forums

Miami Not Good Enough For a Super Conference?

Crimpy

Crimpy

Big Time Outsider
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
Messages
2,967
S.I. asked 6 sportswriters to name 15 teams they would select to make up a College Football super conference. Half of them left out Miami. While every writer included all the usual suspects you would expect, the 3 who eliminated Miami had, respectively, Missouri, UCLA, and Washington listed instead. I realize this is all subjective, but Missouri, UCLA, and Washington??

www.espn.com

What could a college football Super League look like?

Could a Super League along the lines of European soccer work in college football? Who's in? Who's not? What's the criteria? Our roundtable weighs the options.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
Advertisement
If I had to do 15:
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
Alabama
Auburn
LSU
Florida
Georgia
Oklahoma
Texas
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
USC
Notre Dame
 
Advertisement
Miami
Notre dame
Alabama
Ohio state
USC
Texas
Oklahoma
LSU
Clemson
Florida
FSU
Georgia
Oregon
Michigan
Penn state


ACC:3
Big 12:2
SEC:4
BIG 10:3
Pac 12: 2
Independent:1

I like this not only because these are great brands and traditions, but also is good geographicaly.
 
Super Conference would be like the Super League thing.

It would not be about who is good and who isnt, it would be about the revenue every team is making.
 
I wouldn’t disagree if someone thought we were close to that 15 mark but gtfoh with mizzou
 
Two things for me. First Miami has been so bad the last almost 20 years against a weak schedule I can see why they were left out. Miami cannot even win the coastal. How are they a super 15 team with that resume? Second what I cannot agree with is Mizzou or UCLA being in a head of Miami. Twenty years ago its a no brainer Miami had to be at the worse a top 3 team.
 
Advertisement
Jack71 said:
S.I. asked 6 sportswriters to name 15 teams they would select to make up a College Football super conference. Half of them left out Miami. While every writer included all the usual suspects you would expect, the 3 who eliminated Miami had, respectively, Missouri, UCLA, and Washington listed instead. I realize this is all subjective, but Missouri, UCLA, and Washington??

www.espn.com

What could a college football Super League look like?

Could a Super League along the lines of European soccer work in college football? Who's in? Who's not? What's the criteria? Our roundtable weighs the options.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...
I would offer it isn't about "names" in a super league, but rather affordability, or at least the willingness to spend and die trying.

Miami, Mizzou, UCLA, and Washington couldn't (and will not) afford the economics of what a CFB super league (assumption: unleashed support and rules as we know them today) would truly look like.

In that construct, you are probably looking at:
Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU (Cowboys), OSU (fûck you poison nuts), Auburn, Bama, UGA, LSU, UF

Will die trying: Michigan? Clemson? Arkansas? FSU (they move up years from now once their ledger is corrected--its bad, like bankrupted bad today), Oregon? Tenn (total program suicide)?Notre Dame (i think they will look hard, but back away). Its unlikely any of these schools sustain participation before broken finances force them to bow out.

BYU**

Who am I missing???

For a super league, name actually has little to do with it (although that conponent will get easy confused) compared to program resources.

If someone says, "well just put in spending controls for the super league", they have just made an argument to keep the status quo, particularly SEC*.


*IF Pac-12 ever gets their shît together with Asian market broadcast $$$... watch out...

**With the LDS resources, they could easily participate, but I would guess their natural aversion to flash would prevent it. Makes for interesting head scratching candidate though.
 
Last edited:
The criteria was to pick the 15 biggest names in college football not the 15 teams with the most recent success. Texas, Michigan, Miami and USC all belong on that list even though none have been a top 10 team for a while now. The one guy picked Missouri simply because it was his alma mater which immediately puts his entire list in the trash. The guy that included UCLA simply said they needed a second west coast team besides USC which is ridiculous. Andrea Addleson, who I don’t think is an alum but grew up in south Florida a Miami fan made the best point. When someone says “the U” everyone knows who they’re talking about.
 
Advertisement
Empirical Cane said:
I would offer it isn't about "names" in a super league, but rather affordability, or at least the willingness to spend and die trying.

Miami, Mizzou, UCLA, and Washington couldn't (and will not) afford the economics of what a CFB super league (assumption: unleashed support and rules as we know them today) would truly look like.

In that construct, you are probably looking at:
Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU (Cowboys), OSU (fûck you poison nuts), Auburn, Bama, UGA, LSU, UF

Will die trying: Michigan? Clemson? Arkansas? FSU (they move up years from now once their ledger is corrected--its bad, like bankrupted bad today), Oregon? Notre Dame (i think they will look hard, but back away). Its unlikely any of these schools sustain participation before broken finances force them to bow out.

Who am I missing???

For a super league, name actually has little to do with it (although that conponent will get easy confused) compared to program resources.

If someone says, "well just put in spending controls for the super league", they have just made an argument to keep the status quo, particularly SEC*.


*IF Pac-12 ever gets their shît together with Asian market broadcast $$$... watch out...
Click to expand...
You don’t think that willingness to spend is directly tied to program revenue? A lot of the teams willing to spend the most coincidentally play in conferences that have the largest television contracts. If you were to form a “super league” you’d assume that things like TV revenue, which is where a majority of the money comes from, would be split evenly between the 15 programs. If that’s the case, I’m looking for programs with the largest name brand and most national appeal. Teams like Texas A&M and even Auburn are largely ignored outside of their regional fan base. ****, they’re both a distant second in their own respective regions.
 
DTP said:
The criteria was to pick the 15 biggest names in college football not the 15 teams with the most recent success. Texas, Michigan, Miami and USC all belong on that list even though none have been a top 10 team for a while now. The one guy picked Missouri simply because it was his alma mater which immediately puts his entire list in the trash. The guy that included UCLA simply said they needed a second west coast team besides USC which is ridiculous. Andrea Addleson, who I don’t think is an alum but grew up in south Florida a Miami fan made the best point. When someone says “the U” everyone knows who they’re talking about.
Click to expand...
Andrea lives in Orlando area and is a gayter. She runs marathons frequently around state (especially Disney), if you particpate you are bound to come across her at some point.
 
Advertisement
DTP said:
You don’t think that willingness to spend is directly tied to program revenue? A lot of the teams willing to spend the most coincidentally play in conferences that have the largest television contracts. If you were to form a “super league” you’d assume that things like TV revenue, which is where a majority of the money comes from, would be split evenly between the 15 programs. If that’s the case, I’m looking for programs with the largest name brand and most national appeal. Teams like Texas A&M and even Auburn are largely ignored outside of their regional fan base. ****, they’re both a distant second in their own respective regions.
Click to expand...
Agree with you 100%. In the super league I'm talking about however, its about Yankee ball. I believe the teams I mentioned, regardless of regionality, are the ones that can generate and sustain the dollars necessary.

Strictly from a resources lens, BYU would bury those teams (it won't happen of course). Next up in gold in the vault would be Texas, and TAMU.

Name recognition wouldn't be as important as the war chests. And then participation would build the brand (for those that "need" it).


Interesting question: what if euro style relegation was part of the super league and promotion from D1P5 (ehat was left of it) was a possibility??? Want excitement... imagine the high stakes drama of the bottom two super league teams facing the top two challengers to take their spots for next season. On like donkey kong. I'm guessing those two games would equal Natty in terms of viewership.
 
Last edited:
Going in to the article, the first thing I see is a pic of King that's subtitled "No Super League would be complete without the U"
I'll leave it at that.

No, I wont.
One writer notes that his list "includes every national champion of the last 19 years".
19 years?
 
Last edited:
These writers are going with what they’ve seen the last 10 years not what happened in the 80’s up to 2001. My eyes tell me that every time we’ve been on a big stage we’ve gotten ours asses whipped with the exception on the Notre Dame game. We haven’t even won our conference which is probably the overall weakest of the big boys. Let’s be real folks!
 
Advertisement
Back
Top