Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

cycfan1

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2006
4,896
2,275
113
Ames
I don't want anyone at a reduced share. **** like that is why we got in this mess in the first place. Either add them as full members, or don't. I'd rather we don't add them.

Curious how we got into this mess?

The ones the Big 12 was paying more shares to are the ones that left. Not the other way around. ISU would have been happy to cash a reduced share in the Big 12. As should Utah and Az State with their current options.

Their bed is made. Big 12 controls the cards. Capitalize.

Its a business not a football conference.
 

Cyclonepride

Thought Police
Staff member
Apr 11, 2006
98,812
62,367
113
55
A pineapple under the sea
www.oldschoolradical.com
Big Ten: Forms "alliance" with PAC 12 out of "concern" for SEC adding OU and UT
Big Ten: Stabs PAC 12 in the ******* back taking USC & UCLA
PAC 12: Starts to founder
Arizona: Considers leaving
Big Ten: "However, with the departures of Arizona, Arizona State and Colorado, the Big Ten saw the opportunity to add the Ducks and Huskies without paying them full media shares since the Pac-12 is in “disarray,” sources said."
 

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
3,000
3,133
113
West Virginia
Did I miss the AZ commitment and the ASU/UU begging? Or is it just presumed at this juncture. I'm certainly presuming, but in true ISU fashion won't sleep until something is on the dotted line.
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
3,300
4,562
113
It would be funny to get Utah and ASU on reduced shares but it doesn’t do anything for Iowa State. We get paid the same either way. It would be a slight competitive advantage over them in order to save ESPN and FOX a little money. I don’t care other than to just give them a middle finger. Probably not worth it.

If we were divvying up a pot of money, and giving them less meant we got more, that would be different.
 

alarson

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 15, 2006
59,467
74,136
113
Ankeny
Zero reason to slow ASU and Utah in right now. Incredibly slim chance, but let the ACC **** play out for a big. **** them.

Are the brands that are likely to remain after the SEC\B10 have their picking actually any better for the big 12 than ASU\Utah? And with B10 going to 18 (and likely 20-22 after ACC pickups), 16 won't be a ceiling anymore at that point
 

LeaningCy

Well-Known Member
Jan 18, 2008
3,327
6,166
113
Zero reason to slow ASU and Utah in right now. Incredibly slim chance, but let the ACC **** play out for a big. **** them.

Yep, plenty of second tier ACC schools will be there for the taking, all of which bring more value than ASU/Utah.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cloneon

Cyhig

Well-Known Member
Nov 29, 2017
3,250
6,791
113
Iowa State Fan: “Just returning from a 2 week European vacation. Let’s open up social media and see how the cyclones are getting ready for the season”

.

“I thought this stuff only happens when Chris was on vacation”
 
  • Like
Reactions: exCYtable

alarson

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 15, 2006
59,467
74,136
113
Ankeny
It would be funny to get Utah and ASU on reduced shares but it doesn’t do anything for Iowa State. We get paid the same either way. It would be a slight competitive advantage over them in order to save ESPN and FOX a little money. I don’t care other than to just give them a middle finger. Probably not worth it.

If we were divvying up a pot of money, and giving them less meant we got more, that would be different.

The reasons reduced shares for them come up is due to the media partners being short on cash. It may be reduced shares or not at all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cloneon