Paul Sullivan: As the era of 2 college super-conferences draws near, Notre Dame’s future appears up for grabs
Paul Sullivan, Chicago Tribune
Thursday’s news of USC and UCLA joining the Big Ten Conference as early as 2024 stunned the college sports world.
The prospect of two elite athletic programs teaming up with the nation’s most powerful Power Five conference might be the most anticipated merger since Joe Walsh joined the Eagles.
Did the Eagles really need Walsh to crank out hit after hit?
No, but they immediately turned out the granddaddy of all classic rock albums, “Hotel California,” and became better than ever with Walsh.
Ditto the Big Ten, which didn’t need USC or UCLA to prove its worth in the world of college sports but became exponentially greater with both schools as members.
What it means for the college football landscape will be the subject of intense speculation the next several weeks and months leading into September.
The idea of two super-conferences — the Big Ten and SEC — dominating the sport and leading to the extinction or irrelevance of the remaining three power conferences seems to be the most likely outcome, at least according to experts who somehow missed out on the biggest story of the year until it actually happened.
Oklahoma and Texas ignited the gold rush last year when the two most prominent Big 12 schools announced their decision to bolt to the SEC. Surely we haven’t seen the last “name” school eschewing tradition to join one of the super conferences and share the TV booty. And when that happens, the poor get poorer.
But who knows?
Maybe the Big 12, ACC and Pac-12 can survive as minor conferences. There certainly are enough networks and streaming services for everyone to get a share of the TV pie, even if it’s a sliver compared with the wheelbarrows full of cash the Big Ten and SEC will be raking in under their current and future contracts.
One of the biggest questions is what happens with Notre Dame, the only college football program that doesn’t need to share with the others because it’s freaking Notre Dame.
The Irish never needed to join a conference because NBC airs all of their home games in a deal that runs through 2025. They’ve had a national following for more than a century and have been doing just fine as an independent, making it to the College Football Playoff without having to win a conference title.
But according to Notre Dame’s agreement with the ACC, the Irish are obligated to join the conference if they decide to give up their independent status before 2036. That’s a long way from now, especially with the rapid alteration of the college sports landscape.
And if Clemson, Miami and another team bolt the ACC for the SEC, as some have predicted, the future of the conference would be in severe jeopardy.
The obvious choice for Notre Dame would be the Big Ten — the Irish would fit perfectly with the Ohio States, Michigans and USCs of the college football world. This has been discussed since Nebraska and Penn State joined the Big Ten, but the Irish didn’t need the Big Ten and kept the status quo.
Times change, and Notre Dame soon might have no choice but to join a conference. But why would the SEC let Notre Dame get away without making an offer that its president, Rev. John Jenkins, couldn’t refuse? If USC and UCLA are good fits for the Big Ten, why wouldn’t Notre Dame be comfortable in the SEC?
Perhaps coach Marcus Freeman could even affect a Southern accent like his predecessor, the chameleon-like Brian Kelly, who took LSU’s money and suddenly began sounding like he was shucking crawdads on the bayou. A Notre Dame schedule with games against LSU, Alabama and Georgia every season would be just as appetizing as a Big Ten schedule, and the SEC’s dominance proves it’s by far the best football conference.
While we await the fallout from the USC and UCLA exodus, we also mourn the loss of the Rose Bowl as the preeminent New Year’s Day bowl game. The tradition already took a hit when they played the 2021 Rose Bowl at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. No one seemed to blink when the “granddady of ‘em all” wasn’t played in Pasadena, Calif., so maybe no one will mind if USC were to play Washington State of the revamped Pac-6 Conference in the 2025 Rose Bowl.
College football can survive anything, no matter the unending competition for the biggest haul from universities that were built to provide education for students rather than entertainment for the masses. When it comes down to it, the game-day experience — including the marching bands, cheerleaders, fight songs, stadiums, age-old rivalries and newer traditions such as the “Jump Around” singalong in Madison, Wis. — make every fall Saturday a day to look forward to.
Changes always have been part of the game and always will be.
In the words of the House of Pain anthem performed at every Wisconsin game: “Get used to one style and yo and I might switch.”
Jump around, America. Jump around.
