Perspective from the Big Ten and some much needed clarifications

cyclones12321

Well-Known Member
Feb 21, 2009
7,281
874
113
34
Newton Ia
That was just a ploy to get the big ten network into the east coast cable markets. The schools aren't great from an athletics standpoint but they accomplished their goal and that's why they have been making more money then the SEC this whole time. Nebraska is the only real failure of the last expansion.
Tell the truth, are you Kevin Warren?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DarkStar

NCCisufan

Well-Known Member
Mar 2, 2013
634
698
93
Pine Ridge, SD
So I think I remember you saying something to the effect that decisions or policies were made that hurt the game day environment and/or the stadium is too big to be loud at MSU. Can you elaborate on this? And what do you think of the environment/experience at Michigan Stadium? I've heard hawk fans say it doesn't get very loud for how big it is.
 

jdoggivjc

Well-Known Member
Sep 27, 2006
55,400
15,391
113
42
Macomb, MI
This was pointed out in another thread, but if this is turning into an arms race between ESPN and FOX as well as the latest cease and desist against ESPN where ESPN has been trying to send 1 team to the ACC (either WVU or KU) and numerous others/the rest to the AAC, all of this could cause FOX to press the Big 10 to take in ISU and KU in order to not lose game inventory to ESPN. Since ESPN has contracts with the SEC, ACC, and AAC, distributing the remnants of the Big 12 to those three conferences locks in that inventory (and the more they can send to the AAC, the greater the savings for ESPN).

Here’s the thing - in terms of game inventory, allowing this to happen is not beneficial for FOX in this arms race, nor is any kind of merger of sending select PAC 12 teams to the Big 10 that doesn’t include backfilling the PAC 12 with remnant Big 12 teams. It would actually make more sense to have two strong, stable conferences instead of weakening the PAC 12 in order to put all of the good matchups in the Big 10. That’s why it may make sense for FOX to press the Big 10 to take on ISU and KU while pressing the PAC 12 to take on whomever else from the Big 12.
 

AlaCyclone

Well-Known Member
Jun 14, 2007
1,703
1,725
113
Because they'd get even more money.

Texas makes more than Alabama, but they're going to go get more money.

The whole thing is dumb as F because the reasons people love college football are getting replaced with a product that will look more like the XFL.
I could see Ohio State making a move to the SEC but never Michigan. Their nose is way too high in the air. I still remember Schembechler saying that he would never take a team down south to play an OOC game.

As for the Texas making more money than Alabama, it reminds me of something. I've been following Alabama Football since 1971, and MONEY is simply never talked about in the grand scheme of things by Alabama or their fans. It's obviously important to Alabama and the SEC, but the Trophies in the Bryant Museum are what Alabama fans care about. Alabama has always wanted the rest of the conference to do well, as it made their wins more meaningful.

For example, when I was kid, the SEC used to not be affiliated with the Sugar Bowl. The SEC Champion would land in the Orange, Cotton or Sugar Bowl. That gave the SEC Champion a certain flexibility to find the most lucrative matchup for their champion: As the SEC Champion, Alabama played @ Orange in 1971 (vs. Nebraska), @ Cotton in 1972 (vs. Texas), @ Sugar in 1973 (vs. Notre Dame), @ Orange in 1974 (vs. Notre Dame) and @ Sugar in 1975 (vs. Penn State) before the tie-in began in the 1976 season.

During this period, the Sugar Bowl approached the SEC about being an anchor for them (as the Sugar was looked upon as the lesser of the 4 Majors without a historical tie-in at that time). Even though it hurt Alabama's Bowl flexibility, it helped the SEC overall. So, Alabama (Coach Bryant was also the A.D. at Alabama) led the way on making that happen.

Just saying that Alabama took one for the Conference.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: NCCisufan

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
6,067
7,553
113
I could see Ohio State making a move to the SEC but never Michigan. Their nose is way too high in the air. I still remeber Schembechler saying that he would never take a team down south to play an OOC game.

As for the Texas making more money than Alabama, it reminds me of something. I've been following Alabama Football since 1971, and MONEY is simply never talked about in the grand scheme of things by Alabama or their fans. It's obviously important to Alabama and the SEC, but the Trophies in the Bryant Museum are what Alabama fans care about. Alabama has always wanted the rest of the conference to do well, as it made their wins more meaningful.

