Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

BCClone

Well Seen Member.
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 4, 2011
67,638
63,704
113
Not exactly sure.
Those three schools already have more money then almost the entire SEC combined outside of Vanderbilt. They will also be getting more media dollars then the SEC by a decent margin. Maryland and Rutgers also came in with a reduced share but are now up to a full share. Sure some schools can get kicked out but it’s unlikely because then one of those blue bloods with be the lower tier school in that set up. No need to kick people out.
So, are you saying that USC and UCLA are more valuable than Texas and Oklahoma?
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,634
7,486
113
I think in the current climate you’re completely right. But if this evolves into being all about money, Rutgers brings your least brand recognition and value financially to the conference (I don’t have numbers in front of me just assuming).

It’s going to be really hard for Fox to sit on the sidelines and watch Rutgers play P2 games when people nationally don’t really care about them. Even regionally they aren’t that strong of a brand. Meanwhile, Oregon and Washington are going to be on the outside with much better national appeal.

None of us know where this is going. It’s all hypothetical but once the dam breaks on the ACC, B1G and SEC schools are going to have to be ok accepting members who lower their revenue distribution across the board or they’re going to hit a point where they have the right amount of teams.

It could essentially be a bad game of musical chairs where some decent brands aren’t part of the P2 and some bad brands where grandfathered in. At very least, it’ll be a consideration for TV networks to upgrade their portfolio by swapping better brands for bad brands currently on the inside. Especially if college football eventually leaves the NCAA.
It will be easier to just start unequal revenue sharing, than to kick members out.

Still allows the top dogs to have teams to beat up on.

Makes it so those that earn less and are "free loading" leave on their own.

Unlikely anyone gets kicked out, its more likely the this happens or the major players leave to create another league with others.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Acylum

CyFanInIC

New Member
Sep 8, 2020
12
8
3
28
It will be easier to just start unequal revenue sharing, than to kick members out.

Still allows the top dogs to have teams to beat up on.

Makes it so those that earn less and are "free loading" leave on their own.

Unlikely anyone gets kicked out, its more likely the this happens or the major players leave to create another league with others.
Also another fair option. But if we get to unequal revenue sharing, then why not just let anyone join the league so long as they agree to take revenue at a lower rate. There’s a whole lot of schools who would sign up for that.

I just don’t think that actually solves it totally. Then again, none of this actually makes sense to any of us and we could debate in circles about hypotheticals that never happen
 

StPaulCyclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 9, 2008
2,539
2,454
113
Duh!
Attendance is worthless and viewership has a limit to its value. It’s seems to more about marketability of the league and matchups to advertisers.
Those three schools already have more money then almost the entire SEC combined outside of Vanderbilt. They will also be getting more media dollars then the SEC by a decent margin. Maryland and Rutgers also came in with a reduced share but are now up to a full share. Sure some schools can get kicked out but it’s unlikely because then one of those blue bloods with be the lower tier school in that set up. No need to kick people out.
I was thinking permanently reduced shares. I agree with you.
 

JRJ

Member
Jan 20, 2014
51
-17
18
Have read from a lot of different sources that it is very unlikely the B1G will add those two because they simply won't increase revenue. Seems kind of nuts to turn down those two, but could be great benefit to the B12. Only school that apparently will move the needed is ND, but then the B1G is at 17 teams. 20 just seems like a more comfy number. Stanford is out there too, which brings zero dollars to the table, but they do add some academic cache. B/C of the academic issue I cannot see Stanford being interested in any move other than the B1G.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,610
10,098
113
38


A great example of the power of passionate fans and streaming is the MLS deal with Apple TV. Those fans are nuts and their subscriptions are VERY sticky versus Netflix fans who have already finished stranger things.

I don’t disagree with this sentiment but apples deal with the mls has lower payouts then the current Big12 deal and is less then a third of the payout the big ten is going to get. Big ten is expected to be over a billion a year for 16 teams while the MLS is getting 250mil per year for 28 teams
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,634
7,486
113
Canzano somewhat mildly refutes Dodd's reporting. A Pac source at one of the four corner schools says no meetings are on the books with the Big 12. Maybe this is all a technicality over how we're defining "meetings" but it reads like a full denial that this is as far along as Dodd reports.

It wasnt Dodd that reported that, he may have repeated it. But that report came out of Arizona.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron