Iowa probably is a hard no. I base that on the current makeup of the state legislature and board of regents.
Cracks in the B1G?
- Thread starter twojman
- Start date
I don't think Iowa would have an issue voting in favor of unequal distribution of CFP/Bowl revenues, with a higher cut going to the schools that earned them. I wouldn't count on a majority voting in favor of unequal media revenue distribution, and that's even if tOSU pushed for it. Getting a higher cut of their CFP/Bowl appearances would probably satisfy them.
Also you could make a good argument of Nebraska being a hard no , based on the university’s financial position and the athletic departments plan for renovations. Unless the CFP doubles to 24 or something like that, Nebraska isn’t going to enough playoffs to make it worth while.
That's my point. There's no way they get 6 more without huge concessions that would defeat the purpose.
They end up changing CFP/NCAA Tournament distributions but never touch media rights.
My point is the type of argument Ohio State uses to convince EIU tells you immediately what they will do in case it fails.
I am pretty sure we have seen proof many years and weeks that the AP poll is complete garbage. These reporters dont even check the scores to see who won or lost before they pick their favorite teams into the polls.
Sure it can be but that doesn't change the fact that Michigan was the AP national champion that year. Coaches polls are equally garbagy.
I didn't say it was. That was the other guy saying AP polls are garbage as a way to I assume disagree with Michigan winning it that year. I just said Coaches polls can be equally garbagy as AP polls.
The biggest issue is if they figure out something else to hold over their heads.
Similar to what FSU did, you vote for it or we pack up and leave and you will get peanuts.
I think that will be the first iteration of the super conference model to really appear.
Not so much that they want or expect it to happen, but the top dogs in the SEC and B1G could threaten to jump ship to create their own blue blood conference for way more money. If the middle of the pack teams in those conferences believe it could happen they may vote for unequal revenue knowing they would still get more that way than without the bluebloods.
This could be nothing more than a bluff but at that point no one knows.
OR
Here is the other thing. If during a new media deal, the majority would get at least the same amount or a small increase, while the top teams get a bigger increase then they may agree to it.
Say everyone is getting 100M in the B10 at the time of the new contract.
With unequal revenue the lowest teams would get 80-100M. The middle teams would get 110-120M and top teams would get 130-140.
What that does is give majority of teams the same or a small increase. Just that the top teams would get a larger increase. This would be the easiest way to enact it, and once its enacted its hard to put it back in the bottle so to speak.
I dont know how likely I see it happening but I would not give it a zero percent chance. I believe the B10 and SEC will have some form of unequal revenue in the next contract. That may only be playoff/NCAA money to start, but once it gets started it could very well just be the start.
That being said a lot of things change. Look how much its changed in the last 20 years. And the next 20 I am sure will change just as much.
Fair enough. I would point out that there were two members of the Big 12 North in the top 7.
Yeah, I don't know why people think this can't happen.
Networks would utterly salivate over this.
Then they do what UT, OU and USC did, starting talking about leaving the conference to form this new super league. Just the talk of doing so will bring some schools around, just like it did to the B12 schools, ISU being one of them. They will accept unequal payouts to keep the money they were expecting rolling in. If they don't then form the super league and move on. They haves like always have the cards to play, the MSU and EIU do not, when pressed they will fold or look for another landing spot.
At least the Coaches poll is voted on people that actually know football. Sure they also may have no idea who won etc. But Most coaches I think at least pull up the weekends scores before they vote, which obviously the sports ball reporters dont.
they all are garbage really. But I will say outside the AP the vast majority voted Nebby as #1. Nebby had a much more meaningful Bowl game, that really I am not sure how anyone voted Michigan as #1 looking at the results of the bowls. But then again they probably voted without actually looking at the scores first.
Nebby destroyed the #3 team. Michigan scrapped by the #8 team.
Relitigating the 1997 National Title is peak off week content.
Not sure how much more SIDs really know about football than AP voters. Lol.
Not saying you're wrong on your facts. Just saying, Michigan was the AP national champion that year and that was the recognized one. Just the truth.
I've looked at this and I think 20 to 30 at most is all you need.
The goal is just to fill the main timeslots on the main networks. There's about 3 good timeslots (noon, afternoon, evening) and you don't want more than 2-3 good games per slot or you dilute viewers and value. So maybe 6 to 9 quality matchups per week. Add one for friday night maybe. You can absolutely get that from a 20 team league.
Hell the SEC has 11 ranked teams, right now. What would the viewership be like if Fox, Espn, ABC put ONLY those 8 SEC games on per week? Hint - very very high.
Yes some teams will lose, but would the average fan rather watch 8-1 Michigan play 3-5 Purdue, or watch 8-1 Michigan play 3-5 Florida State? The TV networks believe so (and are probably right). As for fans losing interest in their programs when they lose - the blue bloods always think they can come back quick.
People watch the Jax Jaguars, and they don't even have alumni.
