Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[ClonerJams]

My guess...

SEC adds Clemson and FSU to stay regional. They have shown they prefer to stay in the southeast.
B1G adds UNC and UVA. UVA is basically a Maryland add, but those schools fit the mold.
ACC will try to stay together to keep its agreement with ND, and will look to add UConn, Tulane, Washington St. and Oregon St. to bridge the gap between SMU/CAL/Stanford. This keeps ESPNs deal intact.

Something of note here with all the ESPN layoffs and cost cutting, it has to be known that the pot of money isn't as big as it used to be. I think that alone will limit most moves saving the ACC.

Yormark renegotiates the CFP agreement bumping the Big12's numbers up past the ACC. After that, it's possible the Big12 goes on the move again and possibly entices some of NCST, VT, Miami, Louisville, Pitt, Duke and GT.

Schools to watch in the Big12 wanting to jump to B1G (if possible) would be KU, CU, Utah and Arizona.

One last note... As far as "State" going with "Flagship" at the political level I don't think that matters anymore other than grandstanding. At worst, it will likely be a "pay me some" like Cal got from UCLA and it wouldn't stop the move.

ACC is the next to fall. FSU and Clemson will be out in a few years, along with UNC and Virginia. Big 12 will pick up some of the scraps like Virginia Tech and Pitt. Syracuse will probably pull a UConn and go back to the Big East for bball. I'm actually interested in what happens to Duke. Big 10 probably makes the most sense but not sure if the Big 10 would add them.

 

[WhoISthis]

My guess...

SEC adds Clemson and FSU to stay regional. They have shown they prefer to stay in the southeast.
B1G adds UNC and UVA. UVA is basically a Maryland add, but those schools fit the mold.
ACC will try to stay together to keep its agreement with ND, and will look to add UConn, Tulane, Washington St. and Oregon St. to bridge the gap between SMU/CAL/Stanford. This keeps ESPNs deal intact.

Something of note here with all the ESPN layoffs and cost cutting, it has to be known that the pot of money isn't as big as it used to be. I think that alone will limit most moves saving the ACC.

Yormark renegotiates the CFP agreement bumping the Big12's numbers up past the ACC. After that, it's possible the Big12 goes on the move again and possibly entices some of NCST, VT, Miami, Louisville, Pitt, Duke and GT.

Schools to watch in the Big12 wanting to jump to B1G (if possible) would be KU, CU, Utah and Arizona.

One last note... As far as "State" going with "Flagship" at the political level I don't think that matters anymore other than grandstanding. At worst, it will likely be a "pay me some" like Cal got from UCLA and it wouldn't stop the move.

Will there be more backfilling? There is already too much filler in the era of decreasing linear. ESPN will use this round to decrease its costs, so adding more schools to the ACC means less for current ones

If the ACC loses those 4, and gets a settlement for those schools leaving, they’ll renegotiate with ESPN for a lower amount, with the settlement keeping at least some of the remaining schools whole

It’s more likely they do this before 6/30/24 and find away to cut Cal, Stanford, SMU, or more, than it is they backfill. A new ACC of 8 schools makes more per school than the ACC of 9 to 13 schools

Or some of FSU, UNC, Clemson etc could play hardball, knowing that as long schools leaving is tied up in court, ESPN is declining the option in February 2025. At which point the cost to leave will be greatly reduced.

Then the Big 12 adding 4 to 8 schools is very likely

 

[simply1]

'They were promised Texas would never come in': Paul Finebaum explains SEC's betrayal of Texas A&M

“They felt that they had been promised Texas would never come in and they were promised, but things change. It’s A&M’s fault,” he explained.

aggieswire.usatoday.com

All of the success that A&M had? Am I missing something?

 

[ClubCy]

I know it’s very unlikely this will ever gain traction but as a cyclone fan sign me up for that proposed division.

Keeps the Kansas schools, Iowa would be in the same division along with Minny, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Utah and BYU as outliers. Would be extremely fun and makes too much sense to ever happen.

 

[Cyforce]

I know it’s a very likely this will ever gain traction but as a cyclone fan sign me up for that proposed division.

Keeps the Kansas schools, Iowa would be in the same division along with Minny, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Utah and BYU as outliers. Would be extremely fun and makes too much sense to ever happen.

What a stupid thing to bother with. PAC and SWC want to get back together why?

 

[Al_4_State]

I know it’s a very likely this will ever gain traction but as a cyclone fan sign me up for that proposed division.

Keeps the Kansas schools, Iowa would be in the same division along with Minny, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Utah and BYU as outliers. Would be extremely fun and makes too much sense to ever happen.

Mizzou should be in the Plains division with Wisconsin going Midwest.