For example, when I was kid, the SEC used to be not affiliated with the Sugar Bowl. The SEC Champion would land in the Orange, Cotton or Sugar Bowl. That gave the SEC Champion a certain flexibility to find the most lucrative matchup for their champion: As the SEC Champion, Alabama played @ Orange in 1971 (vs. Nebraska), @ Cotton in 1972 (vs. Texas), @ Sugar in 1973 (vs. Notre Dame), @ Orange in 1974 (vs. Notre Dame) and @ Sugar in 1975 (vs. Penn State) before the tie-in began in the 1976 season.

During this period, the Sugar Bowl approached the SEC about being an anchor for them (as the Sugar was looked upon as the lesser of the 4 Majors without a historical tie-in at that time). Even though it hurt Alabama's Bowl flexibility, it helped the SEC overall. So, Alabama (Coach Bryant was also the A.D. at Alabama) led the way on making that happen.

Just saying that Alabama took one for the Conference.
I think money gets talked about a lot when teams aren't living up to their expectations like Texas. They have this idea that if they could just make a little more money in the arms race it's going to get them a little better recruits, a little more money to hire better assistants, etc. Of course, the money has been so huge for so long that everyone has good enough facilities and enough money that the marginal value of every new dollar is really limited in terms of on the field production. Hell, the Big 10 has had a massive money advantage over the Big 12 for well over a decade, and during that time by most systems the Big 12 has been as good or better for much of that period.

But I think now schools see a big increase in marginal value of new money with NIL and also the potential for schools to provide additional value directly to players. But I guess we'll see.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AlaCyclone

OnlyCyclones

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2017
1,022
1,207
113
I
I could see Ohio State making a move to the SEC but never Michigan. Their nose is way too high in the air. I still remeber Schembechler saying that he would never take a team down south to play an OOC game.

As for the Texas making more money than Alabama, it reminds me of something. I've been following Alabama Football since 1971, and MONEY is simply never talked about in the grand scheme of things by Alabama or their fans. It's obviously important to Alabama and the SEC, but the Trophies in the Bryant Museum are what Alabama fans care about. Alabama has always wanted the rest of the conference to do well, as it made their wins more meaningful.

For example, when I was kid, the SEC used to be not affiliated with the Sugar Bowl. The SEC Champion would land in the Orange, Cotton or Sugar Bowl. That gave the SEC Champion a certain flexibility to find the most lucrative matchup for their champion: As the SEC Champion, Alabama played @ Orange in 1971 (vs. Nebraska), @ Cotton in 1972 (vs. Texas), @ Sugar in 1973 (vs. Notre Dame), @ Orange in 1974 (vs. Notre Dame) and @ Sugar in 1975 (vs. Penn State) before the tie-in began in the 1976 season.

During this period, the Sugar Bowl approached the SEC about being an anchor for them (as the Sugar was looked upon as the lesser of the 4 Majors without a historical tie-in at that time). Even though it hurt Alabama's Bowl flexibility, it helped the SEC overall. So, Alabama (Coach Bryant was also the A.D. at Alabama) led the way on making that happen.

Just saying that Alabama took one for the Conference.
It’s amazing what’s possible when schools invest in their league instead of always looking out for no. 1.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
192
340
63
34
So I think I remember you saying something to the effect that decisions or policies were made that hurt the game day environment and/or the stadium is too big to be loud at MSU. Can you elaborate on this? And what do you think of the environment/experience at Michigan Stadium? I've heard hawk fans say it doesn't get very loud for how big it is.
At michigan state they made decisions to make the game day experience more "family friendly". The closest areas around the field they made alcohol free and they actually heavily enforce this even though open intox is allowed on campus on game days. Also (this is being changed this year i believe) the student sections don't have assigned seating so alot of students dont even bother to show up to games against lesser teams because they dont want to sit in the nose bleeds to watch sparty vs illinois. There are some other things like concession prices and agressive searches on entry for students that really make it difficult to draw fans when the team is doing poorly or if we are playing a bad opponent.

