Will Washington Huskies be part of potential college football super league?

Yeah well make believe bullshit is all Oregon has too with their made up conference "tiers" that reveal absolutely nothing other than Oregon is just marsh people with a black blazer mega booster fucking ghoul.
 
Don't show back up and be a dick, dtd. That chasm between 18th and 22nd truly is massive, yes. From my memory of playing around with rankings like that UW gets fucked really hard because of the nightmare level of bottoming out of the Gilby/Ty years that programs like UW generally just don't have usually in modern times.

I don't know if I agree with UW becoming a perennial Top 10 team and indy contracts to the level of USC and MIchigan, who I'm not sure are the programs I would suggest that for - I would think more Ohio State/Georgia/Texas there.

I also don't think a super conference would be that big - I would think 32 teams like the NFL would make the most sense.

If there was a true NFL Lite super conference one interesting thing to look at would be the value and direction of schools in big markets versus college colleges. I assume something like that the powers that be mostly care about growth potential and markets so a program even like Alabama or Oklahoma could be the perfect ones to have issues because they have little growth potential and no NFL style market.
 
I don't mind the superconference model as long as it is similar to the Premier league model.

You suck consistently, go sit in the corner and play with Cuog.

Start winning bigly or enjoy bowl games with Boise State. Sorry, bad example.

Start winning or enjoy bowl games with Fresno State.
 
1. Fuck soccer. We don't have a European shitty olay olay olay soccer culture here. It won't work.

2. The future of college football doesn't need to be overcomplicated. Have 3-4 real actually real conferences like their used to be and have a playoff like they have now, maybe slightly more expanded. Creating a whittled down superconference probably buys one more bigger TV contract and then it starts to fall off from there.

Maybe trim and optimize some of the conferences. I want to see Michigan, Ohio State, Indiana, Penn State playing each other every year. Maybe force Miami and Florida State to join the SEC and send the Texas schools and Oklahoma out west to play with the best west coast schools like we should have. It still doesn't make perfect sense but it does more than the west coast schools in the Big 10.
 
A bunch of good points being made ~ reducing “the league” to top 40-50 teams because the rest of the schools cant afford to compete is real. The fall out that results means fewer regional games degrades historical support from fans as more geographically local competition historical rivalries are eroded. W/L records erosion is also a real outcome. Public universities have a harder time justifying capital expenditure in support of NIL based competition over time.TV Execs, Player Pimps and Sugar Daddies wind up running the sport. Substantial player movement leaves fans wondering who the fuck is on my team, and should i root for this years mystery crop when I know that many will not be here next year. Uncertain time schedules which are decided with little lead time kill the enthusiasm from local fans that need any amount of travel time or that just do not want early or late game time slots. What a mess.
 
Last edited:
WoolleyDoog said:
1. Fuck soccer. We don't have a European shitty olay olay olay soccer culture here. It won't work.

2. The future of college football doesn't need to be overcomplicated. Have 3-4 real actually real conferences like their used to be and have a playoff like they have now, maybe slightly more expanded. Creating a whittled down superconference probably buys one more bigger TV contract and then it starts to fall off from there.

Maybe trim and optimize some of the conferences. I want to see Michigan, Ohio State, Indiana, Penn State playing each other every year. Maybe force Miami and Florida State to join the SEC and send the Texas schools and Oklahoma out west to play with the best west coast schools like we should have. It still doesn't make perfect sense but it does more than the west coast schools in the Big 10.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with your point about larger round robin conferences reduce the number of annual games between the powers in conferences. The top schools need to play each other every year. This is what killed the pac ~ that and the overwhelming idiocy of deciding that it was ok to approve Cal’s tantrum which insisted that the Bay Area schools were entitled to play USC and UCLA every year which totally fucked up conference scheduling and reduced the impact of Oregon / UW playing the LA schools which was key to maintaining interest in the conference. Fuck those guys, they totally earned the penalty of winding up playing in the ACC.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day, since ~2020 when this all got set into motion by Texas/Oklahoma, unless you want to bring up the entire Big 12, only Washington State and Oregon State have been kicked out of big boy football.

I don't agree at all about sports being less of an argument going forward. The schools are getting their funding cut, they need their "front porch" more than ever, all of them. There's already too much of an investment in most of it as well. Nobody wants to cut anything. Not even shit like tennis/beach volleyball in Seattle.
 
DawgOfTheAges said:
I totally agree with your point about larger round robin conferences reduce the number of annual games between the powers in conferences. The top schools need to play each other every year. This is what killed the pac ~ that and the overwhelming idiocy of deciding that it was ok to approve Cal’s tantrum which insisted that the Bay Area schools were entitled to play USC and UCLA every year which totally fucked up conference scheduling and reduced the impact of Oregon / UW playing the LA schools which was key to maintaining interest in the conference. Fuck those guys, they totally earned the penalty of winding up playing in the ACC.
Click to expand...
Was talking about that recently with Joey because of the crazy state that UW hasn't lost at USC since 2011 but the biggest part of that is the teams have only played six times since then. All to make way for bringing in Colorado and Utah and making sure they continue those great rivalries with Cal and Stanford.
 
I know, its crazy since UW vs USC had been the biggest rivarly for USC since 1980 ~ USC holds a little lead in the series [17-16] since 1980 but that includes the dead period for UW of 2002-2008 ~ if you subtract those lost years UW holds a commanding lead of 16-11. In more recent years it’s the same for Oregon ~ as Oregon has improved to be a national team, that rivalry would also have been the key to maintaining interest in the league. Piss poor leadership that failed to grasp the obvious need to realign the schedules and precious idiocy at Cal killed the league.

Another aspect of this is that because of substantially fewer games vs UW and Oregon over the last 20 -25 years, USC still is viewed nationally as the power house of the conference when in truth they have arguably been the third best team ever since Pete Carroll exited.
 
Last edited:
I don't think USC is viewed that way anymore. It bubbled up again when Riley was hired but it's back to "this is an old money program that you shouldn't fear" which is what they've been since firing Kiffin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top