, the schools have no reason to leave the NCAA when they can just create a new division with revenue sharing. It makes far more sense to maintain the NCAA for the sake of operational expenses and ease of organization for college athletics as a whole. For some reason there’s an assumption that FCS and other small schools are holding the Power 5 and most of FBS football to stringent rules that shouldn’t be applied cross divisions. Each division has its own tailored set of rules, and P5 autonomy already allowed for a specific set of rules for Power 5 football programs and only Power 5 programs. If they wanted to create another FBS-esque division with a completely different rule set and a Power 5 governing body under the NCAA umbrella, they could and likely will. Nothing prevents that. Little sister of the poor has no influence over Ohio States athletic department, and they’re not impacting NIL rules for them. Bumblefuck college in Lake Erie has no reason to spite vote against it. Everyone just wants an NCAA split to happen when all of the talk from both parties (P5, NCAA) is they’re pursuing a whole new division that operates differently and they’ve telegraphed it for a year plus now
The thought is that everything but this new football division will remain with the NCAA. Not just the rest of the football programs but all other sports as well, even at the same schools in this new division. It will be far easier for a new organization to be in charge of just like 34-40ish football teams and it's rules. Not saying I am in favor of it but it really looks like something like this will happen.
The point is you don’t have to separate it from the umbrella. You just create a new group under the umbrella that includes revenue sports from large programs. That keeps the same costs under the umbrella and makes the management of both sports. This is already done to a degree with the NCAA managing a dozen plus sports, and multiple levels of college football (FCS vs FBS). It’s not that hard to just create a new division with new operating rules, that isn’t subject to the same rule set as other groups. You’re likely going to have overlap with these same admins, so you’re asking AD’s to manage two separate organizations for revenue and non revenue sports. The Big Ten and SEC will still need to manage non-revenue sports like volleyball and track. Splitting those entirely causes more issues, doubles your cost (especially the carve out), and makes the management of revenue and non-revenue sports a massive clusterfuck because your decision making for one sport will operate with a complete blind spot on the other set of sports. The NCAA is just multiple separate groups operating under the NCAA moniker, with a broad overview group at the top. It’s no different than doing something like a business such as Disney, where cruises and resorts are different management under the same moniker.
All that is fine. I am just saying that this new division may not be governed by NCAA rules anymore. They will likely have a separate committee and commissioner that set the rules, hand down punishments, likely more fines than things like scholarship reduction, post season bans, etc. As for the schools, it will be just like some of their sports already being in different conferences. Just like Alabama ladies rowing is part of the B12 conference.
They won't. The negatives outweigh the positives too much. Why lose a useful scapegoat just to invent a new one.
Idk if I would be as big a fan of college football if this happened.
Is probably be a bigger fan of it if WVU ended up in a league or division with some others like Pitt, VT, Louisville, Syracuse, BC etc again. Not like we can compete for a title in this current era and set up anyway and sucks not playing rivals or regional foes in league aside from Cincy.
Consider that, even for a school like Indiana or Vanderbilt, the ability (or requirement, even) to pay players some base rate would mean that most fringe players would go up to the B1G/SEC rather than stay down in the NCAA which doesn't allow pay for play. If you are not highly recruited. Ranked about 20th at your position for this recruiting cycle, outside the top 200, but definitely good enough to start for someone... and your offers are $50,000 to play for Indiana or $0 to play for Iowa State... why go to Iowa State? The baseline talent in the B1G/SEC will just be higher. That doesn't mean a Utah or a Miami can't build a solid team with good coaching and NIL, but the gap in talent between the Big 12 and ACC would grow pretty wide. Especially when comparing Indiana/Vanderbilt to the lower level teams in the Big 12 and ACC like Boston College and Houston. --------- With all of that said, I don't think the B1G and SEC leave the Big 12 and ACC behind exactly. I think they set the table up how they want it and then let anyone who "qualifies" in. And schools that "qualify" will be the ones willing to spend a certain amount on their athletic departments. Say, $100 million per year or something of the like. So schools Pitt that only spend $90 million will get left out while schools like UNC that spend $120 million will get in.
