College Football Super League?
This is an old post from my Big Ten Football Blog titled “Big Ten Football ATS From the Couch”. Some parts are out of date (I don’t think the phrase BCS is still applicable but we all know who the power conferences are, I believe there are now 128 FBS teams, and of course the quote that instigated my post is old) but for the most part the sentiment still stands.
Originally posted 10-23-12 on Big Ten Football From the Couch
LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN
Wisconsin Athletics director Barry Alvarez would like college football to form a division that’s more exclusive than the current format. According to Tom Fornelli at cbssports.com the former Badger HC recently said “I’d like to see a league -- Southeast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 -- and have your own rules. Have rules that you know what the hell they are and that you could actually follow them, and let them have it. We’ve got a lot of rules and there’re a lot of haves and have-nots, and you’re making rules to make the have-nots happy. Let the guys who can afford it go do -- the guys that are filling those big stadiums; the leagues that have the big TV contracts. Let them go. That’s nothing against those other guys. But you can’t let that group hold the entire group back.”
I’m not sure what rules Alvarez is talking about, but I have no problem with the current division of 124 FBS schools. I do have a problem, however, with the discrimination that occurs within the division. This whole “BCS-non-BCS” thing, or as Alvarez puts it, “haves and have-nots”, has got to stop. It’s obvious that the have-nots are mistreated and that any shot at the title or a big money bowl appearance will be impeded as much as possible by the haves. So with that in mind, I’ve got to go along with Alvarez for whom I give credit for coming out and telling it like it is. The players on the “non-BCS” teams work just as hard as the “BCS” teams’ players and they should have a legitimate hope of winning a championship. If that’s not going to happen in the FBS, then a separate division with a separate title would be the solution.
But I would have one caveat for Alvarez and the rest of the “haves”. No more using the “have-nots” as a punching bag. No more charging full admission for a home game that amounts to nothing more than an exhibition designed to create the illusion that your team is better than it actually is. In other words, instead of opening up the season with four home games against the likes of UNLV, UMass, or Akron, haul your team down to Baton Rouge or over to Norman or Los Angeles. I think a “super league” (as Alvarez calls it), with the stipulation that the teams can only play each other, would be great for college football. Certainly more entertaining and the smaller field would go a long ways towards determining a true champion.
The question is, even with the lure of less revenue sharing, would such a condition have some schools backtracking on the idea since it will come with the price of facing a tougher schedule and possibly having to give up a couple of non-conference home games?