Mark Bradley: NIL money + transfer portal = chaos
Eric Gay
California college athletes would be the first to receive payments related to their athletic performance directly from schools. The NCAA, following what’s been laid out in court decisions, has always fought to keep benefits “tethered to education.”
Well, in SB 1401, much of the compensation still would be related to academics. The bill states a noble goal of improving graduation rates for Black athletes in football and men’s and women’s basketball — the only three sports where players currently don’t receive more than 50% of revenues back purely through their scholarships.
Schools would establish a degree completion fund for each athlete, and the contents of the fund — fed annually — would be made available soon after degree completion (within six years). If the athlete does not graduate within six years, he or she will forfeit the fund and it will go back into the athletic budget. Players would have immediate access to a maximum of $25,000 each year, while the rest would build over time.
Eric Gay
California college athletes would be the first to receive payments related to their athletic performance directly from schools. The NCAA, following what’s been laid out in court decisions, has always fought to keep benefits “tethered to education.”
Well, in SB 1401, much of the compensation still would be related to academics. The bill states a noble goal of improving graduation rates for Black athletes in football and men’s and women’s basketball — the only three sports where players currently don’t receive more than 50% of revenues back purely through their scholarships.
Schools would establish a degree completion fund for each athlete, and the contents of the fund — fed annually — would be made available soon after degree completion (within six years). If the athlete does not graduate within six years, he or she will forfeit the fund and it will go back into the athletic budget. Players would have immediate access to a maximum of $25,000 each year, while the rest would build over time.
The amount owed to each athlete would be the half of the sport’s total revenue minus the team’s total student grant-in-aid package divided by the number of players. For instance, each USC football player could make upwards of $200,000 a year.
Think about taking $15 million to $20 million that currently has been used to reinvest in football resources and to fund the rest of the athletic department and transferring it to football players, and it’s easy to see why administrators are getting ready for a fight.
On the other side of the coin — and this point will have been argued by Sen. Steven Bradford, the bill’s author, and National College Players Assn. executive director Ramogi Huma — should it really have been college football and basketball players’ sacrifice all these years to subsidize the training of America’s future Olympians?
There’s a compelling argument that the amateur model — particularly in the last two decades as television revenues have exploded — has led to a displacement of what could have been generational wealth for young Black athletes and their families.
Aaron M. Sprecher
The amount owed to each athlete would be the half of the sport’s total revenue minus the team’s total student grant-in-aid package divided by the number of players. For instance, each USC football player could make upwards of $200,000 a year.
Think about taking $15 million to $20 million that currently has been used to reinvest in football resources and to fund the rest of the athletic department and transferring it to football players, and it’s easy to see why administrators are getting ready for a fight.
On the other side of the coin — and this point will have been argued by Sen. Steven Bradford, the bill’s author, and National College Players Assn. executive director Ramogi Huma — should it really have been college football and basketball players’ sacrifice all these years to subsidize the training of America’s future Olympians?
There’s a compelling argument that the amateur model — particularly in the last two decades as television revenues have exploded — has led to a displacement of what could have been generational wealth for young Black athletes and their families.
The bill establishes a “pay for play” model but stops at designating athletes as employees, stating, “This does not establish evidence of an employment relationship between a student athlete and their institution of higher education.”
Among administrators, this is viewed as clever wording meant to make the bill easier to pass and harder to lobby against. The assumption is that once “pay for play” begins, employment and collective bargaining will quickly follow.
The bill establishes a “pay for play” model but stops at designating athletes as employees, stating, “This does not establish evidence of an employment relationship between a student athlete and their institution of higher education.”
Among administrators, this is viewed as clever wording meant to make the bill easier to pass and harder to lobby against. The assumption is that once “pay for play” begins, employment and collective bargaining will quickly follow.
That is hard to know. It has a long way to go, needing to make it through the Senate and then through a bunch of committees in the Assembly and then the Assembly floor before moving onto the governor’s desk.
The bill has already been amended. The original asked for Title IX protections and mechanisms in place to curb the cutting of non-revenue sports, but those parts have been removed to fully focus on revenue sharing.