Michigan's game experience is pretty awesome but most of the non student section tickets go to more affluent people who tend to not cheer as aggressively. Also the sheer size of the stadium and the way it is shaped allows most of the noise to escape. There are always over 110K people at every game but it never sounds very loud on the field.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: NCCisufan

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
5,972
3,268
113
One approach that I'm sure that ISU is taking is the sharing of academic facilities. ISU does have some very unique facilities, including the Virtual Reality Applications Center (VRAC), that I'm sure other schools would love to have better access to. It doesn't put more eyeballs on Big 10 football but it is something that the academic sides of these schools might look at as an advantage for ISU.

Also, the computer and atomic bomb (in conjunction with CIC member University of Chicago) were invented at ISU. If we don't get in, we can threaten to take away and threaten to use these items, respectively.
Haha. We'll see how well that goes over. :)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Remo Gaggi

cymonw1980

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
492
733
93
Raleigh, NC
Hey everyone! I found this blog when I was looking to see the reactions from the rest of the big 12 fan bases. This site has to be one of the best fan pages I have ever seen and your community/fans are absolutely incredible. I'm not sure if it was because your division was the one getting raided last time or if your fanbase didn't care about realignment last time but I have seen a lot of comments on here get some attention that don't have much basis in reality. For the record I was a Michigan State undergrad, Michigan grad student, who worked in the athletics dept at State during the last restructuring (nowhere near high enough to make decisions but was briefed on the process) and also have family/friends on the boards of both big ten schools in Michigan. Figured I could add a different view that will give a bit of hope but also a reality check.

1. No one from the ACC is going anywhere for at least a decade due to the GoR. Maybe in 2030ish there might be talks but that contract is ironclad and as much as the big ten would love to add UVA and UNC that just isn't happening.

2. Academics are unbelievably important (which is good for you guys). Remember the school presidents are the ones that make conference decisions, not the athletic directors or commissioner. You might be aware from Iowa fans but the big ten is arrogant as hell and views themselves to be far superior to the schools in the south. There is no way they are adding a school unless the academics are inline. Nebraska was only allowed in because they were supposed to be a football power. Many presidents hate the fact that they are in the league and are almost irrelevant in football. The ACC has similar views and that is probably why WVU is royally screwed here.

3. Michigan and Ohio State aren't going anywhere. I cant say this enough, there is no concern about these schools leaving the conference. Keyboard warriors and sports blogs might be spouting this nonsense but sports do not run these schools especially in a place like Michigan who loses out on great recruits all the time due to academics.

4. This move was an unbelievable power move by the SEC but they were doing it to catch up (and probably pass) the big ten who regardless of on field success was bringing in more money then each SEC school. Most big ten schools bring in around 55mil each year on media rights and the contract is up for renewal in 2 years. Most people are expecting the new contract to pay out around 70-80mil per school. Because of this there is no real incentive to add more schools just to add them. I know people really want 16 team conferences but the big ten doesn't really need to add schools that don't move the needle and no other school out their besides ND moves the needle like Texas and Oklahoma.

5. This last one is more of a warning then anything else. State had a similar run to what you are experiencing in football. We won the rose and cotton bowls when they mattered and also went to the playoffs. Then our coordinators got poached, our scheme got figured out and were back to being a middle of the road football team. Many people think this will happen to ISU once CMC leaves. I really hope he doesn't but damn you have to pray Harbaugh does well this year or they are going to back up the brinks truck.

If you guys joined the big ten I think it would be an awesome addition both geographically and for this amazing fan base but I would temper expectations because the big ten really doesn't need to make any moves. They were already in first place money wise and with the ACC's horrible rights deals that none of the schools can escape from its really going to be a 2 conference race for awhile. The big ten can just wait for the 2030's and add the teams they really want to or just sit still and do nothing at all.

Sorry for the long first post, hope you guys have an amazing season and dominate Texas and Oklahoma!!
Thanks for sharing here. A question for you....

(EDIT: sorry this is so long!)

I see the SEC addition of OU, Texas as a phase one of a 10+ year plan. College athletics is changing and the SEC (in my humble opinion) is trying to take the lead role in defining the rules for the top level of college athletics (there is a power void in college athletics, sec is trying to step in and be THE decision maker).

