Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[ISUTex]

I think officially, it’s any TV stations within 75 miles of a scheduled intercollegiate or interscholastic game cannot broadcast the NFL game.

But I 100% agree, NFL is testing to see if they get challenged with streaming. Part of me actually thinks the NFL wants to get sued so they can try and overturn this law.

I watch ISU games. I'll watch Big 12 games if it's a good game. I watch other leagues if the game could have an impact on the Big 12 or ISU. If ISU is no longer a part of the system, I don't think I'll care that much. I could go out and do a lot of different things with my time on a Saturday in the fall.

 

[Gunnerclone]

That's not quite what I'm saying. Long-time rivalry games usually dominate the top-rated games every season.

What I'm saying is, does Oregon/Ohio St as an OOC game get better or worse ratings than Oregon/Ohio St as a conference game? Is the OOC game more or less interesting to casual, non-Oregon, non-Ohio St, non-B10 fans?

I would say the OOC game would generate better ratings just due to when it’s played. That game is going to get the prime slot in OOC and it’s going to go up against a bunch of big draw teams playing directional State U. It’s also going to get premium hype.

 

[MeanDean]

On the casual fan interest.

I see this in our building in Florida a lot.

We have quite a few owners/renters from Michigan. A few are rabid fans of UM and even a few MSU. If there's a significant game (even in MBB) they gin up interest from other native Michiganders and before you know it they decide to all watch together in the common area with drinks, etc. and make a party of it. Bringing along spouses who's interest is 100% social.

To me, those are the textbook definition of casual fans. They would never do that for an Alabama or Texas game, let alone an ISU game. They probably don't even know there's an Iowa AND and Iowa State that are not the same thing.

 

[Gonzo]

This is a good thing. I don’t see it ending in a merger, but rather strength in numbers when you negotiate your next media deal. I always thought the PAC 12, ACC and BiG ”alliance” was only done at the behest of the PAC 12 which was spooked by the OuT.

I'd thought it was more about slowing the roll on negotiations for the expanded CFP to avoid ESPN getting all media rights and instead opening it up to bids from other networks.

 

[t-noah]

Is Murder She Wrote, Golden Girls or Matlock on before 8:30? That's my bedtime.

You need to stay up to watch the new PAC after 3(am)! That's rivoting TV.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

On the casual fan interest.

I see this in our building in Florida a lot.

We have quite a few owners/renters from Michigan. A few are rabid fans of UM and even a few MSU. If there's a significant game (even in MBB) they gin up interest from other native Michiganders and before you know it they decide to all watch together in the common area with drinks, etc. and make a party of it. Bringing along spouses who's interest is 100% social.

To me, those are the textbook definition of casual fans. They would never do that for an Alabama or Texas game, let alone an ISU game. They probably don't even know there's an Iowa AND and Iowa State that are not the same thing.

This is the way

 

[nfrine]

There are 129 FBS football teams. If they go to a model of 20-30 teams, it's going to fail and fail miserably.

So Brian Ferentz is absolutely going to improve from his 130th rank in offense last year....that's good news.

 

[HFCS]

****. Another alliance.

Why isn't the ACC forming an alliance with the SEC?

Could it be they learned from their mistakes?

 

[t-noah]

Maybe I am wrong, but didn't they just go unequal with OW?

Yes, and I do not know the specifics, or for how long. I'd be interested to know, if anyone does.

 

[HoopsTournament]

I think you contradicted yourself. If we are already at super conferences, wouldn't the smart people already realize such super conferences would never work, and therefore the current super conferences would never have formed?

Again, I'm not arguing one mega conference or even the current super conferences will work in the long run. But we currently are in a situation of super conferences. And in my opinion, we are not far away from one mega conference made up of only 'national brands'. Will it form? We don't know. If it formed, will it succeed long term? We don't know. I'm just saying based on the trends, one mega conference may eventually form.

I am not contradicting my self. I am arguing against one mega conference where 20-30 teams separate themselves completely from the rest of college football. I don’t think that will happen. Super conferences already exist, but need bottom feeders. Everything continues to point to powers finding ways to get more revenue, but they realize they still need bottom feeders.

 

[Clonefan94]

I watch ISU games. I'll watch Big 12 games if it's a good game. I watch other leagues if the game could have an impact on the Big 12 or ISU. If ISU is no longer a part of the system, I don't think I'll care that much. I could go out and do a lot of different things with my time on a Saturday in the fall.

I feel this way and I think a lot of fans do. I wonder how much schools like Ohio St., Alabama, Michigan, Texas, etc. are over-valued a bit TV wise because of the conference affiliation. I think you get a lot of eyeballs from fans of other schools in your conference that tune in to see those games, since they are usually at the top of the league (or in UT's case, the most hated). If you condense all those teams together, in one league, I really think you are left with the majority of viewers only being fans of those teams. I think this is especially critical for Ohio State and Michigan. The Big 10 can be almost cult like, with their team's membership in the league. For a lot of people I know, when Ohio St. wins, it's just like Iowa won.

College football isn't just about Alabama playing Georgia or Ohio St. vs. Michigan. For the most part, I don't even watch those games now and if I do, I'm just checking in to see the score.

 

[HFCS]

This is a good thing. I don’t see it ending in a merger, but rather strength in numbers when you negotiate your next media deal. I always thought the PAC 12, ACC and BiG ”alliance” was only done at the behest of the PAC 12 which was spooked by the OuT.

Big Ten: the witch who eats little kids luring in them with a house made of candy
Pac 12: Hansel only even more stupid
ACC: Gretel only even more stupid

 

[DrShip]

This is a critical point.

And its a key reason Yormarks strategy to really focus on and leverage value from basketball is both smart and correct. 20 years from now the Big12 might be the most valuable conference...

You know I said that on a Colorado message board and they thought I was the biggest moron. I'm not predicting the end of football, but it's on a downward trend. CTE studies keep looking worse and parents won't let their kids play football. As that happens, talent pools dry up. The people who didn't play may not be interested in watching, so bye bye viewership.

Basketball on the other hand is booming, and significantly more marketable internationally. 20 years seems too short to me, but 35 or 40? I could see it happening.

Edit: typo

 

[Kinch]

Big Ten: the witch who eats little kids luring in them with a house made of candy
Pac 12: Hansel only even more stupid
ACC: Gretel only even more stupid

 

[t-noah]

The Big 12 is so much nicer now that the 4 schools that held the rest of the league back are gone.

There is value in that for the 'rest of us', for sure.

At the very least, the new Big 12 is gonna be a very fun and 'fairly' even, highly competitive conference. That should have some appeal to many fans, even to those who are not in the conference.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I feel this way and I think a lot of fans do. I wonder how much schools like Ohio St., Alabama, Michigan, Texas, etc. are over-valued a bit TV wise because of the conference affiliation. I think you get a lot of eyeballs from fans of other schools in your conference that tune in to see those games, since they are usually at the top of the league (or in UT's case, the most hated). If you condense all those teams together, in one league, I really think you are left with the majority of viewers only being fans of those teams. I think this is especially critical for Ohio State and Michigan. The Big 10 can be almost cult like, with their team's membership in the league. For a lot of people I know, when Ohio St. wins, it's just like Iowa won.

College football isn't just about Alabama playing Georgia or Ohio St. vs. Michigan. For the most part, I don't even watch those games now and if I do, I'm just checking in to see the score.

That Ohio state winning thing is only when they are playing a non con opponent. If Iowa fans are cheering when they beat maryland they need serious help.

When the top teams in the big ten are losing or in close games people tune into see it. I watched a ton of Marshall’s win over ND last year just for the hilarity. Many people tuned into the app state upset over Michigan for the same reason. However when Michigan was really struggling during the rich rod Hoke eras, the novelty of watching them loose wore off. Tickets were being given away to the big house and people started tuning out. That’s the risk of teams going on prolonged slumps.

 

[CascadeClone]

You know I said that on a Colorado message board and they thought I was the biggest moron. I'm not predicting the end of football, but it's on a downward trend. CTE studies keep looking worse and parents won't let their kids play football. As that happens, talent pools dry up. The people who didn't play may not be interested in watching, so bye bye viewership.

Basketball on the other hand is booming, and significantly more marketable internationally. 20 years seems too short to me, but 335 or 40? I could see it happening.

Yeah, timeline is hard to predict, but I think the oft-quoted 80/20 value split for fb/bb is likely to skew towards bb more than fb moving forwards.

When will it become 50/50? Will it ever become 50/50? Who knows. A generation (~20 years), is a long time. Facebook didn't exist 20 years ago...

 

[t-noah]

Texas doesn’t need the money and actually puts its surplus back into the university, not to other non revenue sports, the university.

Yes texas left because they don’t want to lose to Big12 schools and they thought they were simply better than the other schools in the Big12. It’s like the hack on the muni golf course that loses to the guy in jeans. Moving up to the country club doesn’t make them a better golfer but they feel better about who they are associating with and makes losing more palatable.

A person 'thinks' they have Texas figured out, and then guess what?
Texas does Texas stuff.

Money is assuredly a part of it, but entitlement and ego play a large role. The other Texas stuff is still to be played out. If I was in the SEC, I'd keep a wary eye on the horns.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

It also could be a way to build relationships and common ground with the probable "left behinds" in the case that FSU, Clemson, etc do get poached at some point down the road. Get them to see your vision early and be excited for it. Build future partners.

That's all fine and dandy but they will have SEC money on the table. Nobody is saying no to that.

 

[Cyhig]

I am not contradicting my self. I am arguing against one mega conference where 20-30 teams separate themselves completely from the rest of college football. I don’t think that will happen. Super conferences already exist, but need bottom feeders. Everything continues to point to powers finding ways to get more revenue, but they realize they still need bottom feeders.

Again, you are stuck thinking one mega conference won't ever exist. I'm not arguing whether or not one will exist. All I'm saying is the historical trend is leaning towards one mega conference. The main factor for realignment is money. Unless the main factor changes, the trend towards one mega conference will continue until it occurs. I don't know if it will occur; I don't know if it would ever succeed if it were to occur. But we should all agree that at this point it is at least a real possibility.