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)?