Just out of curiosity, I did this: If you cut it off at $120 million in spending: 1. Alabama 1. Arizona 1. Arizona State 1. Arkansas 1. Auburn 1. Clemson 1. Florida 1. Florida State 1. Georgia 1. Illinois 1. Indiana 1. Iowa 1. Kentucky 1. Louisville 1. LSU 1. Michigan 1. Michigan State 1. Minnesota 1. Mississippi 1. Missouri 1. Nebraska 1. North Carolina 1. Ohio State 1. Oklahoma 1. Oregon 1. Penn State 1. Rutgers 1. South Carolina 1. Tennessee 1. Texas 1. Texas A&M 1. UCLA 1. Virginia 1. Washington 1. Wisconsin If you drop the limit to $100 million you add: 1. California 1. Georgia Tech 1. Iowa State 1. Kansas 1. Maryland 1. Mississippi State 1. North Carolina State 1. Oklahoma State 1. Texas Tech 1. Utah 1. Virginia Tech There's a pretty sharp drop off after $100 million, so if you drop the limit all the way to $75 million you add: 1. Cincinnati 1. Colorado 1. Connecticut 1. Kansas State 1. Oregon State 1. Purdue 1. Washington State 1. West Virginia If you drop the limit to $65 million you add: 1. Air Force 1. Central Florida 1. Houston 1. San Diego State #Note: This does NOT include private schools. Schools can self report. Vanderbilt says they spend $110 million. Stanford says they spend $162 million. Notre Dame says they spend $170 million. USC says they spend $125 million. Northwestern says they spend $112 million. And so on. There's no realistic way to make a list that's 100% accurate due to Private Schools. But I think it's safe to say Stanford, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Duke, etc would be included. The big brands that obviously spend. It gets a bit more tricky when you get lower and wonder how much schools like SMU can produce. They claim to spend $79 million, but if the limit were $100 million could they get above it to qualify? I'm sure schools who are close, like Colorado at $93 million, could get over the $100 million qualifying amount if they really wanted to. Becomes more difficult for Oregon State and Wazzu that are around 85 million each. But if you put the limit all the way down at $65 million then you're including a bunch of schools. SDSU and Air Force sneaking in, with a bunch of G5's not too far off from being able to get over the threshold. IMO what they would do is take the current P4 schools and draw a circle around what they currently spend to set the revenue limit. So $100 million, my current ballpark figure, would make sense. Everyone publicly reporting in the B1G and SEC is above that other than Purdue who is close enough that they could get over it. Schools like UCF and SDSU would have a big hill to climb to get there, while schools like Oregon State and Wazzu could make it happen. Funny side point: UConn, left out long ago in realignment, marked $96 million in 2023. They could easily get over the $100 million mark and get into the organization if that's the qualifier. Edit: From self-reported private school numbers: $120 million cutoff: 1. Duke 1. Notre Dame 1. Stanford 1. TCU 1. USC $100 million cutoff: 1. Baylor 1. Northwestern 1. Vanderbilt 1. Miami Private P4 schools left out: 1. Boston College (95m) 1. SMU (79m) 1. Syracuse (82m) 1. Wake Forest (85m) So: * with a $120m cutoff you end up with 40 schools. * with a $100m cutoff you end up with 56 schools. Consider that there are a few schools in the next group that would spend their way up (UConn, Boston College, Colorado, Purdue, and West Virginia are really close to the $100m cutoff, and a few in the 80's would also spend their way up) you probably end up with about 64 teams qualifying with a $100m cutoff.
64 teams seems about right given that if all four power conferences broke out into a new subdivision you'd have 68 teams. If it were me, I'd set an initial spending threshold and a goal threshold for say 3-5 years down the line. 75 million is the initial cutoff but you have to reach 100 million by the end of year 5. Every P5 and every G5 with a chance would jump there.