Given the massive implications for athletic department budgets as it’s currently written, there has already been discussion about amending the payment structure to give schools the option of distributing only new revenues (increases year over year) to the players.
In that case, say USC football made $10 million more in 2022 than it did in 2021. Then all of the gain would go to feeding the players’ degree completion funds — $117,650 each — but the department would be able to continue to use the same amount from 2021 to fund the rest of its sports and avoid the doomsday scenario.
One thing to factor in is that the Pac-12 will be renegotiating its media rights contracts for 2024, which should bring in significantly more revenue from the conference.
If SB 1401 becomes law, much of that windfall could go to the athletes and quickly make them whole, so to speak, in working toward the bill’s requirement of a 50/50 split.
It seems likely that if the bill passes, it will have something like this new revenues option in place, because it would give the schools a chance to maintain their current level of operations.
Jae C. Hong
That is hard to know. It has a long way to go, needing to make it through the Senate and then through a bunch of committees in the Assembly and then the Assembly floor before moving onto the governor’s desk.
The bill has already been amended. The original asked for Title IX protections and mechanisms in place to curb the cutting of non-revenue sports, but those parts have been removed to fully focus on revenue sharing.
Given the massive implications for athletic department budgets as it’s currently written, there has already been discussion about amending the payment structure to give schools the option of distributing only new revenues (increases year over year) to the players.
In that case, say USC football made $10 million more in 2022 than it did in 2021. Then all of the gain would go to feeding the players’ degree completion funds — $117,650 each — but the department would be able to continue to use the same amount from 2021 to fund the rest of its sports and avoid the doomsday scenario.
One thing to factor in is that the Pac-12 will be renegotiating its media rights contracts for 2024, which should bring in significantly more revenue from the conference.
If SB 1401 becomes law, much of that windfall could go to the athletes and quickly make them whole, so to speak, in working toward the bill’s requirement of a 50/50 split.
It seems likely that if the bill passes, it will have something like this new revenues option in place, because it would give the schools a chance to maintain their current level of operations.
In the era of the one-time transfer waiver, this is a key component of the bill — especially one tied to degree completion.
The wording states that if an athlete transfers to another California institution, the degree completion fund will transfer after enrollment and be managed and funded by the new school.
If an athlete transfers to an institution out of state, the degree completion fund is forfeited.
Greg Beacham
In the era of the one-time transfer waiver, this is a key component of the bill — especially one tied to degree completion.
The wording states that if an athlete transfers to another California institution, the degree completion fund will transfer after enrollment and be managed and funded by the new school.
If an athlete transfers to an institution out of state, the degree completion fund is forfeited.
Huma, the former UCLA linebacker who has become one of the leaders of the college athlete rights movement nationally, is confident that the answer is no.
When the NCAA made threats against California with SB 206, the Department of Justice antitrust division established an NCAA boycott of California schools would be a violation of antitrust laws.
Power Five conference leaders already talking publicly about possibly leaving behind NCAA governance certainly wouldn’t help the association’s cause if it were to threaten California.
Brynn Anderson
Huma, the former UCLA linebacker who has become one of the leaders of the college athlete rights movement nationally, is confident that the answer is no.
When the NCAA made threats against California with SB 206, the Department of Justice antitrust division established an NCAA boycott of California schools would be a violation of antitrust laws.
Power Five conference leaders already talking publicly about possibly leaving behind NCAA governance certainly wouldn’t help the association’s cause if it were to threaten California.
Paul Sullivan: As the era of 2 college super-conferences draws near, Notre Dame’s future appears up for grabs
Matt Cashore/Getty Images North America/TNS
A general view of the Hesburgh Library and Word of Life mural, commonly known as Touchdown Jesus, before a game between the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the Clemson Tigers at Notre Dame Stadium on Nov. 7, 2020, in South Bend, Indiana. (Matt Cashore/Pool/Getty Images/TNS)
Matt Cashore/Getty Images North America/TNS
A general view of the Hesburgh Library and Word of Life mural, commonly known as Touchdown Jesus, before a game between the Notre Dame Fighting Irish and the Clemson Tigers at Notre Dame Stadium on Nov. 7, 2020, in South Bend, Indiana. (Matt Cashore/Pool/Getty Images/TNS)
