2 weeks Ago
Syracuse University Chancellor Kent Syverud is part of a group working to re-shape college football. (Dennis Nett | [email protected]) Chris Carlson | ccarlson@syracuse.
com Syracuse, N.Y. — Syracuse Chancellor Kent Syverud hasn’t sought the spotlight very often during his decade leading the school.
He hasn’t injected himself into sports very often either. A leader who prefers to do his work behind the scenes, Syverud uncharacteristically thrust himself into the middle of a national debate last week, attaching himself to an effort that aims to overhaul college football and was scoffed at by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey, often considered the most powerful person in college athletics. Syverud called it “sticking his neck out.
” Given the number of factors at play, it’s certainly a long throw down the field. Still, Syverud’s willingness to take an uncomfortable step speaks volumes about the importance of this moment to schools like Syracuse, which aspires to play football at the highest level but may ultimately have little control over its fate. “My job mainly is to look around corners and ensure that Syracuse University is well-positioned whatever happens to college sports in the future,” Syverud said.
“That’s what I’ve been working pretty hard on the last year. ..
. A lot of people have interest in this because a lot of people are making a lot of money. I think this is in the best interest of fans and certainly Syracuse University, which is why I’ve been sticking my neck out on it.
” Syverud has thrown his support behind the College Student Football League, an idea proposed by a group calling itself College Sports Tomorrow. College Sports Tomorrow is a group of eight sports executives including former NBA star Grant Hill, Major League Soccer co-founder Mark Abbott and Cleveland Browns co-owners Dee and Jimmy Haslam. The group’s ideas have been circulated in national news reports for months .
The group introduced itself officially last week with a press release. Syverud was identified as an “ambassador.” Three days after the press release, Syverud co-authored an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education headlined, “The Demise of College Sports as We Know Them.
” On Tuesday he had a rare conversation with local reporters, sharing thoughts on the college sports landscape for the first time and continuing a media blitz. In their editorial, Syverud and West Virginia president Gordon Gee warned about the possibility that a 36-team Super League could form and that “sustainable college sports would shrink to 30 or 40 schools.” Syracuse and West Virginia would be at major risk of being squeezed from the sport’s highest level in college football’s high-stakes game of musical chairs.
The proposal they back, the College Student Football League, includes a home for all 136 Football Bowl Subdivision teams. It includes a top tier of 72 schools that would be placed in divisions based largely on geography and natural rivalries. According to The New York Times’ description of the league , teams at the lower level that perform well could move up, although none of the 72 schools initially placed in the highest level would be in danger of moving down.
Syracuse would play in that higher tier, part of a division that includes Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Penn State and Rutgers. The league would be football-only, allowing basketball and Olympic sports teams to return to competing in regional conferences. While proposals like the College Student Football League have an understandable appeal at schools like Syracuse where the future is murky, there is substantial skepticism that the biggest winners in the current system would sign on.
Sankey, who leads one of the two powerhouse conferences in college football, has been particularly dismissive of the idea. He discussed the idea of a 70-team league during a podcast hosted by former Florida coach Urban Meyer and former Alabama running back Mark Ingram. “I’ve studied it a little bit and I come back to, I don’t want to dumb down the Southeastern Conference to be a part of some super league notion with 70 teams that some people speculate would happen,” Sankey said on the Triple Option podcast .
“They want to be us and that’s on them to figure it out, not on me to bring myself back to earth.” Despite that bucket of cold water, Syverud said Tuesday he believes the proposal would hold appeal even among powerhouse programs like the Big Ten’s Ohio State and the SEC’s Alabama. Even those athletic departments, he said, are concerned about a future that could combine continued legal challenges, direct payments to athletes from schools and unlimited payments to athletes from boosters and fans.
“I’ve talked at length with least with one of those two, I’ll tell you, so I can answer concretely,” Syverud said. “The current model is not sustainable even for Ohio State and Alabama. That’s because there are no constraints on an ever-upward spiral of spending to have the best team.
If a very small number of schools are spending to have the best team, then the rivalries are not going to be very fun to watch. And that is going to affect the net revenue that comes in.” Syverud’s group is not alone in trying to reshape college football.
A 70-school proposal, dubbed Project Rudy, was the subject of a report by Yahoo! on Tuesday. Put together by a venture capital and private equity firm, Project Rudy would include outside investment in college sports. It would pay more money to more successful programs, a potential carrot for the biggest brands in college sports.
Syverud said he learned of that proposal on Tuesday by reading about it. He said he is open to other ideas. He said he is advocating for the College Student Football League because it advances conversation and has multiple important benefits.
“I’m not living and dying on any particular proposal,” Syverud said. “I just need us to have the courage to actually talk about where we’re going to end up if we don’t seriously consider alternatives.” One of the benefits to the College Student Football League, Syverud said, would be an increased chance at support from Congress.
For years school presidents and athletic officials have expressed hope that Congress would grant the NCAA an antitrust exemption, claiming that one was necessary for the organization to create enforceable rules. Schools have also expressed a desire not to have athletes classified as employees despite the fact that playing college sports is often accompanied by many demands common in a job. Syverud pointed out that Congressional cooperation would be more likely with a league like the College Student Football League, which doesn’t hurt any schools and would include members from 42 states.
A Super League would have less representation and fewer friendly politicians. Even the newer 70-school proposal would cause harm to some schools and states. “Any proposal has to command the support of Congress because some legislation is needed for any proposal,” Syverud said.
“Any proposal has to involve enough schools so that there is skin in the game for the whole country, not just for favored parts of the country.” Rules on player payment in the CSFL would be collectively bargained with a players’ association, Syverud said. Syverud said that would create a path for schools to negotiate some limitations on payments to players that utilize their name, image and likeness (NIL) without concerns about violating anti-trust law.
Without the proposal — or something similar — Syverud warned that a dwindling number of schools will find themselves capable of competing for a national championship and that schools will invest less money to their Olympic sports. “I think it’s the most realistic solution if people want college sports to be preserved in a way that is recognizably attractive for the majority of fans and for the benefit of student-athletes,” Syverud said. “I think it’s not necessarily the model that’s the direction we’ll go if we let things happen based on money and greed.
” So far, though, money and greed have paved the way. Syverud said that despite the impression that it creates stability, he believes a legal settlement in an anti-trust lawsuit against the NCAA and its power-conferences that received preliminary approval by California district judge Claudia Wilken on Monday will only provide a brief break from legal challenges. If approved, the settlement, which could remain in place for 10 years, would allow schools to pay athletes up to 22% of the average revenue of schools in Power-Four leagues.
The settlement estimates that payment would be more than $20 million starting next year and reach $32.9 million in 2034-35. According to the most recent data submitted to the United State Department of Education, Syracuse brought in $113.
5 million in athletic revenue in 2022-23. The payments are optional. Syverud did not provide a direct answer when asked whether Syracuse would pay athletes the maximum amount next year if allowed.
“I’ll just say Syracuse University is committed to competing at the top echelon in college sports,” Syverud said. “Intercollegiate athletics is part of the brand at Syracuse University, including in our academic programs related to sports. I’m confident we’ll do what it takes to compete at the highest level.
” When it was pointed out that didn’t answer the question, Syverud noted the school is currently running a small deficit in its athletic department. “We’re running a deficit in intercollegiate athletics,” Syverud said. “We’ve run a balanced budget for much of the time I’ve been here, including during the most challenging time of all, which was Covid.
We’re running a deficit now because we are shifting resources to make sure we compete in football. “We’re doing everything we can to raise revenue. That deficit is a tiny fraction of Syracuse University’s budget.
We’re blessed that we have very strong financials right now, but we have to be responsible for the future. We are very focused on what it looks like in the out years at this point.” As the SEC and Big Ten’s television deals balloon in value, the amount all schools are permitted to pay athletes will increase too.
At Syracuse that will mean annual decisions about whether payments to athletes should take up a greater share of its athletic budget than the previous year. The settlement leaves plenty of questions unanswered beyond how much schools like Syracuse will choose to pay. It provides the possibility of some limitations on NIL payments but doesn’t offer details about how that will be done.
It doesn’t tell schools how to split up their money. It’s unclear how Title IX applies. It does not guarantee there will be no future legal challenges.
“That settlement will give the illusion of stability for, I think, one more season at most,” Syverud said. “For the long run it’s a house of cards. It will gradually come apart.
“It could be employee status from the National Labor Relations Board. It could be Title IX and women’s sports issues that are woefully unaddressed in the settlement. It could be high school players that say they aren’t bound by it when they get to college.
“It will come apart for a whole bunch of reasons and I can’t tell you which one will hit first.” Contact Chris Carlson anytime: Email | Twitter | 315-382-7932.
