Perspective from the Big Ten and some much needed clarifications

Yellow Snow

Full of nonsense....
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 19, 2006
2,493
2,211
113
Osage, IA
So this is pure speculation on my part because the pac 12 is such a mess that no one knows what is going on there. I think if they could swoop up Oregon and USC then they would in a heartbeat. Outside of Stanford nothing else really moves the needle because football is still king for ratings/revenue. But those schools have such a poor geographical fit that it adds an additional complication and I don't think they want to go over 16 teams. It is unbelievably difficult to remove a school from the conference so as much as i would love to drop nebraska and rutgers that just isn't realistic.
This is just my line of thinking...

It would make no sense for the Big 10 to not kick the tires regarding the PAC schools. What do they have to lose? Ask Stanford, Oregon, or whoever... sup? Do you think I'm cute?

If the PAC schools decline their advances, the BIG will do nothing. They don't have to.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
5,781
6,263
113
37
Appreciate your thoughts on this. I would say that there are some counterpoints to consider as well.

If the BIG sits tight until the 2030's, how large will the gap between the SEC and BIG have grown by then? It may be more about damage control than trying to keep up at this point.

The other would be that trajectories/projections of the fan base trends should be considered. ISU is one of the few growing fan bases with growing attendance/stadium capacity (3rd largest stadium in Big 12). Jack Trice would be a top half BiG stadium in a 16 team conference. 8th right after Kinnick and ahead of Illinois. There aren't many of those around. I'd even guess that your Sparty fan base is not on that same trajectory (not trying to be confrontational). It is truly rare in this age of shrinking attendance. Just a few more thoughts on the matter

Great points! The gap is probably going to shrink. Remember the big ten has always made more money then the SEC despite on field performance. Also the big ten has 10 schools in the top 40 of endowments, the SEC has Vanderbilt and now the two texas schools. Those multibillion dollar enrollments mean mega donors who are chomping at the bit to use NIL.

You are 100% correct that many schools aren't on the same attendance trajectory, but that is to be expected for a program on the rise as ours was during the early dantonio years. But here is the key point. Stadium capacity and attendance don't mean anything to media deals. Does your school move the needle and have brand recognition? That's what matters. Also I really hope CMC stays but if he leaves there is no guarantee you will still be a good team, I've seen this first hand how quick the fall can be for a non traditional modern football power.
 

kcbob79clone

Well-Known Member
Issue is that Iowa State doesn't check off the most important box, which you highlight on #4. Iowa State doesn't move the proverbial needle. It's because of this, Iowa State will never be invited into the Big 10.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst. I'm afraid you are right, we will not be invited into the B16 this time around. Maybe the next realignment crisis.
 
  • Creative
Reactions: Aclone

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
5,781
6,263
113
37
So, basically what you are implying is that the ONLY way or reason that the Big 10 would take in ISU is from the mere kindness of their hearts. Which in college sports or this greedy society isn't going to happen. But you came in peace, so I'll exit with thanks for the info and thanks for ruining my day.

If the big ten wants to add schools right away and they don't raid the west coast then ISU is in. The main point is that the SEC did this to try to catch the big ten in money and with the big ten renegotiating in 2023 they don't HAVE to add schools right now but if they did ISU would be on the short list.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
5,781
6,263
113
37
Question: did Maryland and Rutgers really move the needle last round?
That was just a ploy to get the big ten network into the east coast cable markets. The schools aren't great from an athletics standpoint but they accomplished their goal and that's why they have been making more money then the SEC this whole time. Nebraska is the only real failure of the last expansion.
 

Rods79

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2006
3,536
1,220
113
Des Moines
Hey everyone! I found this blog when I was looking to see the reactions from the rest of the big 12 fan bases. This site has to be one of the best fan pages I have ever seen and your community/fans are absolutely incredible. I'm not sure if it was because your division was the one getting raided last time or if your fanbase didn't care about realignment last time but I have seen a lot of comments on here get some attention that don't have much basis in reality. For the record I was a Michigan State undergrad, Michigan grad student, who worked in the athletics dept at State during the last restructuring (nowhere near high enough to make decisions but was briefed on the process) and also have family/friends on the boards of both big ten schools in Michigan. Figured I could add a different view that will give a bit of hope but also a reality check.

1. No one from the ACC is going anywhere for at least a decade due to the GoR. Maybe in 2030ish there might be talks but that contract is ironclad and as much as the big ten would love to add UVA and UNC that just isn't happening.

2. Academics are unbelievably important (which is good for you guys). Remember the school presidents are the ones that make conference decisions, not the athletic directors or commissioner. You might be aware from Iowa fans but the big ten is arrogant as hell and views themselves to be far superior to the schools in the south. There is no way they are adding a school unless the academics are inline. Nebraska was only allowed in because they were supposed to be a football power. Many presidents hate the fact that they are in the league and are almost irrelevant in football. The ACC has similar views and that is probably why WVU is royally screwed here.

3. Michigan and Ohio State aren't going anywhere. I cant say this enough, there is no concern about these schools leaving the conference. Keyboard warriors and sports blogs might be spouting this nonsense but sports do not run these schools especially in a place like Michigan who loses out on great recruits all the time due to academics.

