If other schools were a value add, they'd have been added in the last cycle (aside from the ACC schools that were trapped).
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
I don't. Media revenue is always going to be equal and the top schools know they need to have competitive games. Does them a disservice to play 7 blowouts a year.
Rutgers: Sued for Keeping Up with the Jones’ - Voices at Temple
A new lawsuit against Rutgers University challenges the legality of university funding for athletics deficits, raising broader questions about college sports spending and Big Ten financial pressures.
www2.law.temple.edu
Last year media reported that the Iowa Athletic department had a $220 million debt. I know that the state gave them a $50 million welfare loan that they probably won’t pay back. What was the other $170 million from? Are they building something new that we haven’t heard about?
No, if they were unequivocal adds, they would have
But if the BIG misses on other targets, there are schools that they “passed” on that can fit their plans
Several things will be different in the next round than last round. For example, closer to basketball changes, comfort with streaming, and need for bigger tent
Not sure about that.
First, if Notre Dame joins a conference, seems like a borderline school could be added because of Notre Dame's elite value. Aka Stanford, Duke, etc.
Second, if Amazon, Netflix, Apple and their deep pockets become active in the next media rights round, will more schools be needed to fill inventory. Part of this equation could be whether the streamers only want top-tier games or do they want inventory to attract subscribers.
Third, if men's basketball rights are negotiated separately from football, does that elevate schools with blue blood hoops programs. What's the incremental value of 30ish Duke or KU games to MBB media rights?
Lastly, does the SEC decide to grow beyond the southeast? Will their TV partner want to make sure their game inventory has a national audience. In part the response could also be keeping up with the Big 10 or competing with Big10 territorially.
The Big Ten and SEC aren't in a position where they have to 'settle'. They aren't going to add just to add and they aren't bringing in anyone that dilutes the pie. They were going to be perfectly happy stopping after USCLA last time and passed on OU/Wash until the price made sense.
The 5 ACCs plus Notre Dame are the only schools that have a path to the P2.
I also reject the notion that there's any real money to be made by separating college basketball rights. It's a regional, niche sport that the general fan only cares about for 3 weeks in the spring, and the powers that be are dead set on ruining that as well. If there was value, the Big East with their big brands in huge markets would be making a lot more money than they are. UConn wouldn't be holding on to FBS football if using basketball as the engine were feasible.
Nobody will have the resources if this continues to get out of hand with NIL, currently is being reported at a roster good enough to win a championship so going for upwards of $50 million. What happens in 5 years when the number is $100 million, and rising? It's one thing for some wealthy people to throw money at the sport, but are they going to do that when the numbers keep getting larger and the team is struggling to win.
We are in the old west and not every team is the Dodgers, with unlimited resources.
Well, they didn't get in the ear of Senators from TX, WA and MO who are 3 of the lead sponsors of Cruz-Cantwell. And several states with SEC and B10 schools also have multiple G5 schools that would greatly benefit financially. And obviously SEC and B10 schools would greatly benefit as well. ESPN and Fox are the only ones who don't benefit and most members of Congress are beginning to figure that out.
You have an interesting definition of most since they couldn't even get the House bill to the floor for a vote.
In the Matt Brown video you posted a couple days ago he said the SEC/B10 schools would rather maintain a financial advantage over the rest than making more money and creating a more even playing field. So SEC/B10 may benefit financially but if you lose more on the field because the competition is stronger then they lose. SEC/B10 is just too shortsighted to see that if they smoke out all other schools eventually people will care less and everyone will lose in the long run
Don't know how many times I need to explain this to you but SCORE never had a chance in the House due to the lack of SBA/Pooling language and strict anti-employee language. But at least Sankey and Petitti supported SCORE without SBA and anti-Super League language. And then you had the House Black Caucus blockade it in the House due to an entirely unrelated issue.
Cruz-Cantwell has a much better shot of getting passed in the House if an unrelated issue doesn't blockade it again.
Last edited:
So the provision that the power brokers and most influential voices want the least (SBA reform) and the fact that it actually makes a stronger provision than the Black Congressional Caucus walked from (capping earning) is what's going to push it over the line?
Good luck with that.
In a pooled 7x10 scenario where Fox retains the B10 and also has the Legacy 10-team PAC, the number of your so-called premium games remains essentially the same with strategic non-con scheduling as shown here. Plus you have added the benefit of actually and fairly determining a conference champ via the round robin. The only noticeable dilution is substituting Oregon-Ohio St for Oregon/Oregon St and Ohio St/Minnesota but Ohio St is replacing Oregon with Penn St on 10/10 :
9/26:
Oregon-USC
Illinois-Ohio State
Wisconsin-Penn State
Iowa-Michigan
10/3:
Ohio State-Iowa
Washington-USC
10/10:
Iowa-Washington (Arizona St-Washington)
Indiana-Nebraska (Indiana-Iowa)
UCLA-Oregon
USC-Penn State (Ohio St-Penn State)
10/17:
Ohio State-Indiana
Penn State-Michigan
Nebraska-Oregon (Arizona St-Oregon)
Wisconsin-UCLA (Arizona-UCLA)
10/24:
Oregon-Illinois (Penn St-Illinois)
Indiana-Michigan
USC-Wisconsin (USC-Arizona St)
10/31:
Washington-Nebraska (Washington-Arizona)
OSU-USC (Fox Non-Con Game moved to early SEP)
Wisconsin-Iowa
11/7:
Nebraska-Illinois (Wisconsin-Illinois)
Michigan State-Michigan
Oregon-Ohio State (Oregon/Oregon St & Ohio St/Minnesota)
Penn State-Washington (Penn St-UCLA Fox Non-Con Game moved to early SEP)
11/14:
Illinois-UCLA (Arizona St-UCLA)
USC-Indiana (Penn St-Indiana)
Michigan-Oregon (Fox Non-Con Game moved to early SEP)
11/21:
UCLA-Michigan (Wisconsin-Michigan)
Iowa-Illinois
Ohio State-Nebraska (Ohio St-Wisconsin)
Indiana-Washington (Fox Non-Con Game moved to early SEP)
11/28:
Washington-Oregon
USC-UCLA
Michigan-Ohio State
Nebraska-Iowa (Minnesota-Iowa)
Your idea of big brand teams is a little different than mine. lol
C'mon. Oregon State and Ohio State are essentially the exact same plus FOX notoriously only cares about their ratings in Oregon and not national numbers.
Rational! Puppets! Big Ten Boy!
Now you're making up $hit.
The CBC didn't walk away due to capped earnings. Two CBC members, Shomari Figures (AL) and Janelle Bynum (OR), actually were part of drafting SCORE:
"The CBC said it was unwilling to support any legislation that “benefits major athletic institutions that continue to remain silent while Black voting rights and Black political power are being systematically dismantled across the South.” “For generations, Black athletes have helped build college athletics into one of the most powerful and profitable industries in American life,” the caucus said. “Yet at the very moment those same communities face coordinated attacks on their democratic representation, too many leaders across college athletics have chosen silence.”
So, another way of saying that administrators and coaches can make whatever they can while the capping athlete, especially minority athlete, pay.
Got it. You're so far out of your depth here, pal.
That is quite the silly leap to conclusions on your end. If there was truly an issue with capped athlete earnings, the CBC would have explicitly referenced that in their statements.
