Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

Jer

CF Founder, Creator
Feb 28, 2006
23,580
23,427
10,030
Romaine: crunchy, flashy, tasty = Oregon
Spinach: more 'good for you' than 'good' = Washington
Lettuce: ok, better than not having it = ASU
Kale: bitter, pompous, recently trendy = Utah
Arugula: weird, gross, is it just a garnish? = Cal


and now you know we have reached peak realignment thread time
Wrong... if it's green, it's garbage.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
10,874
13,953
113
Hear me out

Get to 16 with the 4 corners.

With the lesser money and 20 team conferences soon being a thing, add Gonzaga, Xavier, Creighton, and Marquette for basketball only. **** the Big East and own basketball.

**** the Big East!!
No need to fully add non-FB members. Band together with BE down the road to make a superleague for bball. Take UConn and the ACC leftovers when it implodes.

Think about what that 30ish team college bball conference looks like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NWICY

VoiceOfReason

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2016
474
450
63
33
I don't really think that the Big Ten being coy about Oregon and Washington is as much of a PR thing as people here believe. I think the Big Ten needs to seriously consider if Oregon and Washington really increase future media deals enough to justify giving them a cut. (It seems like they would have to take a reduced cut for the current media deal, but would get a full cut after that.) Especially when you consider that the ACC could implode tomorrow and open up more possibilities that would provide more value than Oregon and Washington (Clemson/FSU) and that are on the same level, but might provide other benefits. like opening recruiting areas up or luring Notre Dame (UNC/Duke/Miami/Pitt).

I don't think Washington and Oregon are as big of a Big 12 pipedream as the media would have you believe.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
10,874
13,953
113
Wasn't Crow a former ISU professor?
Good lord he was at the IPRT when I was at ISU. He got hired on in 88 so he would be in the Gordon P. Eaton mold of "athletics are for children, this is an academic institution". That explains a LOT.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ScottyP

Gunnerclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
75,591
79,846
113
DSM
I don't really think that the Big Ten being coy about Oregon and Washington is as much of a PR thing as people here believe. I think the Big Ten needs to seriously consider if Oregon and Washington really increase future media deals enough to justify giving them a cut. (It seems like they would have to take a reduced cut for the current media deal, but would get a full cut after that.) Especially when you consider that the ACC could implode tomorrow and open up more possibilities that would provide more value than Oregon and Washington (Clemson/FSU) and that are on the same level, but might provide other benefits. like opening recruiting areas up or luring Notre Dame (UNC/Duke/Miami/Pitt).

I don't think Washington and Oregon are as big of a Big 12 pipedream as the media would have you believe.

Perfect example of the shallow thinking of the “but do they add value?” people.

The calculus should be:

how do we need to be positioned?
how is the SEC going to be positioned?
Are we getting one up on the SEC with these adds even though they may not add “value” right at this second?
do the mascots on the jersey even matter or is it just a magic number?
Are OU/Wash in the hand worth two “ACC schools to possibly be named later” in the bush?
Will this action further crack the ND egg?
Can these adds get us closer to Fox becoming a billion dollar exclusive carrier for the Big 10 in 5-10 years?

And I think first and foremost there is a mindset of “if you aren’t adding, you’re losing and you may not be at the top of the pecking order when the next round comes, and no one knows what the next round looks like, but we do know that there are strength in numbers”
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CascadeClone

twojman

Well-Known Member
Jun 1, 2006
7,755
3,927
113
Clive
Someone might want to explain inflation to this guy.
Isn't the chart showing FY 2021 research dollars? He's comparing the new guys in the Big 12 to the old ones and showing in FY 2021 there wasn't really a difference. I could be wrong but that's what I thought.