If the blue bloods left for a "super league", who would be hurt more, them or the also-rans like us?

Who would be hurt more?

  • Blue bloods

    Votes: 23 46.9%

  • Also-rans

    Votes: 26 53.1%
  • Total voters
    49
Donate To GopherHole
GopherTheJugular said:
Not always. I used to get up and watch Gameday and then I'd watch games all the way til at least the Saturday night ABC game ended, then I'd see if any other close finishes were happening. That would be over 12 hours of football on Saturday, closer to 14 or 15. Then I'd watch the NFL on Sunday, not as dedicated, but I'd watch.

Now I watch neither and go entire weekends without seeing any football. It's just verifying what I thought, that all these changes would cause me to lose interest, just like I lost interest in March Madness.

I still follow on this board and watch highlights occasionally on youtube, but with the way it's going I doubt I'll even care if college football exists in a few years.
Click to expand...
I'm watching less as well. I'm usually reading or doing something around the house on Saturdays and Sundays so I will usually have a game on in the background on television or computer. I don't know your age, but I'm in my 70s and while I don't want to sound like an old man yelling at a cloud, the game has changed so much and the hype is so far out of whack that I've lost interest. I love the Gophers and no longer have any real allegiance to a pro team (I used to be an ardent Packer fan), but now I usually watch to see a great play or two.
 
Last edited:

50PoundHead said:
If the Blue Bloods started their own gig, it would be the end of college football at that level and it would just be semi-pro football at that tier (some would argue that not much would actually change in that regard). But the Blue Bloods would negotiate a giant television deal and feed off of that. I don't know if a new set-up where they exited would change the portal and NIL (probably not), but there would likely still be poaching from the non-Blue Blood talent pool at the end of each season.

I wonder if the NCAA ever thinks back and wonders if they could have gotten in front of all this by allowing NIL and some payment framework for all players. Given where things are at, it might not have made any difference, but the NCAA's intransigence out of the gate was simply wrongheaded.
Click to expand...
I don't think the Blue Bloods would negotiate a giant TV deal because the networks are smart enough to realize they'll lose 70% of their viewership immediately by ditching the also-rans. And that 70% will just be the start because a lot of the bandwagon fans that just like to jump on to a winner like Ohio State and Alabama won't stay a fan for long once those teams are just average in their semi-pro league. It's a lot more fun to root for and easier to get investment for a 12 win team than a 6 win team. They'll certainly lose me as a fan. As soon as Ohio State leaves the B1G for a super league, they're no longer my second favorite team because I'd have no connection to them. I'd also never watch Alabama again because they'd no longer be a part of the "enemy league to the south". I'd support the Gophers in whatever league they are in and the Vikings.

I hope the decision makers know how many of us are in this camp because it would help the Gophers negotiate. Maybe let Ohio State/Oregon have 20% more revenue, but not 100%. We want to at least be able to be competitive in games, not your doormat. Otherwise, blow it up and we can all make less money. Do we really care? College football wasn't worse before all the money started flowing in. It will do just fine without it. Less money will hurt Ohio State and the state of Ohio a lot more than it will hurt the Gophers and Minnesota. The Gophers aren't as important a part of our state economy. Our team will likely do better competitively in the new Big Ten and Ohio State will absolutely do worse. College football is already JV to the NFL. I don't really care if we step down to JV of the JV. The Gophers will still be the strongest college football team in our state and I'm an alum just like many, many of you.
 

GopherTheJugular said:
Not always. I used to get up and watch Gameday and then I'd watch games all the way til at least the Saturday night ABC game ended, then I'd see if any other close finishes were happening. That would be over 12 hours of football on Saturday, closer to 14 or 15. Then I'd watch the NFL on Sunday, not as dedicated, but I'd watch.

Now I watch neither and go entire weekends without seeing any football. It's just verifying what I thought, that all these changes would cause me to lose interest, just like I lost interest in March Madness.

I still follow on this board and watch highlights occasionally on youtube, but with the way it's going I doubt I'll even care if college football exists in a few years.
Click to expand...

Respect your sentiment. I will always enjoy good competitions and drama but the naked bias, favoritism, profit-chasing above all else, prop bets etc demolishing college sports right now has made me more cynical (and I’m already mega cynical as a former NFL aficionado). Corruption, shady officials, drama has always been part and parcel of the experience. Everyone has their limit at which they’re out. I’m not quite there but Pettiti is challenging me.
 