4. This move was an unbelievable power move by the SEC but they were doing it to catch up (and probably pass) the big ten who regardless of on field success was bringing in more money then each SEC school. Most big ten schools bring in around 55mil each year on media rights and the contract is up for renewal in 2 years. Most people are expecting the new contract to pay out around 70-80mil per school. Because of this there is no real incentive to add more schools just to add them. I know people really want 16 team conferences but the big ten doesn't really need to add schools that don't move the needle and no other school out their besides ND moves the needle like Texas and Oklahoma.

5. This last one is more of a warning then anything else. State had a similar run to what you are experiencing in football. We won the rose and cotton bowls when they mattered and also went to the playoffs. Then our coordinators got poached, our scheme got figured out and were back to being a middle of the road football team. Many people think this will happen to ISU once CMC leaves. I really hope he doesn't but damn you have to pray Harbaugh does well this year or they are going to back up the brinks truck.

If you guys joined the big ten I think it would be an awesome addition both geographically and for this amazing fan base but I would temper expectations because the big ten really doesn't need to make any moves. They were already in first place money wise and with the ACC's horrible rights deals that none of the schools can escape from its really going to be a 2 conference race for awhile. The big ten can just wait for the 2030's and add the teams they really want to or just sit still and do nothing at all.

Sorry for the long first post, hope you guys have an amazing season and dominate Texas and Oklahoma!!

“Most people expect”…what people say before something unexpected happens. Humbly, no one knows this now as the game has changed.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think ISU or anyone else moves the needle with our numbers on the face of things…certainly not like TX/OU. I think you’re exactly right, but I also think no one has any idea what this new landscape is going to look like.

Appreciate your opinion and view point though. Thanks for stopping in!
 

Yellow Snow

Full of nonsense....
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 19, 2006
2,493
2,211
113
Osage, IA
If the big ten wants to add schools right away and they don't raid the west coast then ISU is in. The main point is that the SEC did this to try to catch the big ten in money and with the big ten renegotiating in 2023 they don't HAVE to add schools right now but if they did ISU would be on the short list.
I agree with this as well. In my opinion, there is no reason for the Big 10 to "grab schools" just to keep up with the SEC. They are not in a position to require knee jerk instant reactions to keep up. They'll probably play it chill and see what shakes out.

That said, if the PAC schools don't go Big 10, and grab the B12 leftovers as has been rumored, sign a GOR. There will be slim pickings for them (AAU schools) when they feel the need to get to 16. If they can wait until 2030 or whatever for ACC schools, more power to them.
 

19clone91

Well-Known Member
Nov 21, 2013
2,504
1,773
113
Denver, CO
2. Academics are unbelievably important (which is good for you guys). Remember the school presidents are the ones that make conference decisions, not the athletic directors or commissioner. You might be aware from Iowa fans but the big ten is arrogant as hell and views themselves to be far superior to the schools in the south. There is no way they are adding a school unless the academics are inline. Nebraska was only allowed in because they were supposed to be a football power. Many presidents hate the fact that they are in the league and are almost irrelevant in football. The ACC has similar views and that is probably why WVU is royally screwed here.

Welcome! Always love hearing other points of view.

While I would agree overall that ISU doesnt 'move the needle' in terms of being a national brand, I would also reiterate your point #2. Contrary to what many on TV and radio say (including our local stations in Iowa), academics DO bring in more money than athletics.

KU and ISU are both great research institutions, hence their AAU status'. Are we Michigan or Northwestern? No. But we bring more to the table academically than a number of Big 10 and Pac 12 schools (cough cough Nebraska). I am not smart enough to fully understand how federal research grants get distributed but I know much of it siphons through the conferences (I.e. Big 10 splits the money in a way similar to how they split TV money). ISU and KU can bring a lot of research money into the fold, albeit less than Ohio State / Michigan, etc. Then you take into account a top 10 football team and top 5 basketball team between the two schools. With that in mind I wouldn't count us out of this game of musical chairs.
 

sleestakCy

Active Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 2, 2013
139
104
43
This is not true... . 'Big 10 splits the money in a way similar to how they split TV money.'

The faculty that write and get the grants receive all the grant money along with the institution where they work.

The Big Ten Academic Alliance (the old CIC) does not get the grants and distribute the money. They might help facilitate some cooperation between faculty at different Big Ten schools, but that is it.

The grant money that Michigan gets stays at Michigan. Period.
 

MushroomPinball

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 4, 2017
597
1,160
93
I know money is the biggest issue, but will politics play a role in this? Not looking for a cave discussion, just wondering since Baylor got into the Big 12 in the 90s because of politics (yes I'm aware that was a long time ago and things have changed).
 

Nothingman

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 31, 2006
775
821
93
43
I appreciate the perspective but an awful lot has changed in the last five days. You may end up being totally correct but I think there’s an equal or greater chance that you won’t be. Whether that pertains to Iowa Stare or not.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
5,781
6,263
113
37
This is not true... . 'Big 10 splits the money in a way similar to how they split TV money.'

The faculty that write and get the grants receive all the grant money along with the institution where they work.

The Big Ten Academic Alliance (the old CIC) does not get the grants and distribute the money. They might help facilitate some cooperation between faculty at different Big Ten schools, but that is it.

The grant money that Michigan gets stays at Michigan. Period.
This is correct, they share research and very occasionally facilities (like our cyclotron at State or Michigan's Burn center) but the money isn't distributed evenly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agentbear

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron