Personally, I do not see how this helps the non-power 2. If the BIG and SEC band together, then the others will get less table scraps.

College-reform bill could generate extra billions by allowing conferences to pool their TV rights - Yahoo Sports

Super league.

Honest question, is there anything currently prohibiting this? I know they cite the 1961 law, but I doubt that would hold up, and if it did, I suppose that’s the reason for a super conference.

A media rights law from 1961 might as well be hieroglyphics imo. We barely even had color TV at that point.

Edited 48 minutes ago48 min by JabbaNoBargain

58 minutes ago, Steven A said:

Personally, I do not see how this helps the non-power 2. If the BIG and SEC band together, then the others will get less table scraps.

College-reform bill could generate extra billions by allowing conferences to pool their TV rights - Yahoo Sports

It doesn't help the Power 2. It could help the ACC and the B12, in theory, if they went to the marketplace together. But why would ESPN and Fox pay more for inventory they already own?

Texas Tech multi-billion-dollar oilman, Cody Campbell, who bought a talented roster for his Red Raiders football team, came up with this idea to save 'college sports.' A/K/A save Texas Tech football.

Texas and Texas A&M are in the Super Conference, no doubt. Texas Tech?

12 minutes ago, JabbaNoBargain said:

Super league.

Honest question, is there anything currently prohibiting this? I know they cite the 1961 law, but I doubt that would hold up, and if it did, I suppose that’s the reason for a super conference.

A media rights law from 1961 might as well be hieroglyphics imo. We barely even had color TV at that point.

The idea is to eliminate antitrust concerns for the schools and the media. It's another attempt, along with the House settlement, to preserve college sports as they were before the introduction of NIL.

I believe the state of Washington has a law on the books allowing NIL. Right, Senator?

It makes sense on some levels, pooling the product thus negating conferences from competing with each other for TV revenues. It would be a massive money maker and thus the increasing competition would almost certainly drive up the cost for the networks. That said, why would the B1G and the SEC go along with this when they're currently getting the lion's share of the TV revenue? Only by force and I doubt congress has the ability or even the inclination to institue such a system.

The creation of a super conference would probably alleviate a lot of resistance from the B1G/SEC but only if the bottom line for these conferences improves. Otherwise why would they voluntarily give up their increasing revenue and power to support lesser conferences/teams? In such a scenario the G5 (G6?) conferences would only be getting the scraps anyway so how does that improve parity and provide stability to the non-revenue sports?

Splitting the FBS into two divisions and letting them each negotiate their own consolidated TV deals might make the most sense, but again I just don't see the desire or fortitude from congress to make this happen. Right now the B1G/SEC/ESPN are the majority shareholders and they like they power/control they have over the sport and I just don't see that changing.