I see the b10 as the last hope for college athletics as we know them. It would require partnerships with PAC/ACC/ND to build a coalition that defines the rules - transfer rules, salary caps (athletes will be paid soon based on the supreme court ruling it appears to be when, not if), TV revenue distributions (more even similar to NFL model vs. unique conf model), how many schools will be included in the "Power" divisions of the sport, etc.

I see two potential outcomes (obviously, may not be exactly these, but something along these lines):

1) The B10 could raid the PAC (add 6-10 AAU schools) and set up a scenario where SEC raids ACC in 10 yrs or so once GoR can be solved (adding schools like Clemson, FSU, VT, etc). I am sure clemson, fsu, others are watching the B12 battle closely for loop holes . Likely ends with one or two power divisions... could be one group of 24-32 teams (many b10, sec schools dropped and only blue bloods move to one, new super conference) or could be 2 power conferences with 40-48 teams all the current sec / b10 members (including ou/tex) plus 10-18 adds from the rest of the conferences. In this scenario, sec/b10 have a super league(s) that exclude most of the other power conf schools and establish a new tier (solid line vs. current dotted line) that does not allow others to compete - payment to players will eliminate any school in the rest of the sport from having any shot at competing.

2) The alternative is a partnership approach. In this model the b10 does not add schools (or maybe adds 2 at most to get to 16 and move to a 4x4 model which has some advantages) that creates balance across the conference landscape and minimizes potential for conference realignment in the future... They would need to partner with PAC/ACC/ND and retake control of the sport - working together to define the rules. They would then define salary caps, transfer rules, how TV money is distributed, etc. This would minimize incentive for ACC, PAC members to leave for other conferences. Also, if college TV money is distributed evenly with all conferences negotiating rights together experts have argued that pooling all conferences creates more value collectively than each conference individually negotiating rights - although sec, b10 would likely go down. If they do not do this, SEC just raids the conferences b10 does not. The net of this, we end up with a product much closer to what we have today and minimal reduction in membership moving forward...


I am not sure if either of these alternatives would include ISU (could easily be left out of both scenarios). But, if I look at the future of college athletics, there will need to be a leadership team that defines the rules that will significantly impact competitive balance moving forward. If players are paid more for example in conf A vs. conf B and are able to transfer freely, what stops a player from jumping schools every year to make more money? For example, if clemson is making $35M from ACC and SEC is paying out $80M, sec sets transfer and salary cap rules, Trevor Lawrence never picks clemson over bama, or if he does he transfers to bama as a sophmore. In this scenario, clemson is forced to leave the ACC... if SEC is able (may not be) to collect all of the brands not named osu, mich, psu those institutions will need to decide if they want to be like the ivy's - once winning at the highest level of college football, now not even playing the top teams in the sport.

If the B10 wants to define the rules of the sport and shape the future of college athletics, they will need to think much bigger than how do I maximize revenue for my members. Yes, revenue will be very important and is currently a key source of their power. But, I really believe they will need to be creative to out maneuver the SEC.

Is Kevin Warren the leader to this? Do you see the B10 taking this leadership role away from the SEC (scenario 2) or forming a partnership with them (scenario 1)?
 

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
5,972
3,268
113
FriendlySpartan - At what point do you think the real leaders step up to the plate and own the fact attrition and kicking current power 5 programs to the curb is not good for the sport? I just can't wrap my mind around how LESS inventory and LESS "big boy" football is beneficial for the sport. The leaders need to get together and figure out a damn way to make some sort of 64 ish team super conference. Whether that is four conferences of 16 teams or two major conferences of 32 teams similar to the AFC and NFC in football. Instead of alienating dozens of fanbases and tens of millions of fans why not create something all-inclusive and have the buzz and passion around college football at an all-time high throughout the country. I understand $ is king but the leaders need to walk lightly here. Too much greed could kill college football for good. Sometimes the sum is more valuable than the individual parts.

In regards to those mega brands, you better be pretty damn sure you don't want to take a little less to ensure a healthy and vibrant product moving forward to ensure the future stability and prosperity of the sport.
Oh you will get no argument from me this is 100% not good for the sport of college football. The problem is that right now there is no governing body that has any real power or control especially now that NIL is in effect. Another issue is that while the NCAA will inevitably not be a part of college football at some point whatever new committee gets put in charge will be in the pocket of the power football schools making it even worse.

