PLUS, as argued above, the 'out-of-subscription' box will continue to be a bone of contention in the B1G. I just don't see the B1G coming to terms with themselves to add OR/WA. WHICH, leaves OR/WA with pretty much no reasonable options (unless the P12 pulls a rabbit out of their hat). I expect UA/OR/WA to B12 with anyone of them being the next domino making the rest non-negotiable. And I see FOX pushing that.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
True, but there’s more markers of success - 10-win seasons, divisions/conference title games, conference championships, making the CFP field. There would be fewer of each to go around in a super league.
Plus, the programs that would be in the back half of the super league are used to having other schools to kick around and look down on. Never underestimate the value in having “lessers” for the middle class to look down on. In a super league, those programs are the ones that get kicked around and looked down on.
That’s why there isn’t going to be a super league
I hope the powers that could make it happen realize exactly why it wouldn’t work. Or everyone other than the most self-centered programs (Ohio St and about 1/3rd of the SEC) decline to join.
I don’t exactly understand the available tv time slots cunumdrum. The B12 did elevate 4 G5s for this season, but it looks like Kliavkoff could single-handedly demote more than that number back to G5 status. There could actually be less P5 vs P5 games to have to spread out.
I think the determining factor on a Super League developing is whether they could draw fan support, or at least viewership from fans outside the League teams. I would hope most ISU fans would continue to be ISU fans unless football ceased to be a thing at ISU.
I understand the sentiment. But look at it like golf. In my mind there will be a "cut". The more teams the B12 etc. promote to status hurts us. Why do that? Literally promoting competitors for the same bid/slot.
There are a very limited number of slots for nationally televised games. The rest of the inventory has to go to regional broadcast or Tier 3 media. It's a big deal for teams to get a nationally televised game for exposure, recruiting, etc. Teams like Oregon and Washington would be direct competition for those limited number of slots.
I agree with that viewpoint 100%. I’m talking about the narrative that the carriers don’t have the time slots if the b1g etc add “new” teams. There really aren’t any “new” teams on the landscape other than our 4 adds this year.
We ignore too many variables when we talk about the inevitable super league. For one, there’s no guarantee football doesn’t go the way of boxing in 15 years due to concerns over how violent it is. The whole CTE/brain injury thing isn’t going away…let alone the other injuries.
Beyond that though - there will likely be a move toward soccer and possibly lacrosse. There are already parts of the country where I could reasonably imagine it wouldn’t be a terribly difficult decision for them to retrofit their football stadium into a soccer one…
In the end, as much as we may love football…the media drives a lot of this. They need content and they could absolutely figure out a way get many of us hooked on whatever sport they want.
Agree, that’s why I don’t think it’s about looking like a villain or a savior, it’s only about $$$. If waiting makes the Big 10 look like a savior, that’s just a perk, the main goal is leverage.
I think soccer could and probably will gain some popularity in the U.S. but there's no way it will ever dethrone American football IMO. There's just not enough action, scoring, etc. American sports fans are wired differently from sports fans in other parts of the world. We'll see, but while I do think CTE/violence will impact football, I don't think it will be that major of an impact in terms of its popularity.
Ever* is a very long time. I fully anticipate soccer will outgrow football at some point. Not MLS but international soccer. Football is about 10 mins of action for a whole game, soccer never stops and also is a very tight 2 hours.
The moment a test comes into existence that can measure the presence of CTE in a living individual football is done.
We must have a different definition of “action”.
I want to say that was one of the reasons why the European soccer superleague never actually got off the ground. Yes, a couple of the biggest teams looked at the money that could be earned and threw their hats into the ring immediately, but everyone else realized someone has to be the losers in that league and declined. As if the UEFA Champions League wasn't enough to drive that point home.
If football fades in popularity, it’ll come more from the player side than the fan’s side. I just don’t see a large number of people turning off football over CTE or other health concerns.
The number of kids playing high school football has fallen off over the last few decades. It would have to pick up way more speed, but it’s conceivable that more kids opt for other sports or high schools start dropping it due to health concerns or insufficient interest.
If I had a son, I think I’d try to steer him towards playing sports other than football. I love watching the game, but recognize the inherent risk of very serious injury is far greater than pretty much any other sport.
I can see basketball overtaking football in popularity at some point, but too many Americans are like me and think soccer is boring.
Plus, doesn't soccer have their own CTE issues?
That's part of what I'm saying. To European sports fans, a 1-0 soccer (football) match is tense and filled with drama and beautiful action. To American sports fans, it's just boring as hell.
However, and one which I am passionate about, is: we're all different. As evidenced by not every past football player having CTE. And in so many ways massively different. No 'single' test result should be applied to every individual unless it's directly correlated to the DNA.
[edited to prevent caving it]