FinalFour is an ISU fan, just an angry one. Probably Swarthmorecy new name.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
We know there are P2 schools living off the P2 subsidies and are otherwise peers of M2. Removing that subsidy is ultimate objective of every move by M2
(rather than closing gap to elites, or getting back to era of equality across all of P5)
I’m surprised by the Iowa & PSU percentages. Likely some temporal odd book keeping going on
Iowa is in the same boat as us in that they get no other subsidization from the institution or state. Most P4 schools do, regardless of Big 10/SEC or Big 12/ACC.
Penn State is the baffling one.
Exactly
Over the last 20 years we haven’t successfully kept up with what our peers in the industry are doing. JP has his strengths, implementing austerity policies and balancing books, he’s not good at the politics needed in surviving the realignment era of last 15+ years.
Yes, it was a formidable challenge, political and otherwise, to bring improvement to the State/state investment in Iowa State. It also falls on other leaders, namely recent presidents
Is Penn State that popular outside their own footprint and alumni? I'd explain their position on this list as simply not as big of a national brand to generate as much revenue as a Florida State or Miami in football, or even Duke and UNC in basketball.
And that should have been leveraged by ISU leadership. Certainly it would be easier if Iowa was also at risk (we’d already see changes imo), but their greed alone should mean they’re willing to coalesce on the issue.
Now Rousse is saying he didn’t authorize his signature to be used. That athletic department is a clown show.
You obviously missed the memo on anti Super League and anti B10/SEC expansion language in Cruz-Cantwell which along with pooling, is intended to prevent additional competitive and financial relegation, including ISU.
I might've missed it but where in that does it say blow up existing conferences, establish new regional 7x10 conferences, and require all of the new conferences to pool media rights?
That's an amendment to the bill written on Cody Campbell's taint that he's super familiar with...
There wasn’t an expectation that 7x10 and pooling would be mandated but that is the preferred end game for the financial benefit of all FBS. There is a mandate to prevent additional financial and competitive relegation of ACC and B12 schools via more brand consolidation by the SEC and B10 and that was a must have provision from an ISU perspective:
Last edited:
Fantasy
7x10, assuming 9 conference games, won’t make more even with single seller leverage
Networks need to have 6 big brand matchups a week to justify premium rates
If pooling occurs, it is more feasible to have it be 3 conferences of 20 to 24 each. Unequal revenue sharing between conferences, and potentially within
Pooling in itself isn’t outlandish. It already happens
Think of how much money a super pool of P2 would get, particularly if networks were able to use BIG vs SEC to create more top matchups each week.
Pooling already happens? Not sure how you concluded that given the CFP and all conferences are bid separately to everyone’s financial detriment (except ESPN and Fox).
And unless you intentionally schedule top brands against each other annually in 3x20 or 3x24, there is no significant difference between those two and a 7x10 round robin especially if a central entity handles weekly scheduling to spread out top non con and conference games during the season (which sure as hell isn’t being done now by ESPN and Fox).
Last edited:
You've said on here many times that the 7x10 thing is going to happen. Same with media pooling. You've also said the SEC is going to end its ESPN media deal 3-4 years before it's due to expire, around 2031 when the B1G's media deal expires.
You're not backing away from any of those are you?
Are you thinking pooling means that each 10 team conference pools their rights or that the 70 team division pools their rights? Cause that’s a big difference based on how you interpret the term pooling.
I read it as all 70 teams would pool their rights and sell the whole deal as packages, similar to the NFL.
Single seller is the primary advantage of pooling.
Another would be scheduling, if done in a format gives networks flexibility to create big brand matchups (NOT 7x10), but the unequal nature of that leads to unequal revenue sharing
The networks don’t want the former, true pooling. If up to P2 networks and P2 HQ, we’ll have a P2 collusion that is not a superleague only in technicality
If they split the 7 conferences evenly that would make the playoffs more meaningful though. I think the best option is to distribute the top teams throughout the conferences and setup non conference games to get your made for TV games. Spread the nonconference games throughout the season so you can have a couple every week. It creates intrigue for the postseason as you’re not playing your conference tournament over and over again.
It just depends on what you want to promote. A regular season with lots of top matchups that don’t really mean anything because they’ll play again in the playoffs. Or do you want a regular season with more lopsided games that makes the postseason a must watch affair?
