The Super League That Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua Warned About Would Face a Massive Perception Issue

In theory, it makes sense why it's being discussed.

Notre Dame athletic director Pete Bevacqua spoke in front of senators in Washington and referenced how a "Super League" would create the most lucrative TV package. That makes sense, especially coming from Bevacqua, AKA the former president and chairman of NBC Sports.

For what it's worth, Bevacqua said in that very same breath that he's "definitely" not in favor of a Super League, which would pool 24-30 of the top programs in the sport to play for their own championship.

Notre Dame AD Pete Bevacqua, who used to run NBC Sports, tells senators that the best way to make the most money from TV rights is a super league.

Then he says he doesn't want a super league.

Then he offers a sample super league schedule. pic.twitter.com/DgLtWJtL1H
— Andy Staples (@AndyStaples) June 3, 2026

But there's a major issue with what Bevacqua laid out

It's an issue that folks like Dan Wetzel and others pointed out. Strangely, it has less to do with money and more to do with the other thing that's always at the foundation of college football decision-making — hubris.

In reality, any suggestion of a Super League needs to also weigh the massive perception change that would be more drastic than any tweak in the history of this sport.

Picture Oklahoma boosters reacting to a 6-6 season. Oh, they wouldn't go 6-6, you say? The Sooners are 6-5 vs. AP Top 25 teams in their two seasons in the SEC. Welcome to the Super League, where everybody is basically a ranked opponent.

That's at least better than another potential Super League program like Nebraska, who hasn't beaten a ranked opponent since 2016. But hey, at least they have that lucrative TV contract! What happened the last time that Nebraska went up a level of competition for more TV money? Yeah, you get it.

Not all Super League teams would be climbing uphill like Nebraska, but the casual fan doesn't realize that beating ranked teams at an above-average clip is reserved for the truly elite.

Power 4 School Records vs. Ranked Opponents In CFP Era pic.twitter.com/ssh5uM9KX3
— The Next Round (@NextRoundLive) May 4, 2026

Going 8-4 — that's the exact joke people make at Texas A&M's expense — would be a remarkable season in a Super League. Treat that like a 0.666 winning percentage vs. ranked foes, which you can see is a mark that only 4 programs hit over the course of the 12 seasons of the Playoff era.

Would fans, boosters, administrators and athletic directors like Bevacqua accept the inevitable ebbs and flows that would come with that type of scheduling? And if so, doesn't that diminish the regular season if losses don't sting as much like we see in the NFL?

That's the issue here. At a time in which everyone is worried about the future of the college football regular season, even making a gauntlet of a schedule for the elite teams — as juicy as it could be — would have ramifications.

Plus, comparison would be dead in a sport that prides itself on it.

How does an Ohio State program that hasn't lost three regular-season games in 15 years have any concept of this new reality? Buckeye fans wanted to fire Ryan Day after dropping to 10-2 with the Michigan loss in 2024.

Will they suddenly accept a 9-3 regular season that aligns with their 0.763 winning percentage vs. ranked foes in the Playoff era?

Even in the mighty SEC, challenging 12-game schedules still feature seven matchups vs. unranked foes, and that has a massive impact on end-of-season records.

That's not just getting rid of Cupcake Week, which SEC commissioner Greg Sankey declared will be dead in 2027. Sankey also declared repeatedly that the SEC already was a "Super League."

Let's pretend for a second that Sankey is right

Do you think that SEC programs that lack historical success like Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt have been asked to drastically change their expectations in the 21st century? Those programs have combined for 10 winning seasons in conference play since 2000 (that's 9.6% of a possible 104 seasons in the 21st century).

Whether they admit it or not, at some point long ago, they accepted those lowered expectations. Would a fringe-Super League team like Florida, who already goes through coaches like air conditioning filters, instantly accept being to the Super League what Mississippi State is to the SEC?

These things don't happen overnight in college football. Dare I say, they're unrealistic.

If TV executives convince college football decision-makers to bypass all of those unintended consequences of a Super League at the end of the decade when the ACC exit fees drop to $75 million, it'll be a more egregious money grab than even a potential 24-team Playoff.

It would reset a sport that doesn't need a competitive reset in the way that some might suggest (we did just watch Indiana win a national title).

And for all the talk about trying to save the non-revenue college sports, what about the Mississippi States and Kentuckys of the world? Isn't cutting them and 75% of FBS out of a Super League more harmful to "college" athletics than bloated NIL-funded rosters?

For the sake of college football, let's hope Bevacqua is correct by saying that he's "not sure anybody wants a Super League." He's certainly correct in saying that a Super League would create a TV package unlike anything we've ever seen in college football.

Maybe just once, though, that won't win out.

Add us as a preferred source on Google