Pompous Elitist said:
Respect your sentiment. I will always enjoy good competitions and drama but the naked bias, favoritism, profit-chasing above all else, prop bets etc demolishing college sports right now has made me more cynical (and I’m already mega cynical as a former NFL aficionado). Corruption, shady officials, drama has always been part and parcel of the experience. Everyone has their limit at which they’re out. I’m not quite there but Pettiti is challenging me.
Click to expand...
I agree. I'm really not much of a fan of the NFL. It's so clearly all about the money. The more college football becomes that way, the less interest I'll have.
 

watertown 1987 guy n said:
Seems logical that if some revenue goes away that expenses would need to decrease. But it’s likely we’d have NIL money in the top 1/4 of that league.
Click to expand...
That’s assuming there isn’t a decrease in interest due to moving to a lower level.

There’s a lot of unknown and assuming you’re taking Minnesota’s athletic department and finances as currently constructed and dropping them into a lower level of competition is likely not realistic.

I think there’s a real question to whether the U’s administration is just tolerating athletics given the amount of money brought in and would that sentiment change if there’s less money.
 


College football will be the last sport the NFL captures, kills and devours. But they are coming.

It is no coincidence that the NFL is putting the Bears/Packers and Eagles/Commanders against the CFP this year. They know they can easily snatch most of the potential East Coast and Midwest CFP viewership with these two games. There are not going to be any “Big Ten West” or Northeast/Mid-Atlantic programs in the CFP.
 

50PoundHead said:
I don't know your age, but I'm in my 70s and while I don't want to sound like an old man yelling at a cloud, the game has changed so much and the hype is way out of whack that I've lost interest.
Click to expand...

I'm 47 and also miss what attracted me to college football. I could go on and on....

50PoundHead said:
I love the Gophers and no longer have any real allegiance to a pro team (I used to be an ardent Packer fan), but now I usually watch to see a great play or two.
Click to expand...
Huh, I used to be a Packers fan too. I don't care about the NFL at all now, but I suppose I'd be ok with the vikes doing well since they have Cashman and Brosmer on the team.
 

SeaBee_Gopher said:
a lot of the bandwagon fans that just like to jump on to a winner like Ohio State and Alabama won't stay a fan for long once those teams are just average in their semi-pro league.
Click to expand...
You've got a good point here. I would say I was kind of part of that, but not a "bandwagon" fan. Like, I enjoyed watching Alabama try and run the table during Saban's tenue and I'd enjoy seeing if anyone could knock them off - but I wasn't an Alabama fan per se. I just liked that the game had this element where you'd start the season and whether it was Alabama, or USC before them, or maybe Clemson alongside them, see if they can with the NC with a perfect record - or enjoy the upset of them being taken down in the regular season.
 




SeaBee_Gopher said:
I don't think the Blue Bloods would negotiate a giant TV deal because the networks are smart enough to realize they'll lose 70% of their viewership immediately by ditching the also-rans. And that 70% will just be the start because a lot of the bandwagon fans that just like to jump on to a winner like Ohio State and Alabama won't stay a fan for long once those teams are just average in their semi-pro league. It's a lot more fun to root for and easier to get investment for a 12 win team than a 6 win team. They'll certainly lose me as a fan. As soon as Ohio State leaves the B1G for a super league, they're no longer my second favorite team because I'd have no connection to them. I'd also never watch Alabama again because they'd no longer be a part of the "enemy league to the south". I'd support the Gophers in whatever league they are in and the Vikings.

I hope the decision makers know how many of us are in this camp because it would help the Gophers negotiate. Maybe let Ohio State/Oregon have 20% more revenue, but not 100%. We want to at least be able to be competitive in games, not your doormat. Otherwise, blow it up and we can all make less money. Do we really care? College football wasn't worse before all the money started flowing in. It will do just fine without it. Less money will hurt Ohio State and the state of Ohio a lot more than it will hurt the Gophers and Minnesota. The Gophers aren't as important a part of our state economy. Our team will likely do better competitively in the new Big Ten and Ohio State will absolutely do worse. College football is already JV to the NFL. I don't really care if we step down to JV of the JV. The Gophers will still be the strongest college football team in our state and I'm an alum just like many, many of you.
Click to expand...
From my vantage point, if the Blue Bloods would bolt, they would immediately try to fashion some kind of partnership with the NFL. It wouldn't take the form of cash, but it may include some type of informal affiliation. The Blue Bloods would promote their product "You're watching guys who play on Saturday who WILL be playing on Sunday." The draftniks--both guys who are paid for it and basement dwellers who do it for free--would go nuts. And I think with the portal being the way it is, any player who views himself as having a professional future is going to step up to the Blue Blood league. The also-rans are going to see their rosters raided to an even greater extent.

It's all going to boil down to whether some big dollar folks are willing to throw money into something like a Blue Blood league. There are some stupid billionaires who lucked into their bucks, but there are enough left over that could be pitched to.

Sport used to be simply sport. It was entertainment but not really marketed as such. It is now.
 

Goldmember said:
College football will be the last sport the NFL captures, kills and devours. But they are coming.

It is no coincidence that the NFL is putting the Bears/Packers and Eagles/Commanders against the CFP this year. They know they can easily snatch most of the potential East Coast and Midwest CFP viewership with these two games. There are not going to be any “Big Ten West” or Northeast/Mid-Atlantic programs in the CFP.
Click to expand...
I wonder if at some point the NFL develops a minor league similar to baseball. Maybe that’s less feasible now that NIL exists.
 

I don't know which of the groups of schools would win or lose, but I would thoroughly enjoy the brawl amongst the schools to be included. I think ten posters on this board putting together a list of 20 teams to be in a super league would come up with ten different lists.
 

50PoundHead said:
Sport used to be simply sport. It was entertainment but not really marketed as such. It is now.
Click to expand...

This is my sentiment. I enjoy watching sports for the idea of 2 teams going at it to see who is best. But now it's very much clouded by "the storylines", "hype machines" and gambling talk. As we saw with the officiating in the Oregon game, I'm not entirely convinced that every game is one the up and up. Too much pressure to continue to drive specific narratives.
 



Scottsdale Gopher said:
I don't know which of the groups of schools would win or lose, but I would thoroughly enjoy the brawl amongst the schools to be included. I think ten posters on this board putting together a list of 20 teams to be in a super league would come up with ten different lists.
Click to expand...
If it happens whoever sponsors it will get the choice.
 

It'd be a wash. But it would be way less interesting to be a fan of an also ran like the Gophers.
 

gophersfan said:
Come on Michigan will not leave the Big Ten period. This will get settle and Michigan will remain in the Big Ten book it.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I said almost 30 years ago when my beloved Houston Oilers left for Tennessee. I am still not over it.
 

If the blue bloods left, leaving a rather large D1, true college football level for the Gophers and others, I would be okay with that. Stick to what worked. If the OSUs, MIchigans, Penn States, LSUs, Alabamas, etc, wanted to way overspend on football, it is their decision. This would allow those that want the true college game to reset some things that have gone astray. We would have a large number of good football schools to still compete with, and it would be a lot more fun for everyone. Bring it.
 

I don't think either group would be hurt. The big guys would get a train load of money and the student-athlete schools would enjoy more competitive games. But maybe I don't understand this strings question.
 

First off, this will never happen. I'm aware football runs the world of sports, but it'd be too easy for those schools to tell the top 20-30 to buzz off. Hey you want that league cool, then you don't get KU Duke UNC for bball or Vandy Oregon st for baseball etc. It's so much bigger they just can't do it. Furthermore, good luck with rivalries, it won't be as fun for Michigan when they don't get MSU on the schedule and half their games are across the country.

I've said this general idea before but I think it's so easy for football. You take all the D1 (FBS/FCS) teams, currently at 136 and divide them up into 3 divisions. Each division plays against only teams within their division and then you have relegation/promotion. I'd go something like 44-44-48 teams with 6 teams per division going up or down each year. Then have say 4 "conferences" at each level. Split them up as best you can geographically to maintain rivalries. Will be small changes year to year based on who is in. You play the other 10 teams in your conference Each year plus 1 from the other 3. 13 games a year regular season. 12 team playoff in each. Rd 1 playoffs at home, remaining 7 plsyoff games at bowl spots. Lowest division hey your at the sun bowl or wuick lane, middle hey you get the gator bowl, top big 7.

Semifinalists plus top 2 in the rankings after that promoted, 6 lowest ranked out. Literally every game matters, teams that do well move up, you don't move down. The TV deals would all fall under the NCAA or whatever group you want to call it. So the top division teams get paid more. Gives every game meaning, keep most rivalries, groups teams better, plenty of storylines. MN NW this weekend Literally means nothing, we win we play in a bad bowl, we lose we play in a bad bowl. Imagine now this game decides relegation. Now that matters. Sign me up!
 

upnorthkid said:
Blue bloods would hurt more but for totally different reasons. Someone has to lose those games. Couple that with you’re going to cut markets because you will be competing with local teams and you’re going to lose tv revenue and bargaining power that way. Would be a lose lose for both, but blue blood moreso because some will fall and some in the non blue blood will rise to the top of their grouping
Click to expand...