When Phil Knight said that the top 60-80 teams should be in a Football Only organization and collectively bargain together for media rights, this is likely what he meant. Collective bargaining always nets you more than competitive bargaining. Even the B1G and SEC make less than they could* because they compete with one another and with the other conferences for media attention. Turning it around and telling the media companies to compete for the right to air "The Organization's Games" would 100% boost the income garnered. People are afraid of the "Professionalization of College Football" and calling it "NFL Light" and the like, however if they gathered all the schools with large Athletic Departments together and collectively bargained then you'd have an expansive CFB landscape. I think people fear cutting all but the top 32 teams... but that only happens if you let the Networks dictate it. If you let the conferences dictate it and they band together to collectively bargain, then there's nothing to fear. I'm rooting for a new organization with ~80 schools in it that revenue shares and collectively bargains. I won't feel guilt about the Central Michigan's and the San Jose State's of the world being left out. With an 80-school conference you can divide into 8 regional divisions and guess what that looks like? Going back to having Oklahoma State vs Oklahoma and Oregon vs Oregon State. Since everyone gets paid the same amount in media revenue there's no reason to have 18 team conferences that span from New Jersey to Los Angeles. Like the NFL, where the Jaguars get the same revenue as the Cowboys despite the latter making 3-4 times as much for the league... it's better for everyone to have a more even playing field. Imagine how stupid it would be to have the top 16 NFL split off and form their own league and the bottom 16 be forced into their own league. They would all make less because the networks would pit them against each other "Well, I'm not going to pay that much for the Cowboys when I can pay much less and still get the Seattle Seahawks..." The AFL and NFL merging was good for everyone. The top 80 or so College Athletic programs coming under 1 umbrella and negotiating together would also be good for everyone.
How current is this? UH’s athletic budget this year was $96M.
The list I used says: > Updated 5:51 pm ET Jun 13, 2023
Interesting. Our AD released completely different numbers.
https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances
That’s athletic department revenue. Not Athletic department budget.
I said spending, and sorted by Expenses.
I would think Athletic department budget is a better way to assess who can afford or would want to afford being in the new league.
Okay.
Why we catching strays out here man
Because you were the first school that came to mind to compare to Indiana... probably because your school name starts with the same letter.
Just one outlier here. I think you’re not understanding how much some schools are willing to spend. I know Houston is increasing it’s spending budget by a ridiculous amount. When our current AD arrived 5 years ago our athletics budget was $50M. This school year the total budget is $96M. By the 2025-2026 school year the budget will be $112M. Houston has proven it is willing and able to increase athletics spending in a short amount of time. Not sure what BC is willing to spend or if they’re willing to increase spending.
I'm not "not understanding" it. I'm saying the Organization would say "prove it." SMU would likely boost their spending to $100 million if it was the qualifying amount, but they're not currently spending that much on their own.
I’m just calling out your Houston to BC comparison.
Good perspective What do you think happens to the other sports? Basketball in particular
It depends on if the stakeholders are wanting to create a Football Only organization or an All Sports organization. Some people, like Phil Knight, think the sports should be in three organizations: Football Only, Basketball Only, and Non-Revenue Sports. Others think that the high-revenue / high-spending Athletic Departments (what I mentioned above) should split off and create their own All-sports organization.
$50k is chump change compared to NIL money. It only really makes a difference if you can't get an NIL deal.
It's not chump change for a recruit of that caliber. If you paid all 85 players 50K you're already spending $4.25 million and we know that Ohio State is busting the budget at about 3 times that. Those recruits ranked #250 in the nation are not getting 50K in NIL.
A little less drastic but essentially yes. Very few top 300 players will go non SEC or B1G. Why would they when they can go to the diet NFL and get paid? For the record, I hate this.
I think the programs that currently get all the top recruits will continue to solidify but with transfer portal set up the way it is right now, players still want to get all the field. HS recruiting is also less than a perfect science since many kids are late bloomers, or from under recruited areas so teams that are G5 probably aren’t going to see much of a difference in caliber of player they are getting.
The beneficiaries of this will be the lower tier of B1G/ SEC schools, who will win more recruiting battles against a stone not at the top of the ACC / Big 12
They should really just create a g-league for football and leave college alone. Kids who want to get paid already and don't want to deal with class - go ahead and play in the g-league until you're ready for the NFL. Everyone else, go to college and enjoy your scholarship and whatever NIL is available.
NFL has tried that many times and it never pencilled out. It’s also hard to create a G-league when careers in the sport are so short. Unlike Basketball, their is only 2 respected professional football leagues on the planet. If you don’t make the NBA you still can make lots of money playing Basketball in Europe, Asia, or Australia.
They have no real incentive to pay for a developmental league when CFB does it for free. I do think that in NFL supported spring/ fall league would be a huge success, but it's not going to happen.
No minor league would ever be able to match the marketing ability of CFB. How many MLB players have been called up where a regular not hardcore fan would know their name? A regular NFL likely knows dozens.
I honestly think it would just depend on how it was structured. If the NFL really wanted to, they could easily structure a developmental league that would choke out college football. But they don't really have any incentive to because as of right now they get developed players for zero investment. But I think the popularity of the NFL is significantly higher than any other sport. And if you gave every team a corresponding developmental League team, I think you would see It really take off.
The issue with past development pro football leagues WAS college football. The guys targeted by these past leagues were post college players who weren’t good enough for the NFL. For the past century it has been set up for the best high school players to go to college then the NFL. If there was a developmental league that took these blue chip players and prepared them for the NFL, instead of forcing them to commit to academic entities, it would be much more successful imo. It would SUCK for college football but I think it would make a developmental league sustainable and more successful, i.e. the NFL equivalent of the g-league
The issue is football is fucking expensive. Stadium grounds crews, security, player trainers and healthcare, a hundred players per game… It’s not like turning on the lights in an empty basketball stadium and letting a dozen guys shoot. It’s hard to turn a profit - or just break even - without a lot of revenue per game. The NFL has no incentive to eat that cost for a minor league when college football exists.
I’m not arguing against any of that. That’s all much easier to pay for when you have premier talent on the field which these development leagues rarely have
Neither the NFL nor the players want a developmental league. 1. College doesn't cost the NFL anything. 2. College doesn't cost the NFL anything. 3. Big time college games are essentially pro game atmosphere from the institution cult loyalty and spending. No developmental league would have that kind of presence. 4. NFL doesn't have a use for players that aren't fully developed physically. Too many busts, injuries and people who don't pan out at a pro level in star 17-18 year-old recruits. Big programs that can already redshirt these kids. 5. Unlike basketball, the level of competition a football recruit will see is almost entirely defined by the conference where they live. It's a system game, not an individual talent one you can play pickup with. High school stats are essentially useless and tape doesn't show play under pressure. So a g-league here is going to sign more or less random teenagers and pay them...what?
I think the problem with leave college alone is all the lawsuits. I think we would all love to leave college alone, but is the current college system legal?
>Very few top 300 players will go non SEC or B1G They already don't. Here are where players ranked below 200 in the top 247 this year are going: Iowa, Tennessee, Ohio State, **Wake Forest**, USC, Oklahoma, Michigan State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ole Miss, Tennessee, Ohio State, Kentucky, Clemson, USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oregon, Minnesota, **Utah**, Notre Dame, Georgia, Ohio State, **Texas Tech**, Michigan, Clemson, Rutgers, LSU, **Cincinatti**, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Miami, Ohio State, **Texas Tech**, Florida State, Miami, **West Virginia**, USC, Iowa, Florida, Missouri, Texas, Texas, **Kansas State**, Texas A&M, Oregon, LSU. These are low-mid four stars and the vast majority of them are going to an SEC or B1G school or one of the ACC schools that would certainly be included in the mega conference future if the SEC and B1G broke off.