I tried to come up with this a few weeks back when I heard about the Super League concept. I wanted to balance it competitively a little more and came up with this:

West: Washington, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Cal, Stnaford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU

SW: UT, Aggy, Arky, LSU, TTU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, Tennessee (not a great fit, but spreads balance)

Plains: Utah, BYU, CU, KU, KSU, Nebraska, ISU, Mizzou, OSU, OU

Midwest: tOSU, Mich, Mich St, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Ilinois, NW, Purdue, Indiana

Big East: ND, Penn State, WVU, Cincy, Louisville, Cuse, VA Tech, Pitt, Rutgers, BC

SE: Bama, UGA, Auburn, Vandy, UK, Ole Miss, Miss St, Florida, GA Tech, South Carolina

ACC: FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Duke, Miami, Wake, UCF, NCSU, Maryland

 

[ClubCy]

What a stupid thing to bother with. PAC and SWC want to get back together why?

Under this (long shot) proposal everyone is under one umbrella. It’s more like divisions based on regionality and historical rivalries. Revenue would negotiated as one, as I understand it, much like the NFL.

So it’s not conferences getting back together per se.

 

[ClubCy]

Mizzou should be in the Plains division with Wisconsin going Midwest.

I tried to come up with this a few weeks back when I heard about the Super League concept. I wanted to balance it competitively a little more and came up with this:

West: Washington, WSU, Oregon, OSU, Cal, Stnaford, USC, UCLA, AZ, ASU

SW: UT, Aggy, Arky, LSU, TTU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, SMU, Tennessee (not a great fit, but spreads balance)

Plains: Utah, BYU, CU, KU, KSU, Nebraska, ISU, Mizzou, OSU, OU

Midwest: tOSU, Mich, Mich St, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Ilinois, NW, Purdue, Indiana

Big East: ND, Penn State, WVU, Cincy, Louisville, Cuse, VA Tech, Pitt, Rutgers, BC

SE: Bama, UGA, Auburn, Vandy, UK, Ole Miss, Miss St, Florida, GA Tech, South Carolina

ACC: FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA, Duke, Miami, Wake, UCF, NCSU, Maryland

I like your breakout better as it’s keeps more “traditional old conferences” together but I would be intrigued getting to play Minnesota and Wisconsin.

I get the nostalgia but I just don’t care if we ever played Mizzou again.

 

[Cyforce]

Under this (long shot) proposal everyone is under one umbrella. It’s more like divisions based on regionality and historical rivalries. Revenue would negotiated as one, as I understand it, much like the NFL.

So it’s not conferences getting back together per se.

It's the haves taking a pay cut. Not going to happen.

 

[HFCS]

I know it’s a very likely this will ever gain traction but as a cyclone fan sign me up for that proposed division.

Keeps the Kansas schools, Iowa would be in the same division along with Minny, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Utah and BYU as outliers. Would be extremely fun and makes too much sense to ever happen.

As everybody else says...know this is only a hypothetical dream but here's how to make it even better:

- The "under league" is just for the innitial season. Going forward every team can drop to that.
- Top 3 teams in that league are promoted every year.
- The top 7 leagues will rotate having one of 3 relegation spots. About half the years every team in a conference will be safe but half the years a team could face relegation.
- Promoted teams will slot into whatever spot is geographically closest.
- Bottom 3 teams in the "under league" relegated to what we now call G5 conferences, G5 conference champions and at large feed that league.

Honestly ISU and lots of other programs have gone through phases where relegation was deserved and would not have hurt. This model without true promotion/relegation would become a joke when some teams in that "under" league became forces and others like Wake Forest never face relegation.

 

[Al_4_State]

I like your breakout better as it’s keeps more “traditional old conferences” together but I would be intrigued getting to play Minnesota and Wisconsin.

I get the nostalgia but I just don’t care if we ever played Mizzou again.

I like playing Mizzou, and having the Border War be a part of our division (or whatever you call this) again.

What I like best about the Super League proposal is that because non-conference has no bearing on your ability to make the playoffs, you would have absolutely awesome non-con games instead of the tune ups and win padding that we have today.

 

[dafarmer]

I like playing Mizzou, and having the Border War be a part of our division (or whatever you call this) again.

What I like best about the Super League proposal is that because non-conference has no bearing on your ability to make the playoffs, you would have absolutely awesome non-con games instead of the tune ups and win padding that we have today.

We all miss saying “Screw Missou” and yelling Sit Down Norm!

 

[ClubCy]

It's the haves taking a pay cut. Not going to happen.

In this proposal, all media revenue would be shared but would favor the haves to gain a larger share (what that metric is idk).

Again, it’s unlikely to happen or even get off the ground but it’s interesting to think about.