Agree. A blue blood is a blue blood because they go 10-2 every year. Not 7-5 every year. They need teams like us to maintain their brand. If they dumped smaller schools for a super league, then you essentially have another NFL that isn't as good as the real NFL and nobody would like that.
 

upnorthkid said:
Blue bloods would hurt more but for totally different reasons. Someone has to lose those games. Couple that with you’re going to cut markets because you will be competing with local teams and you’re going to lose tv revenue and bargaining power that way. Would be a lose lose for both, but blue blood moreso because some will fall and some in the non blue blood will rise to the top of their grouping
Click to expand...
The blue bloods should avoid the mistake the NFL has made for sure: Limiting the slices of the pie to only a few dozen teams playing the highest level of the sport. It's only lead to humongous fan interest and a lot of money. The NFL should instead have teams in every state, and sometimes many in an individual state.
 
Last edited:

gopher7 said:
Agree. A blue blood is a blue blood because they go 10-2 every year. Not 7-5 every year. They need teams like us to maintain their brand. If they dumped smaller schools for a super league, then you essentially have another NFL that isn't as good as the real NFL and nobody would like that.
Click to expand...
Agree. I've posted many times that this would be a bad idea for them... because one team has to lose.
 

How many teams are we talking in a Blue Blood League? It's not feasible with less than 24+ teams. Say it's run like the NFL scheduling. Imagine being a team that wins 10+ games every year and now half the league can't even get to .500.

I don't see anything less than 64 in a league.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Agree. I've posted many times that this would be a bad idea for them... because one team has to lose.
Click to expand...
There are 272 losses spread over 32 NFL teams each year yet those that lose more than they win still fill their stadiums and their fans still turn on TVs. If anything is settled in college sports, its that money talks and if 30 or 40 of the "top" brands in CFB can make more money from potential television and streaming partners, they will. losses be damned. We all would like to think that our programs are integral to the overall success of CFB but in reality, we haven't been in decades. As much as I'd like the old days to return, its a brave new world for CFB.
 


Most wins in the last 20 years: Is it $$ for Blue Blood or Wins. What is the price tag to be in the league?

20. Utah
19. Florida State
18. Oklahoma State
17. Michigan
16. Florida
15. BYU
14. Texas
13. USC
12. TCU
11. Notre Dame
10. Wisconsin
9. Penn State
8. LSU
7. Oregon
6. Oklahoma
5. Clemson
4. (Boise State)
3. Georgia
2. tOSU
1. Alabama

10 Years:
Washington, Texas A&M, Miami, and Iowa in. Wisconsin, TCU, USC, Florida State, Florida out

5 Years
Ole Miss and Tennessee

I also think a blue blood league would lose recruits that want to develop for the NFL. Why go to a cut-throat league when you can go to another quality league and develop without the circus.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Most wins in the last 20 years: Is it $$ for Blue Blood or Wins. What is the price tag to be in the league?

20. Utah
19. Florida State
18. Oklahoma State
17. Michigan
16. Florida
15. BYU
14. Texas
13. USC
12. TCU
11. Notre Dame
10. Wisconsin
9. Penn State
8. LSU
7. Oregon
6. Oklahoma
5. Clemson
4. (Boise State)
3. Georgia
2. tOSU
1. Alabama

10 Years:
Washington, Texas A&M, Miami, and Iowa in. Wisconsin, TCU, USC, Florida State, Florida out

5 Years
Ole Miss and Tennessee

I also think a blue blood league would lose recruits that want to develop for the NFL. Why go to a cut-throat league when you can go to another quality league and develop without the circus.
Click to expand...
This is probably a good place to start for predicting the teams in a blue blood league but obviously there is a need for more than 15 teams.

www.on3.com

College Football TV Ratings: Tracking the Top 10 most-watched teams of the 2025 season

.
www.on3.com www.on3.com

The answer to your last question is money. Kids currently have the option now of playing in quality leagues with better guarantee of playing time and ability to preform for NFL scouts. But money talks and a blue blood league will have a lot more of it and likely wouldn't have House settlement limitations.