I feel legitimately awful for fans of schools like KSU who are going to have to probably shut down programs and lose decades of tradition and memories. It will also have an impact on the academic side of the schools as well. I personally hate the direction this is going.
You gentlemen probably have it boiled down to its essence here. I guess as often as we besmirch the NCAA, it has served its purpose thru the years, being a somewhat neutral general/commissar over things.

Too bad they can't come up with something like what the NFL does. Don't they generally have a profit sharing system of some sort? And the owners hire a commissioner who further sets rules and standards that the teams know about and agree to.

Interestingly enough the NFL is doing pretty well with this system.
 

cymonw1980

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
492
733
93
Raleigh, NC
You gentlemen probably have it boiled down to its essence here. I guess as often as we besmirch the NCAA, it has served its purpose thru the years, being a somewhat neutral general/commissar over things.

Too bad they can't come up with something like what the NFL does. Don't they generally have a profit sharing system of some sort? And the owners hire a commissioner who further sets rules and standards that the teams know about and agree to.

Interestingly enough the NFL is doing pretty well with this system.
Yes.. the sport has lost value in parts of the country over the decades. Once teams like Army, Navy, Yale, Harvard ran the sport... Now none of those teams have a shot to compete for titles - Ivy's don't even play against the top tier of teams anymore.

I used to live in NY/Conn area - there is no one talking about college football ever. No one cares. It is a professional market only. I predict the same will happen to many other regions and fan bases if other schools are left behind. If they move to a "Power 32" league for example that only includes the top blue bloods and many other schools are cut these schools will still have athletics but it will be kind of like the gap between the Ivy's and the P5 today... they will no longer play each other and college football will suffer.

If ISU is cut out, I will still watch and cheer for my Cyclones but it won't be the appointment TV it is today (likely will not even be on TV much). More importantly, I will not watch the rest of college football. Do they care about losing me or the collective fan bases of the 8 teams being left behind? Probably not. But when the same happens to the ACC and PAC in the next 10 yrs (+/-) it could start to have a bigger impact on the popularity of the sport then some experts may realize.

Today, college football is a national pastime with many tuning in to see what is happening across the country. The 12 team playoff created an opportunity to make the product even better. Realignment could reduce the sport to regional interest with much more attention paid to professional teams in markets and fan bases that are excluded.
 

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
5,972
3,268
113
Thanks for sharing here. A question for you....

(EDIT: sorry this is so long!)

I see the SEC addition of OU, Texas as a phase one of a 10+ year plan. College athletics is changing and the SEC (in my humble opinion) is trying to take the lead role in defining the rules for the top level of college athletics (there is a power void in college athletics, sec is trying to step in and be THE decision maker).

I see the b10 as the last hope for college athletics as we know them. It would require partnerships with PAC/ACC/ND to build a coalition that defines the rules - transfer rules, salary caps (athletes will be paid soon based on the supreme court ruling it appears to be when, not if), TV revenue distributions (more even similar to NFL model vs. unique conf model), how many schools will be included in the "Power" divisions of the sport, etc.

I see two potential outcomes (obviously, may not be exactly these, but something along these lines):

1) The B10 could raid the PAC (add 6-10 AAU schools) and set up a scenario where SEC raids ACC in 10 yrs or so once GoR can be solved (adding schools like Clemson, FSU, VT, etc). I am sure clemson, fsu, others are watching the B12 battle closely for loop holes . Likely ends with one or two power divisions... could be one group of 24-32 teams (many b10, sec schools dropped and only blue bloods move to one, new super conference) or could be 2 power conferences with 40-48 teams all the current sec / b10 members (including ou/tex) plus 10-18 adds from the rest of the conferences. In this scenario, sec/b10 have a super league(s) that exclude most of the other power conf schools and establish a new tier (solid line vs. current dotted line) that does not allow others to compete - payment to players will eliminate any school in the rest of the sport from having any shot at competing.

2) The alternative is a partnership approach. In this model the b10 does not add schools (or maybe adds 2 at most to get to 16 and move to a 4x4 model which has some advantages) that creates balance across the conference landscape and minimizes potential for conference realignment in the future... They would need to partner with PAC/ACC/ND and retake control of the sport - working together to define the rules. They would then define salary caps, transfer rules, how TV money is distributed, etc. This would minimize incentive for ACC, PAC members to leave for other conferences. Also, if college TV money is distributed evenly with all conferences negotiating rights together experts have argued that pooling all conferences creates more value collectively than each conference individually negotiating rights - although sec, b10 would likely go down. If they do not do this, SEC just raids the conferences b10 does not. The net of this, we end up with a product much closer to what we have today and minimal reduction in membership moving forward...


I am not sure if either of these alternatives would include ISU (could easily be left out of both scenarios). But, if I look at the future of college athletics, there will need to be a leadership team that defines the rules that will significantly impact competitive balance moving forward. If players are paid more for example in conf A vs. conf B and are able to transfer freely, what stops a player from jumping schools every year to make more money? For example, if clemson is making $35M from ACC and SEC is paying out $80M, sec sets transfer and salary cap rules, Trevor Lawrence never picks clemson over bama, or if he does he transfers to bama as a sophmore. In this scenario, clemson is forced to leave the ACC... if SEC is able (may not be) to collect all of the brands not named osu, mich, psu those institutions will need to decide if they want to be like the ivy's - once winning at the highest level of college football, now not even playing the top teams in the sport.

If the B10 wants to define the rules of the sport and shape the future of college athletics, they will need to think much bigger than how do I maximize revenue for my members. Yes, revenue will be very important and is currently a key source of their power. But, I really believe they will need to be creative to out maneuver the SEC.

Is Kevin Warren the leader to this? Do you see the B10 taking this leadership role away from the SEC (scenario 2) or forming a partnership with them (scenario 1)?
It's OK that your post is long. We are all trying to think through this and how it might or should go.

In the current P5 system/ tier of 64 (plus ND I guess), it has been working relatively well under NCAA control. The SEC potentially could ruin everything which will eventually hurt them as well.

So the SEC thinks it is top dog in football (football only though) and wants to control how things develop in the future. But they are still dependent on the other three P3 conferences to remain relevant. These other three have all the power at the moment. The other three need to work together and tell the SEC how this is going to work.

Sure there can be some other defections from the rest of the pack (to the SEC) but that would come at a very high cost (and completely mess up football as we know it). The other three conferences need to figure out what they want this to be. Figure out a new playoff, limit full payout for the playoffs to two teams per conference perhaps. Compensation for more than two teams per conference goes to a college football profit sharing pool of some sort. Not saying to do it like the NFL, but work the equity part of it a little more for the benefit and health of the whole.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
3,419
3,493
113
59
I did some digging into the numbers just to see how ISU compares to the Big 10 in viewership. All these numbers are for average per game for the 2020 regular season. On first look these numbers would put ISU just about tied with Northwestern for 9th in the conference. One point to consider however is the effect of the shortened season for the Big 10 teams. For example MINN only played 4 games, 1 of which was against MICH which had about 3x the viewership of their other 3 games. A normal schedule for them would be a lower average due to more games against the bottom half of the conference. If you apply that thinking for the whole conference MINN and NEB moves down, Iowa goes up and Iowa, ISU, NEB, and Northwestern come out about even in the middle of the conference rankings. Not to mention ISU ratings would probably go up in the Big 10 vs their old Big 12 schedule as well. All this is to say ISU would probably end up at about an average Big 10 team in terms of viewership. Not enough to “move the needle” but they probably wouldn’t hurt the per team payout.

ISU1,743,000

OSU6,242,000
MICH3,974,000
WISC3,114,000
PSU2,611,857
IND2,556,857
MSU2,505,429
MINN2,375,000
NEB1,979,571
NWSTN1,750,600
IOWA1,386,571
MD810,500
ILL723,167
PUR527,500
RUTG496,000
Again, the numbers per team is more about the platform then the team itself. Put Iowa on the prime time game they are going to draw well, put them on FS1 and their numbers drop to half of what they were for the other game on prime time. There are only 3 teams maybe four that change the numbers, OSU, Mich, Penn. St. and maybe Nebraska, the rest its more about the platform then the popularity of the team.
 

cymonw1980

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
492
733
93
Raleigh, NC
It's OK that your post is long. We are all trying to think through this and how it might or should go.