 

[cykadelic2]

As everybody else says...know this is only a hypothetical dream but here's how to make it even better:

- The "under league" is just for the innitial season. Going forward every team can drop to that.
- Top 3 teams in that league are promoted every year.
- The top 7 leagues will rotate having one of 3 relegation spots. About half the years every team in a conference will be safe but half the years a team could face relegation.
- Promoted teams will slot into whatever spot is geographically closest.
- Bottom 3 teams in the "under league" relegated to what we now call G5 conferences, G5 conference champions and at large feed that league.

Honestly ISU and lots of other programs have gone through phases where relegation was deserved and would not have hurt. This model without true promotion/relegation would become a joke when some teams in that "under" league became forces and others like Wake Forest never face relegation.

The Super League is going to have multiple obstacles to pan out. Two of them will block any chance of it panning out. One is any type of relegation amongst the existing 70 P5 schools. Two is any conference/division setup that would break up the original core ten schools of the B10 and SEC.

The Athletic's Sam Khan nailed it with his proposed seven 10-team conferences with one exception. He had Northwestern out of the B10. That won't cut it so the shifting that would need to be likely done would be Penn St to the "Big East" and Cincinnati to the conference that had ISU, BYU, UU, CU, KU, KSU, NU, Mizzou and UCF.

 

[HFCS]

The Super League is going to have multiple obstacles to pan out. Two of them will block any chance of it panning out. One is any type of relegation amongst the existing 70 P5 schools. Two is any conference/division setup that would break up the original core ten schools of the B10 and SEC.

The Athletic's Sam Khan nailed it with his proposed seven 10-team conferences with one exception. He had Northwestern out of the B10. That won't cut it so the shifting that would need to be likely done would be Penn St to the "Big East" and Cincinnati to the conference that had ISU, BYU, UU, CU, KU, KSU, NU, Mizzou and UCF.

I'm thinking more like I'm hypothetical all powerful god of this.

It's not radically different than how I'd start year one if I was all powerful, my big difference is those 70 teams are not "permanent". I think about 3 relegations/promotions a year would be ideal to start using that "under" league" they have. It's kind of like a purgatory league. There would need to be a way for 1-2 teams to be promoted into that league from G5 too otherwise it's just permanent 80.

The other option would be no underleague at all, but every "UP" division gets a G5 conference directly below it and the champion gets promoted every year while last place gets demoted to G5 every year. It would be up to FCS football if they wanted to create a 3rd and 4th level of this.

 

[cykadelic2]

In this proposal, all media revenue would be shared but would favor the haves to gain a larger share (what that metric is idk).

Again, it’s unlikely to happen or even get off the ground but it’s interesting to think about.

Two things have to happen to make the Super League payouts worthwhile for the B10 and SEC. One is aggregation of all Super League rights for both the regular season and CFP into one package that is bid out NFL style to max out monetizing all of those rights. Two is unequal revenue sharing and that can be easily figured out where maybe 50%-60% of the total revenue pie is shared equally and the other 40%-50% is allocated based on TV ratings including the CFP games.

 

[Al_4_State]

Two things have to happen to make the Super League payouts worthwhile for the B10 and SEC. One is aggregation of all Super League for both the regular season and CFP into one package that is bid out NFL style to max out monetizing all of those rights. Two is unequal revenue sharing and that can be easily figured out where maybe 50%-60% of the total revenue pie is shared equally and the other 40%-50% is allocated based on TV ratings including the CFP games.

Exactly. You bargain collectively, but then pay out based on ratings.

It's much more of a financial meritocracy than what we currently have. I just can't believe that Ohio State and Michigan will be perennially happy with subsidizing Purdue and Rutgers.

 

[ClubCy]

I like playing Mizzou, and having the Border War be a part of our division (or whatever you call this) again.

What I like best about the Super League proposal is that because non-conference has no bearing on your ability to make the playoffs, you would have absolutely awesome non-con games instead of the tune ups and win padding that we have today.

Absolutely. Non-con games would be amazing. I’d like it even better if they did it similar to the NFL where they make the schedule based on how you finished in the prior season rotating divisions each year. Obviously would be a little more difficult given there are more teams involved.

 

[Cyforce]

In this proposal, all media revenue would be shared but would favor the haves to gain a larger share (what that metric is idk).

Again, it’s unlikely to happen or even get off the ground but it’s interesting to think about.

I didn't know it was your proposal. I apologize if I offended you. It's just that schools are sliding in with stupid bed partners solely for a bigger share of the pie. Really the only power as fans we have left is the veto. Don't watch the P2. Rating just aid their cause for their next TV deals.

 

[ClubCy]

I didn't know it was your proposal. I apologize if I offended you. It's just that schools are sliding in with stupid bed partners solely for a bigger share of the pie. Really the only power as fans we have left is the veto. Don't watch the P2. Rating just aid their cause for their next TV deals.

Did I sound offended? I wasn’t. I was just sharing what the article said about revenue sharing. Didn’t realize CF was a place only concrete ground breaking news could be discussed.