Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[2speedy1]

Damn it. I’m curious about the reasoning/evidence to support the belief.

CFB is not at all a partisan issue, so presumably it has more to do with a single party controlling all the levers? Or maybe they’re just spouting off based on nothing?

Im sure if you want to talk about the political side of it you can go to the cave and start a thread. There will be plenty of people that want to discuss their opinions on the matter. Please stop doing so here, as this is not the place for politics and only leads to posts getting deleted or threads locked or moved to the cave.

 

[12191987]

Yep that’s why said I don’t agree but I understand the take

Yeah, it seems a bit counterintuitive. Although maybe the idea is that financial burden has outpaced what are really marginal gains so far in prestige/power?

I’d actually challenge the idea that college football predominantly affects “red” states more. Well, unless you mean the states where it represents a higher percentage of the GDP are typically “red” or Republican leaning.

It is just puzzling, and if this is the belief of people with actual power I’d love to know why.

 

[CYDJ]

Lol, keep dreaming. A blowout on TNT pulled 6.4 million against some of the biggest brands in NFL on OTA. Yeah, they’re just fine, although subbing Bama for SMU likely occurs in the future

I get it. The changes in the sport aren’t good for ISU/Big 12, so you’ve convinced yourself it will be rejected by fans and won’t work .

Unfortunately most of the viewing public doesn’t have strong convictions on NIL, transfers, realignment, etc. They watch big games and big brands. And now such fans from different regions are watching out of region games more often.

Do you have the marketing research on this? I am really looking for this and no one seems to have any solid data. I'm guessing that ESPN has such a thing, otherwise they would not be driving the bus in this direction.

My feelings and many other here is that we would NEVER watch such a league, ever again. We THINK we are the majority, but you know we are not. I'm interested in the data, becuase arguments change with data. I'm not saying you are wrong, just want to see that data.

Thanks for your help in advance.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Do you have the marketing research on this? I am really looking for this and no one seems to have any solid data. I'm guessing that ESPN has such a thing, otherwise they would not be driving the bus in this direction.

My feelings and many other here is that we would NEVER watch such a league, ever again. We THINK we are the majority, but you know we are not. I'm interested in the data, becuase arguments change with data. I'm not saying you are wrong, just want to see that data.

Thanks for your help in advance.

Don’t think anyone has data besides the ratings which have been going up since NIL and transfers. Especially now that teams can all pay players not just SEC bagmen under the table.

Oregon/OSU had over 21mil viewers for essentially a conference matchup. Casuals recognize brands, cfb fans will watch most good games.

There have been people on here saying they are done with college sports for this reason or that reason for years and they still come back and tune in.

 

[12191987]

Don’t think anyone has data besides the ratings which have been going up since NIL and transfers. Especially now that teams can all pay players not just SEC bagmen under the table.

Oregon/OSU had over 21mil viewers for essentially a conference matchup. Casuals recognize brands, cfb fans will watch most good games.

There have been people on here saying they are done with college sports for this reason or that reason for years and they still come back and tune in.

My guess is the vast majority of casual fans had no idea the Pac-12 disintegrated, or that Oregon and OSU are in the same league.

…or players are being paid.

 

[MountainManHawk]

Yeah, it seems a bit counterintuitive. Although maybe the idea is that financial burden has outpaced what are really marginal gains so far in prestige/power?

I’d actually challenge the idea that college football predominantly affects “red” states more. Well, unless you mean the states where it represents a higher percentage of the GDP are typically “red” or Republican leaning.

It is just puzzling, and if this is the belief of people with actual power I’d love to know why.

Especially considering the politicians go nuts over the swing states and off the top of my head, nearly every swing state I can think of probably likes the direction things are heading as is and would be resistant to a politician stepping in to upset the apple cart (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Florida, etc).

 

[FriendlySpartan]

My guess is the vast majority of casual fans had no idea the Pac-12 disintegrated, or that Oregon and OSU are in the same league.

…or players are being paid.

Very possible, especially the conference part. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that people talking on a college sports forum are probably very aware of what’s going on and pretty educated on the issues….

except of course for those thinking rot is setting in on an 11 win season…that’s just weird

 

[Die4Cy]

Guys, if they're saying they think one party is more likely to do something positive in the matter, it's because more members of that party have publicly expressed the will to do something than members of the other party. They've been having hearings on this for three or four years already. The NCAA knows where the partisan lines are.