In the current P5 system/ tier of 64 (plus ND I guess), it has been working relatively well under NCAA control. The SEC potentially could ruin everything which will eventually hurt them as well.

So the SEC thinks it is top dog in football (football only though) and wants to control how things develop in the future. But they are still dependent on the other three P3 conferences to remain relevant. These other three have all the power at the moment. The other three need to work together and tell the SEC how this is going to work.

Sure there can be some other defections from the rest of the pack (to the SEC) but that would come at a very high cost (and completely mess up football as we know it). The other three conferences need to figure out what they want this to be. Figure out a new playoff, limit full payout for the playoffs to two teams per conference perhaps. Compensation for more than two teams per conference goes to a college football profit sharing pool of some sort. Not saying to do it like the NFL, but work the equity part of it a little more for the benefit and health of the whole.
Agree with everything you say... But "working" together needs to address the inequity between the leagues in terms of TV revenue. Playoff revenue is significant but not as significant as overall revenue. Also, if playoff revenue is distributed as it is today all conferences take the same amount - you don't get more for having more teams in the playoff. The example from the Athletic showed the B12 getting a huge windfall in the new playoff since conf payouts were the same, B12 with only 10 teams would get significantly more per team - as much as $7M more per school when compared to the sec/acc/b10 that all had 14 members. This was one reason I was optimistic that the B12 might stay together before the news broke last week.

The payouts from the SEC and B10 could be 2x what they are in the ACC and about 1.5x PAC in the next 3-5 yrs. This is not accounting for any uneven playoff distributions. Given the gap (40M-45M vs. 80M-90M) the ACC and PAC blue bloods will leave... won't be able to keep up with coaching salaries and paying players. There are 2 power conferences... b10 needs to decide if they want 1, 2, or 4 going forward. Then either consolidate as many as they want into the b10 (ultimately leading to 1 or 2 super conferences), or partnering with the others and provide stability to the current (soon to be at least) P4. To keep the current 4 however, the b10 will need to ensure pooling of college TV rights across the P4 to create one mega contract and take power away from espn, sec and put it back into a central college football leadership team.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
3,419
3,493
113
59
Thanks for sharing here. A question for you....

(EDIT: sorry this is so long!)

I see the SEC addition of OU, Texas as a phase one of a 10+ year plan. College athletics is changing and the SEC (in my humble opinion) is trying to take the lead role in defining the rules for the top level of college athletics (there is a power void in college athletics, sec is trying to step in and be THE decision maker).

I see the b10 as the last hope for college athletics as we know them. It would require partnerships with PAC/ACC/ND to build a coalition that defines the rules - transfer rules, salary caps (athletes will be paid soon based on the supreme court ruling it appears to be when, not if), TV revenue distributions (more even similar to NFL model vs. unique conf model), how many schools will be included in the "Power" divisions of the sport, etc.

I see two potential outcomes (obviously, may not be exactly these, but something along these lines):

1) The B10 could raid the PAC (add 6-10 AAU schools) and set up a scenario where SEC raids ACC in 10 yrs or so once GoR can be solved (adding schools like Clemson, FSU, VT, etc). I am sure clemson, fsu, others are watching the B12 battle closely for loop holes . Likely ends with one or two power divisions... could be one group of 24-32 teams (many b10, sec schools dropped and only blue bloods move to one, new super conference) or could be 2 power conferences with 40-48 teams all the current sec / b10 members (including ou/tex) plus 10-18 adds from the rest of the conferences. In this scenario, sec/b10 have a super league(s) that exclude most of the other power conf schools and establish a new tier (solid line vs. current dotted line) that does not allow others to compete - payment to players will eliminate any school in the rest of the sport from having any shot at competing.

2) The alternative is a partnership approach. In this model the b10 does not add schools (or maybe adds 2 at most to get to 16 and move to a 4x4 model which has some advantages) that creates balance across the conference landscape and minimizes potential for conference realignment in the future... They would need to partner with PAC/ACC/ND and retake control of the sport - working together to define the rules. They would then define salary caps, transfer rules, how TV money is distributed, etc. This would minimize incentive for ACC, PAC members to leave for other conferences. Also, if college TV money is distributed evenly with all conferences negotiating rights together experts have argued that pooling all conferences creates more value collectively than each conference individually negotiating rights - although sec, b10 would likely go down. If they do not do this, SEC just raids the conferences b10 does not. The net of this, we end up with a product much closer to what we have today and minimal reduction in membership moving forward...