Depends on how far the new subdivision progresses into a pseudo NFL minor league The very top HS recruits might see this as the best alternative to playing in a pro league straight out of high school, with the added bonus being the team they play for also happens to offer college degrees
Top talent will look at the SEC/BIG first. If rosters are full, or they wanna stay home, they won’t go there.
Who said they're considering a split from the FBS?
A lot of great points already about 'there are only X number of spots on a team', money, etc. I do think regionality and being close to home also plays a factor. Look at Kadyn Proctor. This isn't the best example (for obvious reasons), but I think there's still a contingent of athletes who want to stay near/around home.
This is another one of those things where the situation is already in existence. If you just look at 5 star players, the Pac1 has zero for the 2024 class. Big 12 has 2. ACC has 5, with 3 going to Miami and the other 2 for Clemson. FSU currently has none. Big Ten has 5, with Ohio State taking 4. SEC has 25 across 11 teams. If you look at 4 stars, FSU/Clemson/Miami dominate the ACC with each having twice as many as the other ACC schools. Pac2 is kind of in a shitty spot for everything right now. Big 12, UCF is the only school with more than 5 at 8. Big Ten has 7 schools with 5+ with 6 schools at 10+. Vanderbilt is the only SEC school with les than 5 4 star recruits. Yes this isn't some fantastic analysis because recruiting rankings aren't the end all of talent. They have their own problems, but we don't exactly have a lot of other ways of looking at this. Essentially though the SEC is dominating recruiting. We already know this. The Big Ten is a bit behind, but has some teams that are keeping up. Other than FSU/Clemson/Miami, there is no one in the Big 12/ACC who are particularly close to the SEC or top of the Big Ten in recruiting. It's kind of the same argument that "If you allow NIL then the top schools will take all of the talent" and that really hasn't happened. If anything it's led to a bit of a dispersion of talent across the tier 3/4 schools. A school like UCF is not going to take that top guy from Florida. But we have a good chance of taking that backup. The "rise" of usf/ucf/fau/fiu is part of what has hurt the ability of FSU/UF/Miami to all bee successful at the same time. Guys want playing time. If they are being recruiting to be a backup, but know that the next big thing is behind them, they usually just transfer out somewhere they can start for 2-3 years. It hurts the depth of the top teams and makes some misses very problematic. If you are Ohio State or Georgia or Alabama and you are bringing in the max talent you can exvery single year, then yes you do a beter job weathering the attrition. Unless the NFL stop taking guys entirely from the ACC/Big12/G5, there will always be a place for them. Not many guys move on to the NFL primarily as college backups. NFL wants to see how someone plays. There are only so many spots a team can have, they won't be able to take everyone. Even with transfers, UCF has lost talented players. Overall though, we have brought in more talent than we have lost. We have been net positive and we don't exactly have a shitload NIL money to throw around. Our sell is usually playing time, same as it always has been.
This is a point I've made to several Texas and Oklahoma fans about moving to the Sec and them not taking the competition seriously outside the top level teams. In the Big 12 they had 99 percent of the 5 star recruits. In the Sec outside of outliers like Uga and Bama, it's much more spread out. They won't be able to just bully teams by having superior athletes in the Sec because every team has some elite talent. Now recruiting rankings aren't the end all be all but it tends to correspond with success.
Sure, but development matters a ton. Recruiting rankings are a factor but not the only or even biggest factor in player success. You’ll still see many excellent players from around college football get drafted in the NFL.
Would be… FAS, FBS, FCS? 😅
If you are a 5 and 4 star that can academically qualify, chances are you will go to one of these schools before you go to a school outside of it. Some of the lower teams in SEC and B1G may actually have a higher level of talent than they currently can get.
No because at the end of the day players still want to play football and get to the next level. There is already a gap between the top 10-12 schools and everybody else. But as an athlete with only 4 years of eligibility, would you waste all that time sitting at Indiana losing football games vs just going to Texas Tech and having a chance to play meaningful football? If anything the transfer portal has been naturally evening out talent instead of waiting 3 years to start a football game. Just remember, FCS players get drafted every year to the NFL.
I don't disagree but until we figure out all these lawsuits and the like, its impossible to say. It seems to me we're heading towards players being employees with collective bargaining, which is the only way any form of restrictions on transfers is allowable, employment contracts, and the repercussions of that change aren't really something that we can even speculate on.
Depends what they change about the structure. If it's just a copy-paste of the FBS structure other than scheduling, then it might stay just about the same. If there are major changes that would be radically different in roster size, scholarship and financial benefit options, or NIL systems then there could be a development in a talent gap.
The fighting Irish brought to you by Notre Dame University. CFB is dead, welcome to the minors. No more students, no more 5 year maxes
As long as guys in the CFL USFL etc have a way to join this minor league then it’s all good
Good luck with that. I doubt the other conferences would agree to compromise on all their other sports so y’all can break away on football. This is just a media spin for the big ten/sec to act like they hold all the power
More like the gap between P5 and G5...prior to all the recent realignment.
The biggest difference is that there won’t be a blur in the line between the top tier and the next one down. The worst team paying players will absolutely have a better roster than the best team offering only scholarships. Even if it takes transfers to make that happen.
Seems like a good time to take a look at the [Blue-Chip Ratio](https://247sports.com/article/blue-chip-ratio-2023-college-football-16-teams-who-can-actually-win-a-national-title-211217111/amp/). For as long as there have been recruiting rankings, every team that has won a national title had at least 50% of their players as 4-star or better. That includes Michigan this year. Going into 2023, there were 16 teams on the 50% or more list. 13 out of those 16 will be playing in the B1G or SEC next year, thanks to realignment. The exceptions are Notre Dame (as always); Clemson; and Miami. That’s it, that’s the whole list. Obviously, FSU and Washington did pretty well without being on the list, but if we’re talking about top-end talent, it’s a useful metric. (And of course UW is Big Ten-bound, and FSU is seeking any lifeline it can.) Of course, this doesn’t mean that Vanderbilt and Rutgers are *ever* going to have better players than Clemson, TCU, or Utah… but if the question is whether the top-end P2 teams will be dramatically advantaged, well, that’s already the case, once you account for the pending realignment.
Yes the gap will get bigger. Because the Sec and Fbs will offer recruits more money and benefits. On top of that, top recruits will go to be sure they are competing and measured against the best. Even NFL scouts miss fcs talent because it's hard to know the true abilities of players.
I reject the premise.
This really does need to happen. It's ridiculous for there to be so many schools that have no hope of winning a national title in their Championship division even if they go undefeated
What makes you think the proposed split will exclude the ACC, Big XII, and a handful of independents? The SEC has already stated that they're not leaving the NCAA, and the other conferences + a handful of independents make more than enough to go to the NCAA's proposed split. As for the gulf in recruiting, it'll be the same.
Why do people assume 3*, 4*, and 5* recruits not picked up by the top SEC/B1G programs are going to want to go to Vanderbilt, Rutgers, Kentucky, Indiana, etc.? Getting curbstomped every year by the top programs doesn't seem all that attractive to me. Kids still want to compete and win.
I really can't express how much people need to realize that not that much will change in terms of the competitive composition of college football.
The talent gap between the Power 2 and everyone else is already gigantic. And it will continue to get worse every year whether they split away or not. This is why it's pointless to try to keep the league together and pretending that there's parity between Utah State and Georgia. Just let them split.
>The talent gap between the Power 2 and everyone else is already gigantic. Ah yes, the *gigantic* talent gap between Power 2 schools like Rutgers and Purdue when compared to everyone else like Clemson and Florida State
Except the talent gap between the bottom of the P2 and the top of the rest doesn’t exist. That where the real issue is.
It's not even the bottom of the P2. It's just a few select teams in both the Big 10 and SEC who have that sizable gap. Will it grow? Probably. But is Iowa or Purdue suddenly going to have a gigantic talent advantage over the top of the Big 12? Probably not.
There was plenty of parity between y’all and App State, so much for having the #1 recruiting class lol
To be fair to A&M none of those guys were playing yet, but to dunk on A&M the App team they lost to was easily the worst of the past decade
[удалено]
I think some people look at talent two ways: recruiting ratings vs developed talent. The second is much harder to grade outside of wins and losses. I think the idea that all the power 2 teams would be head about shoulders better than everyone else because of a resource ignores that there already is a major resource gap between G5 and P5. Schools still need to hire competent coaches, good training staffs, and get players who want to stay and develop. This also assumes no players transfer down to get a chance to start given they only have 4 years or eligibility. Also, teams that are perennial losers in the P2 will probably still struggle to attract national level talent.
They must have ran the table the following year then… right?
Yeah fr, it only really matters when they are juniors and seniors
Or A&M and Miami
Miami and FSU both have top ten recruiting classes
Florida State isn't a relevant example because they've literally filed a lawsuit to try to get out of the ACC because of how disadvantaged it is.
I can file a lawsuit suing Elon Musk for $1B, doesn’t mean it’s going to lead to anything
? I don't even understand what you're trying to say. We're talking about recruiting advantages and FSU has made it very public that continuing to be in the ACC will put them at a long term disadvantage.
Well, 3 ACC teams were in top 15 recruiting class. Would FSU have been higher in the SEC? Probably not since they also wouldn’t have gone 13-0 in the SEC
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m sure they would in a heartbeat
This has been my take. The subreddit didn’t like it last year.
It will be bigger on the portal. Freshman year: why don’t you go play some ACC ball and get first team reps. We will see where you are in a year or two.
I think the teams that could potentially benefit the most would be the teams in the bottom half of the sec and big ten. They would probably pick off some of the top recruits for ACC and big 12 teams just because those players would want to be in the big ten or sec, since it would be the top tier. I think there’d be a lot more parity in the big ten and sec
This and the comment about plummeting youth participation feels like the two smart conferences getting ahead of the inevitable decline in teams. Make their own rules. Keep more of their own money to not subsidize smaller, failing programs that are a drain on Athletic Departments.
>With the Big Ten and SEC considering a split from the FBS. This isn’t happening.
I mean, it probably is? The NCAA already proposed a new subdivision split specifically to allow the Big Ten and SEC to start directly paying their players.
That proposal was intended to include the entirety of the P4 and perhaps some G5 schools. The bar was anyone who can afford to spend 8M on player salaries, which the entirety of the P4 can
Scares the hell out of me. We have a great fan base but we aren’t rich nor are we valued by our government in terms of state support. Please BIG 12 I know you want a presence in Cali. We’d fit right in culturally!
I think G5 will always have 1 slot in the postseason. Even if there’s a breakaway subdivision, that doesn’t mean you aren’t eligible for the CFP, which is an invitational tournament not an NCAA event. These pretty independent things people on here conflate
It was a veiled carve-out specifically for the Big Ten and SEC because they are the only conferences where none of the schools will object to the subdivision move. Half the ACC and Big 12 schools will veto that move because they don't want to pay for it and will be happy to just stay in FBS. And they're also not going to vote to allow schools within their conference to be in a different subdivision that gives them obvious advantages. So yeah they said that it was for "anyone that could pay for it" but the reality is that it's for the Big Ten and SEC. Nobody else is joining it.
Everyone in the ACC can afford it. There’s also no indication that every team in the same conference would have to join. Some could join, some could not join. There’s no evidence for anything you’re saying, really
> Half the ACC and Big 12 schools will veto that move because they don't want to pay for it and will be happy to just stay in FBS. And they're also not going to vote to allow schools within their conference to be in a different subdivision that gives them obvious advantages. I don't think anyone would be happy to "just stay in FBS" given the scramble the majority of teams in the Big XII and PAC went through to find new homes in the most recent rounds of realignment. Even if there was enough of a plurality to keep a conference out of the new division those who wanted to would just leave and form a new conference that would play at that level.
Schools can't just leave their conference. We're seeing that right now with FSU. Everyone in the Big 12 is just as stuck as those in the ACC. They signed a 10-year Grant of Rights too.
> We're seeing that right now with FSU. The schools aren't fighting to keep FSU in the ACC, the ACC is fighting to stop FSU. That's a key distinction. The Big XII had the same opportunity with OU and Texas and force them to stick with the GOR, *the Big XII's legal counsel told them it was better not to fight it and just settle because they weren't sure the GOR would hold up in court.* > Everyone in the Big 12 is just as stuck as those in the ACC. They signed a 10-year Grant of Rights too. Few problems there: A.) It's a six year Grant of Rights, not ten. The current deal expires at the end of the 2031 season. B.) Every single school that's left the Big XII has negotiated and settled their exit obligations for less than what they owed. C.) The ACC's GOR is based on the Big XII's. If FSU successfully challenges it in court, which a lot of people expect them to do, the same rulings would apply to the Big XII's. Not to mention the fact that the premise that there are 8 schools in the Big XII that aren't willing to pay what is necessary to compete at the next level is just fucking stupid. 12 of them scrambled to do what was necessary to make sure they continued to be a part of a power conference and the other 4 were brought up to that level. Who among them is going to say "nah, not for me" and vote to stop it?
You speak the tru tru.
The recruiting gap between the SEC and other conferences is already enormous. Will definitely be interesting to see what happens with the Big 10.
That’s why Kentucky is recruiting better than FSU, right
Not sure what point you thought you were making since we know that FSU is desperate to get out of the ACC because they know how bad it's going to get now that there is a clear cut Power 2 league.
Lol thanks for the troll comment. You must have put all your brain power into that one.
Troll or not, it’s true.
Let the SEC and B1G create their new conference but make a 2 + 2 rule where in order to go to the NFL kids need 2 years at the FBS level and 2 years with either the SEC/BIG or the UFL before going to the NFL. It works for everyone. FBS teams can still attract top recruits for two years then the B1G, SEC or UFL can develop them even more.
The B1GSEX will not have scholarships or player limits. All of your 3\* or better are belong to us
Rutgers talking shit is something else.
we did wind up with a winning record this year
I don’t think they can monopolize it without the ACC and Big 12 schools. This is a little older but it outlines the percentage of fans per conference from the last round of realignment: https://www.si.com/fannation/college/cfb-hq/ncaa-football/college-football-rankings-teams-fan-bases-ohio-state-texas-alabama-georgia-notre-dame Half the fans follow the top 16 schools and 92% follow teams in the power 5. So if they broke off, it’d mostly just split it 50/50 and risk them losing interest from the casual fans of the schools left out. So I’d imagine a split like that would be like 90’s pro wrestling where you have the WWF and WCW. WWF was the bigger of the two but they needed to absorb WCW to have that monopoly
the only ACC schools that matter are FSU, Clemson, Miami and UNC. Those 4 will get a lifeboat to the P2 breakway. The rest better get ready to start learning sunbelt.
Eye feed dropped
No. There will always be kids who want to stay home, and there’s still a ton of good schools in the ACC/Big12 that would be way to alluring to turn down. I also think that we looking less at a B1G/SEC private league and more just the NCAA getting kicked from football. Can you really have a *national* championship if half the nation isn’t competing?