Big Ten, SEC Weigh $9B Project Rudy Super League Proposal

$9B Proposal by former Disney executives to Reshape College Football Faces Scrutiny as SEC and Big Ten Leaders Meet.

Vanderbilt forward Devin McGlockton (99) dunks the ball during an NCAA college basketball practice Tuesday, October 8, 2024, in Nashville, Tenn. / Mark Zaleski / The Tennessean / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

This week, the SEC and Big Ten are set to discuss significant changes within the landscape of college football, but behind the scenes, a proposal known as Project Rudy is quietly making waves. The concept, spearheaded by former Disney executives, aims to overhaul college football by establishing a 70-team super league, which they claim could attract up to $9 billion in private funding. As SEC and Big Ten leaders gather in Nashville, Project Rudy looms over the discussions, though its grand promises of reshaping the sport may be more disruptive than beneficial.

The creators of Project Rudy, Evan Richter, Kevin Mayer, and Tom Staggs, all former Disney insiders, envision a new era of college football driven by increased revenue from TV networks and corporate sponsors. Their proposal calls for eliminating games against smaller schools and focusing exclusively on high-profile matchups while expanding the postseason. According to a slide presentation obtained by Yahoo Sports, the project also consolidates the media rights of 70 schools under a single agreement, replacing the current, more complex model. But is simplifying these arrangements worth the risk of potentially sidelining longstanding traditions?

“Of all the ideas I’ve seen, this one makes the most sense,” said Miami athletic director Dan Radakovich, “Conferences are kept intact, commissioners still have an important and valuable role, and there is the ability for schools to make increased money from bigger matchups and more playoff games.” though not everyone shares his enthusiasm. While Project Rudy claims to preserve the power conferences and address the financial strain on many sports programs, some critics argue that it may introduce more problems than it solves, especially regarding equitable revenue sharing with athletes.

At the heart of the plan is a tiered revenue distribution system, projected to bring in $15 billion in new media and sponsorship revenue over 12 years. The 70 schools would be divided into three tiers, with the top 16 earning up to $250 million annually by the end of the period. Tier 2 schools would get between $60 and $110 million, while Tier 3 schools would be left with $30 to $60 million. Additionally, a promotion and relegation system could lead to instability as schools struggle to maintain their positions.

Though Project Rudy has attracted interest from over 25 athletic directors and commissioners from the SEC, Big Ten, and ACC, plenty of skepticism remains. “The Smash Capital idea is brilliant,” said one SEC administrator, “but you’ve got to convince those two guys,” referring to SEC commissioner Greg Sankey and Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti. Sankey and Petitti have expressed doubts about involving private equity in college sports. Sankey, for instance, voiced his reservations on the Triple Option, Stating: “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, they want to be us, and that's on them to figure it out, not on me to bring myself back to earth.”

Despite these reservations, proponents of Project Rudy argue it offers solutions to issues such as the upcoming revenue-sharing model, which could drain millions from athletic budgets. They believe the projected boost in media and sponsorship revenue will “offset player compensation obligations” related to the expected antitrust settlement. But with so many moving parts and uncertainties, can this project actually deliver what it promises, or is it simply too risky?

As discussions unfold under Sankey and Petitti’s leadership this week, the future of college football could hinge on whether they are willing to gamble on a model like Project Rudy. While the financial windfall it promises may tempt schools, especially those outside the SEC and Big Ten, many still wonder if the potential benefits outweigh the risks. As one power conference supporter noted, “Too many schools are saying, ‘This makes a lot of sense.’” But are they considering what might be lost in the process?