I am not sure if either of these alternatives would include ISU (could easily be left out of both scenarios). But, if I look at the future of college athletics, there will need to be a leadership team that defines the rules that will significantly impact competitive balance moving forward. If players are paid more for example in conf A vs. conf B and are able to transfer freely, what stops a player from jumping schools every year to make more money? For example, if clemson is making $35M from ACC and SEC is paying out $80M, sec sets transfer and salary cap rules, Trevor Lawrence never picks clemson over bama, or if he does he transfers to bama as a sophmore. In this scenario, clemson is forced to leave the ACC... if SEC is able (may not be) to collect all of the brands not named osu, mich, psu those institutions will need to decide if they want to be like the ivy's - once winning at the highest level of college football, now not even playing the top teams in the sport.

If the B10 wants to define the rules of the sport and shape the future of college athletics, they will need to think much bigger than how do I maximize revenue for my members. Yes, revenue will be very important and is currently a key source of their power. But, I really believe they will need to be creative to out maneuver the SEC.

Is Kevin Warren the leader to this? Do you see the B10 taking this leadership role away from the SEC (scenario 2) or forming a partnership with them (scenario 1)?
If this is the final goal, then before they get there, these conferences will trim the fat before it happens. No way they are going to allow the teams that are not bringing in money to stay just because they have been in that conference forever.
All the fans that are laughing at the Big 12 schools saying they are going to be left out of the money train, are only looking at their own future in a few years. No way do schools like Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers, NW, Purdue, make the cut if this is the future of college football. Greed will consume them just as much as is has the Big 12 teams because of OU and UT.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: t-noah

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
5,972
3,268
113
I know there are a bunch of scenarios floating around. I would like to hear them again, right here maybe. What would it look like if the BIG went to 16 members, the PAC went to 16 to 20, the ACC (?).

If that happens it will be because those in power (those in the BIG, PAC, ACC) see the benefit of keeping college football alive and vibrant. They see the benefit of roughly a four conference system of 64 -72 power teams. They see the benefit of not allowing the SEC or ESPN excessive power and wealth.

A four conference, roughly 64 member power league could happen fairly quickly and be a stop-gap to whatever college football ultimately decides to become. If it wants to remain healthy college football will have to have more equity and profit sharing. A system like that won't happen overnight.
 

cymonw1980

Well-Known Member
Nov 23, 2015
492
733
93
Raleigh, NC
Again, the numbers per team is more about the platform then the team itself. Put Iowa on the prime time game they are going to draw well, put them on FS1 and their numbers drop to half of what they were for the other game on prime time. There are only 3 teams maybe four that change the numbers, OSU, Mich, Penn. St. and maybe Nebraska, the rest its more about the platform then the popularity of the team.
Yes... if you look at all games ISU played (including bowl game, B12 Champ game) ISU averaged 2.3M viewers. If you start comparing cross conferences it is fairest to eliminate post season (bowl, champ games) and focus only on conference games on espn/abc/fox/cbs/nbc. This way you get a better representation.

ISU overall: 2.3M
ISU minus bowl, B12 champ: 1.7M
ISU Conf Reg Season Only: 1.8M
ISU Conf Reg Season espn, fox, abc: 2.4M

I would focus on conference games on top networks from other teams and compare to the ~2.4M for ISU.
 

DSM4Cy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 4, 2006
1,104
725
113
Altoona, IA
If this is the final goal, then before they get there, these conferences will trim the fat before it happens. No way they are going to allow the teams that are not bringing in money to stay just because they have been in that conference forever.
All the fans that are laughing at the Big 12 schools saying they are going to be left out of the money train, are only looking at their own future in a few years. No way do schools like Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Rutgers, NW, Purdue, make the cut if this is the future of college football. Greed will consume them just as much as is has the Big 12 teams because of OU and UT.
Yep. There are sizable chunks of the B1G and ACC that are less valuable than ISU. We’d be very competitive in the PAC-12 too as far as brand, eyeballs. At least 12-15 schools currently in other P5 leagues should be very worried if a total split from the NCAA comes. They’ll be left outside too.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron