For sure, I’m not sure about ASU’s alumni money but they could be Miami if they want to. Certainly have a god tier campus and life experience for athletes like Miami does
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
There are no net scheduling advantages with 3x24 or 4x18 compared to 7x10 without annually and intentionally scheduling the top brands against each other or placing top brands in conferences with total disregard of rational regionalism. Plus in 7x10, you actually conduct a legit conference title competition instead of the existing BS with oversized conferences and unequal conference schedules.
Last edited:
At current levels, they don’t need leading pockets.
Clearly it helps, but Football is too developmental/nuanced to not have annual exceptions in both directions.
Transfer rules, roster size, are as important, if not more, to preserving recent parity.
But if Tech of worlds can spend with top of P2, there should not be manufactured rules against it (like salary cap based on conference average)
How do you not understand that any format that doesn’t annually and intentionally place top brands against each other is suboptimal revenue?
3x24 facilitates this because it’s inherently unequal scheduling, and concentrating top brands into two of those conferences.
Much easier to have more top matchups. Which will include notable regional matchups, which tend to be top matchups.
The regional 7x10 setup cannot occur if it has any material scheduling meaning (constraints). Although some regional games are good matchups, many are not drawing from a big enough base
I know this guy gets a lot of **** for his delusions, and blind faith in something that should but won’t happen. But I agree with this. There will still be great games every week, especially if non cons are spread out. Winning teams get viewers. Every conference will have some winning teams. Really not any different than how it’s always been. These bigger conferences just have more winning teams, because there’s more teams.
If you want to disregard regionalism and essentially continue the existing BS with oversized conferences and unequal conference schedules in a questionable attempt for more money, have at it.
The flaw in your logic is that networks want national brands in big games against each other.
Ohio State v Texas is much more valuable than Texas v Baylor and Ohio State v Michigan State combined.
Has the Big 12 ratings at 16 been better than ratings at 10? Don’t we have more winning teams?
Realignment has resulted in brand consolidation into P2 conferences, with unequal scheduling. Both aspects mean more potential for big brand matchups, although the unequal schedules biased towards tv considerations has yet to be fully exploited.
The 3x24 also results in each conference game drawing from larger pool of population. West coast now care more about BIG games, BIG area watching more west coast games. Better product identification too
Unless Baylor or Sparty are ranked, then those also draw well.
The reason they are the big brands is they usually start the season ranked. A couple years ago OSU v Indy would have been in that catagory and now it would be a headliner
Once more, no one is disregarding quality regional matchups in a setup that prioritizes creating good matchups
There’s nothing questionable about it. You do realize the connection between money and ratings, correct?
The majority of fans want top matchups, which can include notable regional rivalries. Just not enough for a schedule commensurate with 7x10 conference setup
A minority of fans want a schedule based mostly on regionalism. Which is why it’s less revenue
No $hit, Sherlock.
That is why you have strategic non con scheduling (e.g UT vs Ohio St) to supplement 7x10 and not facilitate the existing and orchestrated brand consolidation that currently exists in the oversized SEC and B10.
Texas and OSU are elites that draw well in any premium window against nearly any P4 opponent.
For now, while P4 has meaning from decades of peer status. The P2 networks should want to preserve that, or increase P2 size.
Other than the 20-25 elites ND AD alluded to, most P4 schools are filler needed to fill out linear windows, and be opponents for elite
Why do you keep saying just the Sec/Big10 are oversized. Do you realize the Big12 has the same amount of teams as SEC and ACC has just as many as the Big10.
No, it’s less revenue primarily due to lack of pooling and grossly undervalued contractual ties to single media partners for three of the P4 conferences and for the CFP.
Yeah they have a very high floor even when they are bad, but in Texas’s down years they weren’t drawing nearly as well, same as for Michigan. OSU’s run is borderline unparalleled, as much as I dislike they can’t argue that they are an absolute machine over there
4 weeks of unconstrained scheduling to create top matchups
vs
13 weeks of unconstrained scheduling to create top matchups
Everyone, but one, knows which is more popular and hence makes more money…and more sense
Yeah, they are all effin oversized but they were the two conferences that orchestrated brand consolidation that needlessly destroyed one conference and tried to destroy another.
I didn't realize you were cutting out buy games for the G6 which, oddly enough, financially 'relegates' them.
So basically you're all in on the government choosing winners and losers as long as it's the ones Cody has picked.
Separate argument
But pooling benefits much more akin to 3x24 than 7x10
Let me help you. In order of revenue and scheduling optionality, but all pooled:
1x72
3x24
7x10
You are delusional with your popularity assessment and of course ignoring the negative financial consequences to the 3rd conference (including ISU) after getting poached by the other two.
But hey, maybe that 3rd conference can pick up another effin commuter school like USF to fill out the 24th spot in your dream 3x24.