 

[12191987]

Guys, if they're saying they think one party is more likely to do something positive in the matter, it's because more members of that party have publicly expressed the will to do something than members of the other party. They've been having hearings on this for three or four years already. The NCAA knows where the partisan lines are.

Heh. You’re right, and I was definitely looking at it wrong:

NCAA Emerges As Big Election Winner

Republicans are more likely to pass a law that prevents college athletes from becoming employees and gives the NCAA an antitrust exemption.

frontofficesports.com

Why this could be the most consequential election in college sports history

Tuesday's election results will shape the direction of college sports during a pivotal time of transformation in the industry.

sports.yahoo.com

It is largely about the money paid to players. Will that have an impact on parity beyond the P2?

Ignorant question: Has NIL affected grayshirting at the big schools?

 

[CYDJ]

Don’t think anyone has data besides the ratings which have been going up since NIL and transfers. Especially now that teams can all pay players not just SEC bagmen under the table.

Oregon/OSU had over 21mil viewers for essentially a conference matchup. Casuals recognize brands, cfb fans will watch most good games.

There have been people on here saying they are done with college sports for this reason or that reason for years and they still come back and tune in.

Thanks for the info! It got me thinking about something I’ve wondered for a while now:

1. If the Big Ten and SEC go off on their own or create a 20-team super league, what percentage of people watching those games now would still watch them?
2. How many would stop watching? And how does that compare to people who watch just because it’s “the best game” or have no real loyalty?

---

Here’s Where I’m Coming From (and it might be weird):​

1. I watch a decent amount of college sports, but not nearly as much as some people I know.
   • I’m all in on Iowa State—every football and men’s basketball game for almost 50 years, and most women’s basketball since the late '90s.
   • But for other games, I only watch if it connects to my team: Big 12 matchups, future opponents, or teams I love to hate like ND, Alabama, Iowa, etc.
2. I don’t need to fill every day with a game. I watch what connects to my team and don’t bother with stuff that doesn’t. If the Big 12 gets left out of this super league, I’d stop watching it entirely.
3. A super league wouldn’t mean much to me. It’d feel like the XFL or USFL—I’ve never watched those, and I wouldn’t start now.
   • If I wanted “better football,” I’d watch the NFL. College sports for me are about my team, rivalries, and the stories. Without that, I’m out.
4. A lot of teams in the super league would lose their shine.
   • Without weaker teams to beat up on, a lot of schools wouldn’t seem as dominant.
   • And without balance, the top teams will stay on top forever, making it boring. Ohio State vs. Nebraska might’ve been exciting in 2000. Now? Not so much.

---

My Big Question​

How many fans are like me—watching because of a connection to their team or conference—and how many are like my relative? They’ll watch any exciting game, no matter who’s playing. Or the people who watch just to bet on it?

Right now, I’m part of the audience these “elite” leagues rely on. But if my school is left out, I’m done. I wonder if anyone has looked into this—how many people they’d lose and how many they’d keep?

..........
And yes, ChatGPT helped me make this more concise AND provided many words in place of those that just would have been disallowed by the filter. It is more disciplined than I am. ha!

 

[MountainManHawk]

Heh. You’re right, and I was definitely looking at it wrong:

NCAA Emerges As Big Election Winner

Republicans are more likely to pass a law that prevents college athletes from becoming employees and gives the NCAA an antitrust exemption.

frontofficesports.com

Why this could be the most consequential election in college sports history

Tuesday's election results will shape the direction of college sports during a pivotal time of transformation in the industry.

sports.yahoo.com

It is largely about the money paid to players. Will that have an impact on parity beyond the P2?

Ignorant question: Has NIL affected grayshirting at the big schools?

Those are interesting articles. I’m still skeptical that anything gets done but it wouldn’t shock me if they pass something that clarifies that college athletes are not employees of the school and helps the current House settlement get finalized.

But to be clear, I didn’t see anything in either of the articles that I think would really “fix” college football because I still don’t know how you prevent schools like Ohio State from buying a roster that no middle class school could afford. I know there really hasn’t been a time in the last 50 years when Ohio State didn’t have a better roster than all of the have-nots but it’s easy to feel like it’s worse than ever and trending the wrong direction with the introduction of the transfer portal…

 

[2speedy1]

Heh. You’re right, and I was definitely looking at it wrong:

NCAA Emerges As Big Election Winner

Republicans are more likely to pass a law that prevents college athletes from becoming employees and gives the NCAA an antitrust exemption.

frontofficesports.com

Why this could be the most consequential election in college sports history

Tuesday's election results will shape the direction of college sports during a pivotal time of transformation in the industry.

sports.yahoo.com

It is largely about the money paid to players. Will that have an impact on parity beyond the P2?

Ignorant question: Has NIL affected grayshirting at the big schools?

Seriously, take the politics to the Cave and keep them out of this!

 

[MountainManHawk]

Thanks for the info! It got me thinking about something I’ve wondered for a while now:

1. If the Big Ten and SEC go off on their own or create a 20-team super league, what percentage of people watching those games now would still watch them?
2. How many would stop watching? And how does that compare to people who watch just because it’s “the best game” or have no real loyalty?

---

Here’s Where I’m Coming From (and it might be weird):​

1. I watch a decent amount of college sports, but not nearly as much as some people I know.
   • I’m all in on Iowa State—every football and men’s basketball game for almost 50 years, and most women’s basketball since the late '90s.
   • But for other games, I only watch if it connects to my team: Big 12 matchups, future opponents, or teams I love to hate like ND, Alabama, Iowa, etc.
2. I don’t need to fill every day with a game. I watch what connects to my team and don’t bother with stuff that doesn’t. If the Big 12 gets left out of this super league, I’d stop watching it entirely.
3. A super league wouldn’t mean much to me. It’d feel like the XFL or USFL—I’ve never watched those, and I wouldn’t start now.
   • If I wanted “better football,” I’d watch the NFL. College sports for me are about my team, rivalries, and the stories. Without that, I’m out.
4. A lot of teams in the super league would lose their shine.
   • Without weaker teams to beat up on, a lot of schools wouldn’t seem as dominant.
   • And without balance, the top teams will stay on top forever, making it boring. Ohio State vs. Nebraska might’ve been exciting in 2000. Now? Not so much.

---

My Big Question​

How many fans are like me—watching because of a connection to their team or conference—and how many are like my relative? They’ll watch any exciting game, no matter who’s playing. Or the people who watch just to bet on it?

Right now, I’m part of the audience these “elite” leagues rely on. But if my school is left out, I’m done. I wonder if anyone has looked into this—how many people they’d lose and how many they’d keep?

..........
And yes, ChatGPT helped me make this more concise AND provided many words in place of those that just would have been disallowed by the filter. It is more disciplined than I am. ha!

I would be shocked if a super league happens because I don’t think they really want to maximize revenue in the absolute sense. What they really want is to maximize revenue in the RELATIVE sense, meaning how much more they can get compared to schools they are competing against.

But that said, there are days that I wish the Top 20 schools would just break away and leave all the middle class schools to compete amongst themselves, because I’d rather watch that anyway. But on the other hand, I could easily argue that the little guys now have more access than they’ve ever had, and yes they will always be underdogs but at least there is a chance for an upset, which is more than we really realistically had before anyway.

 

[12191987]

Those are interesting articles. I’m still skeptical that anything gets done but it wouldn’t shock me if they pass something that clarifies that college athletes are not employees of the school and helps the current House settlement get finalized.

But to be clear, I didn’t see anything in either of the articles that I think would really “fix” college football because I still don’t know how you prevent schools like Ohio State from buying a roster that no middle class school could afford. I know there really hasn’t been a time in the last 50 years when Ohio State didn’t have a better roster than all of the have-nots but it’s easy to feel like it’s worse than ever and trending the wrong direction with the introduction of the transfer portal…

I think it depends on what exactly you think is broken with college football (and college sports more broadly).

But yeah, nothing discussed likely affects the things I find important in a positive manner.

 

[FinalFourCy]

I’m guessing the thought is CFB overwhelmingly affects the red states the most so with that transition and through that lens I get it. Might not reflect the actual institutions leanings but from a state perspective I get it even if I don’t agree with the logic

IMO it’s important to separate intervention on amateurism in a world of NIL and player compensation, and intervention on realignment

 

[FinalFourCy]

SIAP, imo most of the focus of federal intervention is on player compensation and rights (NIL), vs NCAA empowerment, not realignment.

The NCAA is undoubtedly spending millions more to influence policy than athletes or their surrogates are, so it’s very well possible they buy a victory

“Right now, big schools and their boosters are pitted against smaller schools. We need a predicable national NIL standard that will ensure a level playing field for college athletes and schools,” Cantwell said in a statement to The Associated Press.”

“The NCAA’s chief goal — and one that seems achievable with Republicans in charge — is “preventing student-athletes from being forced into becoming employees of their schools,” Buckley said.”

College sports reform could advance in GOP-controlled Congress, with Sen. Ted Cruz as NCAA ally

The NCAA’s yearslong efforts to get lawmakers to address myriad problems in college sports could pay off in the new, Republican-controlled Congress. GOP Sen.

apnews.com

Imo this topic is political, policy, but it doesn’t need to be partisan

 

[cykadelic2]

SIAP, imo most of the focus of federal intervention is on player compensation and rights (NIL), vs NCAA empowerment, not realignment.

The NCAA is undoubtedly spending millions more to influence policy than athletes or their surrogates are, so it’s very well possible they buy a victory

“Right now, big schools and their boosters are pitted against smaller schools. We need a predicable national NIL standard that will ensure a level playing field for college athletes and schools,” Cantwell said in a statement to The Associated Press.”

“The NCAA’s chief goal — and one that seems achievable with Republicans in charge — is “preventing student-athletes from being forced into becoming employees of their schools,” Buckley said.”

College sports reform could advance in GOP-controlled Congress, with Sen. Ted Cruz as NCAA ally

The NCAA’s yearslong efforts to get lawmakers to address myriad problems in college sports could pay off in the new, Republican-controlled Congress. GOP Sen.

apnews.com

Imo this topic is political, policy, but it doesn’t need to be partisan

Yes, NIL guardrails, rev sharing, and preventing athletes from becoming employees are topics for Fed intervention but if 25-30 schools get financially destroyed by relegation due to ESPN/Fox manipulation, that has major negative implications on NIL and REV Sharing opportunities at those impacted schools. It goes hand in hand.

 

[Gonzo]

Those are interesting articles. I’m still skeptical that anything gets done but it wouldn’t shock me if they pass something that clarifies that college athletes are not employees of the school and helps the current House settlement get finalized.

But to be clear, I didn’t see anything in either of the articles that I think would really “fix” college football because I still don’t know how you prevent schools like Ohio State from buying a roster that no middle class school could afford. I know there really hasn’t been a time in the last 50 years when Ohio State didn’t have a better roster than all of the have-nots but it’s easy to feel like it’s worse than ever and trending the wrong direction with the introduction of the transfer portal…

Yeah I may have missed it but I thought there was going to be something regarding conference expansion and/or antitrust intervention as it relates to revenue equity. Didn't see anything about that.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Yes, NIL guardrails, rev sharing, and preventing athletes from becoming employees are topics for Fed intervention but if 25-30 schools get financially destroyed by relegation due to ESPN/Fox manipulation, that has major negative implications on NIL and REV Sharing opportunities at those impacted schools. It goes hand in hand.

Making equal or more with access will make it tough to argue anything was destroyed. This will be executed in a way in which the gap grows, but formally no damages. Arguing extrinsic value damage is going to be difficult politically

They’re intertwined, but lowering the compensation for athletes and putting in guardrails actually mitigates the need for intervention on realignment.

Uncapped spending on athletes with no oversight makes the networks desired realignment quickly lethal.

But with NIL guardrails, compensation caps, and ncaa that can enforce rules, making half the P2 is less of an issue. The old arms race, in which more revenue has diminishing returns, would still exist, but being competitive in player compensation and the reimplementation of transfer rules is tenable future for Big 12 schools


Siding with the ncaa is siding with the big corporation over the employees. Similarly, it’s likely going to be difficult for the minority to get federal intervention that is in favor of small interests. They’ll lean in favor of the big brand, ESPN, Fox etc

 

[scyclonekid]

Private equity meeting January 20th Atlanta Georgia Yormark is there as is MW, AAC commissioners and Clemson AD, wake forest AD. PE is coming.