Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
I think we should delineate arguments here. Most (all?) of us arguing a Super League is likely (or possible) aren’t saying so because we want it to happen.
I’m just extrapolating past behavior and motivations to an end game. Over the past 15 years, the sport has been consolidating by moving the most popular brands into two conferences. And the primary motivation has been money. The TV execs want more revenue by delivering matchups between bigger brands. Bigger brands want more revenue by playing in larger conferences. No other motivation; tradition, geography, the overall health of the game, etc., has overruled money in any realignment decisions. Unless behavior and motivation changes, the Super League appears to be the end game.
Now, I won’t be interested in this league. I’m not even saying it would be successful, because I think the networks would alienate a lot of small fanbases that add up. I probably won’t watch it, just like many on here won’t. But what I’d do, or what any individual posters here do, doesn’t matter. All the TV execs see is “Oregon vs Ohio State delivers 4M viewers, while Purdue vs Illinois delivers 600K viewers. We can charge a premium on ads during this 4M game whereas we’re basically giving away ad inventory on the 600K game. We just need to put the teams together that can get us more 4M-viewer games consistently.”
And that is the only thing that will matter when it comes to creating a Super League.
I’m just extrapolating past behavior and motivations to an end game. Over the past 15 years, the sport has been consolidating by moving the most popular brands into two conferences. And the primary motivation has been money. The TV execs want more revenue by delivering matchups between bigger brands. Bigger brands want more revenue by playing in larger conferences. No other motivation; tradition, geography, the overall health of the game, etc., has overruled money in any realignment decisions. Unless behavior and motivation changes, the Super League appears to be the end game.
Now, I won’t be interested in this league. I’m not even saying it would be successful, because I think the networks would alienate a lot of small fanbases that add up. I probably won’t watch it, just like many on here won’t. But what I’d do, or what any individual posters here do, doesn’t matter. All the TV execs see is “Oregon vs Ohio State delivers 4M viewers, while Purdue vs Illinois delivers 600K viewers. We can charge a premium on ads during this 4M game whereas we’re basically giving away ad inventory on the 600K game. We just need to put the teams together that can get us more 4M-viewer games consistently.”
And that is the only thing that will matter when it comes to creating a Super League.
And? You think the entire stadium is doing that?
Even if they did, that’s 60,000 views. Hardly comparable to the millions of views from TV. Point being, attendance at games doesn’t matter. Viewership matters
KidSilverhair
Well-Known Member
I’ve failed to get a signal on my phone to even check scores while in JT numerous times.
So has the SEC come out with a "NO HORNS DOWN" ruling yet?
Lol - a lot of bs said to admit the top schools in the big 10 could be poached, just like what has happened in several other conferences
The TwitterX floating an SEC 9 game schedule with the addition of two teams.
That's a lot of SEC football needing a window
That's a lot of SEC football needing a window
I fear that the Big10 and SEC are going to get all the ABC and Fox slots in the future, leaving everyone else on ESPN or FS1.
Question for the group to discuss-
In 2032, does the CFP payments to the SEC exceed the regular football season media payments?
If teams that play in the playoffs get extra for making the playoffs and media considers the playoffs more valuable, I think it could.
In 2032, does the CFP payments to the SEC exceed the regular football season media payments?
If teams that play in the playoffs get extra for making the playoffs and media considers the playoffs more valuable, I think it could.
Not now, but when the next round of media negotiations come up.
Yes, actually. John McDaid, the SEC's coordinator of football officials, was asked this and responded with what is bolded:
Unsportsmanlike conduct needs to fit one of three categories:
1) Is it taunting an opponent?
2) Is it making a travesty of the game?
3) Is it otherwise compromising our ability to manage the game?
There's a difference between a player giving a signal directly in the face of an opponent, as opposed to doing it with teammates celebrating after a touchdown or on the sideline. To net all that out, every single occurrence is not an act of unsportsmanlike conduct.
But that doesn't mean viewership comes from casual fans. Most people who watch primetime games are hardcore fans of another team.
Under Current Structure
I'll watch ISU at 11a (or any time slot) and then watch the 2:30p & 7p game that has most interest to me. If there is a solid Big12 game on, I'll watch it. Otherwise, I tend to watch other Midwest games (ND & Big10).
There are Super Conferences
If ISU and hence Big12 are a central player in a 12 team CFP (Aka Big12 just doesn't get 1 token berth). Then my current viewing pattern won't change.
But if ISU/Big12 aren't part of CFP, then I'll watch ISU and other Big12 teams. But I would find other activities on Saturdays vs. watch Super Conference games.
I currently watch 3-4 CFB games a week because all regular season games have implications for a 4 team playoff and bowl structure.
Stanford and Uconn are the only remaining B12 expansion candidates IMO. Probably a longshot though.
"All over" has to be overstated. I can see us adding one more out west but the next 3 need to balance us out in the east. UConn doesn't move the needle for me. I'd wait for the ACC breakup for further expansion.
