College Football Super League

Lots of talk this week. Who would be your 15?

Andy Staples said it best “It would be the 15 that you think would get you the most-watched TV product. So you’d need to balance distributing geography with brand recognition and success.”

Football could extract the P5 into a Super Org and operate a CFP format using 8 teams (Conference Champions and 3 next best)

I’ll bite. It would obviously have mostly the ‘blue bloods’ - a mix of recent and long term success. Integrating geography makes it a little interesting - obviously there aren’t many western P5 (PAC12). I would probably list:

from SEC
1 Alabama (SE)
2. Florida (SE, FL)
3. Georgia (SE)
4. LSU? (SE) OR TAMU? (TX) OR Tenn? (maybe these are ones that can be relegated)

from ACC
5. Florida State (SE, FL)
6. Clemson (SE)
7. Miami (SE, FL)
8. Notre Dame* (Midwest)

from Big Ten
9. Ohio State (Midwest)
10. Michigan (Midwest)
11. Nebraska (Midwest) OR Penn St (Midwest?)

from Big 12
12. OU (Midwest)
13. Texas (TX)

from PAC12
14. USC (West)
15. Oregon (West)

Some schools have been down lately or for a while but if they were part of this, would probably get a boost (e.g. Nebraska - FB has changed, but maybe they go back to the big OL/option style for who they could recruit).

Would be an interesting model if it was like Champions league, but basically that’s just a playoff. Or that league could play spring, creating year round football (and injury and depth issues). Wait, this is turning into a legit semi-pro league instead of college athletics :wink:

LSU over TAMU/Tenn
Penn St over Nebraska
Drop Miami, and add Washington

It’s not clear to me that this superleague could thrive. I think the Iowa States, Auburns, Minnesotas, and Utahs collectively add more to the sport than people know.

1 Like

Sometimes I forget that there are only 4 P5 teams in the mountain time zone and 8 in the pacific. And I don’t know why AAC is on here and this is old since Rutgers, Louisville, etc. are in the wrong conference. Western schools are right though.

15? Man that’s tough. No matter how you slice it you’re leaving out some pretty solid programs.

1 Like

Good start but why give Florida Three schools while California and Texas only get one school. Here is no one is expecting… Maryland. The DC/Baltimore area is a football hotbed. I’d add them before FSU or Miami. Also, I think Utah is sitting in an interesting spot with the #30 market.

Markets vs. fanbase vs. tradition. I generally also looked at recency and frequency of competing for a national title. Of course there is an east coast bias - that’s where all the people are.

Top states for recruits (using 2010-2016 data just because it was the 1st article I found): Texas (but get spread out or also go to out-of-state schools like OU, Alabama, Mich, etc.), Florida, CA (similar to Texas - go all over and lots of CA universities too), Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio (1st non-warm weather state), Virginia, Penn, etc.

I didn’t just force regionality to fit another CA (did consider UCLA) or Texas (besides Texas and TAMU, no one else really that fits my criteria - Tech? no. TCU? no. Baylor? no.) school in. FL has 3 schools because they have 3 that have won multiple NCs (and in the last 30-40 years). Florida State (8 total NC): 1993, 1999, 2013; Miami (9): 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, 2001); Florida (5): 1996, 2006, 2008.

Maryland? No (although NC in 1953). Market just is more pro sports. Minor fandom for Rutgers, MD, Pitt, UVA, etc. compared to others listed.

Utah? At this point, probably not (next tier fighting to get up) Market may be #30, but it’s not owned solely by Utah (maybe not even half). To @sancho’s point, there are a lot of pretty good teams (now) but are still not consistent or have had a dynasty period, but could compete. 15 makes it hard - balance of present and past/program success.

Really, it would just be the ‘bully’ club, so it has to include Texas (of which I’m an alumn but fully admit the Longhorn network drove out TAMU and Neb), Nebraska (hated dealing with Texas), Alabama (Saban era, but historical as well), Ohio State (bully of the B1G), OU, USC, TAMU (hated dealing with Texas), Notre Dame (would want own TV deal), Michigan, Florida State (been down), etc. that all think they are better than everyone else.

I mean, these are kind of the teams that if they played each other, I would probably watch without thinking (especially if both are ranked).

Interestingly enough, I don’t like most of the teams that are speculated to be part of the Super League.


I agree. I think 4 16-team leagues would be a better model. Or leave it how it is and expand to P5 champs, best G5, 2 at large playoff.

The Maryland, DC area is one the hottest recruiting hot spots. That’s my only point. Plus, you need that Central Atlantic coast.

Every team out there has a nontrivial fan base. If you add up the interest from the 100 teams that aren’t in the Super League, you get a massive amount of viewership.

There are two assumptions here:
(1) Folks will just jump on board and watch these 15 teams beat each other up year after year.
(2) The other 100 teams will still run football programs at a lesser level, and those games will still draw dollars.

I’m not sure how robust either assumption is.


FWIW, here is Andy Staples 15.

It was fun to play this little game, but it’s generally a stupid idea. It can work with futbol as the teams play in various leagues simultaneously and players also play for their national teams. This could maybe work better for college basketball, but the interest is even lower than college football.

1 Like

I’m not sure it would be the flop we all believe. Personally I say a 16 team playoff with ALL conference champs is needed. On the flip side it would be interesting to see it setup with relegation and promotion by region like soccer does internationally.

SEC, PAC, ACC, Big XII and Big 1G with 2 slots. Then 5 at large with at least one Non-Power 5 slot.

I think it might be super successful. I just don’t know how all the disenfranchized fans would react.

There is no way it would ever happen with relegation. The powerful do not willingly give up power.

No Washington, TAMU, Tennessee, Virgina Tech, Florida State, Wisconsin or Iowa (who has two of the greatest traditions in all of college football). That would be brutal.

I wouldn’t have any of those teams but Wisconsin in. Boot Nebraska for Wisky.

I would add Utah before Washington. No need for two PNW teams.

Oh, I agree. The only reason the Super Conference would work is if those teams could pay players and they attract the best athletes.

I’m just going on record that making anything more like soccer makes that thing worse. This is probably the dumbest idea in sports I’ve heard of in a long time and if it happens, probably takes me out of watching college football ever again.


No it won’t. We’re all addicts.

Also, trying to make the game better is not a bad idea. Also, everyone already knows the current system only allows like 15 teams a shot as is. So right now it’s just a charade.