It's amazing what even a little amount of money can do. You'll bear with another SDSU anecdote from me but SDSU lost a ton of players when the coaching staff went to Wazzu, including the running back room and SDSU has had terrible RB depth this year. Angel Johnson, a SD kid who's been in the SDSU program for 4+ years, and who would have been SDSU's bell cow back, followed the staff to Pullman for $10,000. $10k. He's getting 4 or 5 carries at Wazzu per game. He would have had 15-25 in Brookings. SDSU's last three starting running backs are in the NFL (Pierre Strong, Isaiah Davis and Arar Johnson).
 

MaxyJR1 said:
How many teams are we talking in a Blue Blood League? It's not feasible with less than 24+ teams. Say it's run like the NFL scheduling. Imagine being a team that wins 10+ games every year and now half the league can't even get to .500.

I don't see anything less than 64 in a league.
Click to expand...

I think that's right. There are ~20 power conference schools that win 10+ games in a season right now (after postseason). In a 12 game schedule against equally talented teams, the probability of winning 10+ games is around 2%. Obviously even a 20 team league would not have equally distributed talent, but a Blue Blood league would either need to be large (and thus a misnomer) or allow for four annual non-conference games to hope to satisfy the expectations at these schools.
 

swede2 said:
There are 272 losses spread over 32 NFL teams each year yet those that lose more than they win still fill their stadiums and their fans still turn on TVs. If anything is settled in college sports, its that money talks and if 30 or 40 of the "top" brands in CFB can make more money from potential television and streaming partners, they will. losses be damned. We all would like to think that our programs are integral to the overall success of CFB but in reality, we haven't been in decades. As much as I'd like the old days to return, its a brave new world for CFB.
Click to expand...
My point is a conference with those "Top 30/40" will quickly become only 5-7 top teams. With each game played, one team loses. It will quickly settle back to the mean where there's are a handful of consistent top teams, a handful of consistent bottom teams, and a big middle where a majority will have annual win totals in the 5 to 8 range. In the P4, roughly half the teams in each conference have winning records. In the NFL, less than half the teams end up with winning records.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Most wins in the last 20 years: Is it $$ for Blue Blood or Wins. What is the price tag to be in the league?

20. Utah
19. Florida State
18. Oklahoma State
17. Michigan
16. Florida
15. BYU
14. Texas
13. USC
12. TCU
11. Notre Dame
10. Wisconsin
9. Penn State
8. LSU
7. Oregon
6. Oklahoma
5. Clemson
4. (Boise State)
3. Georgia
2. tOSU
1. Alabama

10 Years:
Washington, Texas A&M, Miami, and Iowa in. Wisconsin, TCU, USC, Florida State, Florida out

5 Years
Ole Miss and Tennessee

I also think a blue blood league would lose recruits that want to develop for the NFL. Why go to a cut-throat league when you can go to another quality league and develop without the circus.
Click to expand...
I think you would see a lot (not everyone of course) of lesser-recruited players or QBs that want to play right away end up in the also-ran league and then step up to the Blue Bloods for their third and any subsequent seasons (when I say any, after the Pavia court case some guys will be playing until the qualify to Social Security and Medicare). Also-ran ball would be like the lower minors in baseball and the advantage in the aforementioned scheme for college football is that the players are basically free agents every year and can move at will.

Another angle I'm not seeing discussed here is that sports--both college and pro--have become nationalized (not unlike politics, but that's for another board). When I was a kid (and that was many years ago as this story will indicate), I lived in Southern Minnesota but was an ardent fan of the Milwaukee Braves. There were few things I wanted more than a Milwaukee Braves' baseball cap. Could you get one in Minnesota? Nope. When Peter Ueberroth became baseball commissioner all that changed and local markets be damned. Along comes cable television with TBS, WGN, and (shortly after) ESPN. More exposure for non-local teams and changing allegiances for many fans. Add to that, the massive expansion of gambling over the past decade and a growing number of fans couldn't care less about the fate of the local team and instead wonder how much money they have riding on a game two time zones away.

I just think a conference of Blue Bloods would dominate the airwaves. Every game played on a weekend would be available on television so depending on the size of the league, you could have ten to fifteen (or maybe more) high-profile games being broadcast nationally with no local market considerations. Stagger the times so there's no overlap and fans can watch every game in its entirety. I think this is a long shot, but rich people usually hire clever people so nothing is beyond the realm of possibility here.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom