The Future of College Football: Proposals for a New Era
Over the past two weeks, college football has been thrust into the spotlight as two significant proposals aimed at reshaping the landscape of the sport have emerged. These proposals have garnered attention from administrators, intrigued fans, and, notably, skepticism from the commissioners of the SEC and Big Ten. But what exactly are these proposals about, and why are they surfacing now?
The Proposals: An Overview
Earlier this month, a group called College Sports Tomorrow (CST) unveiled an 18-page document outlining the “College Student Football League” (CSFL). This proposal seeks to reorganize the current 136-team Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) into a single league, effectively consolidating the existing 10 conferences into a more streamlined structure. The CSFL aims to address the growing concerns about the future of college football amid rapid changes in conference alignments and media rights revenues.
Simultaneously, venture capital firm Smash Capital has pitched “Project Rudy,” which proposes a significant financial investment into the Power 4 schools to create a unified business model that largely retains the existing structure of college football. This proposal, which has been shared with over 30 power-conference schools, emphasizes the potential for increased revenues and a more cohesive operational framework.
Both proposals share a common goal: to pull college football out of the NCAA’s current framework, which is facing numerous legal challenges, and to generate significantly higher revenues than schools currently receive. While neither proposal explicitly labels itself as a “super league,” the term has become a shorthand for these ambitious projects.
The Rationale Behind the Proposals
The driving force behind these proposals is the increasing consolidation of top football programs, particularly within the Big Ten and SEC. As these conferences expand and media rights revenues soar, there is a growing concern among other schools and stakeholders about the future viability of college football as a whole. The CST’s presentation highlights the potential consequences of inaction, warning that the SEC and Big Ten could form their own exclusive league, sidelining numerous other programs and irreparably damaging the landscape of college sports.
Moreover, the recent changes in college athletics, including the introduction of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights and impending revenue-sharing agreements, have left many athletic departments grappling with financial uncertainties. This environment has prompted various groups to explore solutions that would unify college football under a single umbrella, thereby maximizing revenue opportunities and simplifying operational complexities.
Key Players Behind the Proposals
The CST is led by Len Perna, CEO of TurnkeyZRG, and includes prominent figures such as North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham and Tennessee AD Danny White. Their collective experience in college athletics positions them to advocate for a restructured league that prioritizes the interests of the schools involved.
On the other hand, Smash Capital’s Project Rudy is spearheaded by former Disney executives Evan Richter, Kevin Mayer, and Tom Staggs. Their background in media and entertainment provides a unique perspective on how to leverage college football’s popularity for financial gain.
The Role of Private Equity
While the CSFL proposal emphasizes minimal reliance on outside capital, it primarily focuses on reorganizing the sport’s structure and leadership. The schools would retain ownership of the league and its revenues, ensuring that profits remain within the college football ecosystem.
In contrast, Project Rudy calls for a substantial investment from Smash Capital, projecting returns that could significantly enhance the financial landscape of college football. This approach highlights the growing interest of private equity in college sports, as investors seek to capitalize on the sport’s immense popularity and revenue potential.
Challenges Ahead
Despite the ambitious nature of these proposals, several hurdles must be overcome for them to gain traction. The first challenge lies in convincing the Big Ten and SEC to embrace a system that could disrupt their current advantages. Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti has expressed skepticism about the notion that college football is broken, indicating that the existing structure is working well for the top programs.
Another significant obstacle is the existing media rights deals and scheduled games that extend into the early 2030s. Both proposals suggest maintaining current agreements during a transition period, but navigating these complexities will be a daunting task.
Additionally, any changes to the structure of college football would likely require Congressional approval, particularly regarding antitrust exemptions. The history of college sports and Congress has been fraught with challenges, making this a formidable barrier to progress.
Structure of the Proposed Leagues
The CSFL aims to include all 136 FBS teams, organized into 20 divisions across two conferences. This structure would primarily feature current Power 4 schools while also incorporating teams from the Group of 5. In contrast, Project Rudy focuses on approximately 70 teams from the existing Power 4 conferences, with the possibility of including additional Group of 5 programs.
Both proposals incorporate elements of promotion and relegation, although the specifics vary. The CSFL suggests a system where top Group of 5 teams could be promoted to compete with Power 12 teams, while Project Rudy offers a more flexible approach without risking relegation for top-tier programs.
Scheduling and Revenue Models
Both proposals emphasize the importance of scheduling high-profile matchups between power-conference teams to maximize television revenue. By centralizing media rights, they aim to replicate the financial success of professional sports leagues, where broadcasters compete for exclusive rights.
Revenue sharing is a critical component of both models. The CSFL proposes distributing 94% of revenue to the Power 12 conferences, while Project Rudy outlines a tiered system based on performance, ensuring that schools maintain existing revenue levels.
Player Compensation and Transfers
The CSFL advocates for a collective bargaining agreement that would allow for player compensation through broadcast NIL deals and group NIL payments. This model would enable athletes to benefit financially while maintaining their status as students rather than employees.
Project Rudy presents a more flexible approach, allowing schools to adopt revenue-sharing models that align with the planned House settlement. Both proposals also address transfer regulations, with the CSFL suggesting a limit on transfers during a player’s eligibility.
Playoff Formats and Broader Implications
The CSFL envisions a 24-team playoff structure, while Project Rudy suggests a 12-team format with the potential for expansion. Both proposals aim to enhance the postseason experience while ensuring access for Group of 5 schools.
While these proposals primarily focus on football, they also recognize the financial implications for other sports. The revenues generated by football could help support non-revenue sports, allowing them to thrive within the evolving landscape of college athletics.
The Road Ahead
As discussions surrounding these proposals continue, there is no clear timeline for implementation. The Big Ten and SEC currently hold significant power and show little interest in altering the status quo. However, many stakeholders within college sports are eager to explore potential changes that could secure a more sustainable future for the sport.
Mark Abbott, a member of the CST leadership team, emphasizes the need for change, acknowledging the diverse perspectives that will shape the conversation moving forward. As college football stands at a crossroads, the outcome of these proposals could redefine the sport for generations to come.