Add ISU and I will watch.
Perspective from the Big Ten and some much needed clarifications
- Thread starter FriendlySpartan
- Start date
The only way I’m going out of my way to watch the SEC is if they add ISU. Guessing that’s not happening anytime soon.
I tune in to top 10 match-ups, but since Alabama and Georgia never play each other during the regular season, it rarely happens.
It may happen more often with OU, but I won't be watching, even if its 1 vs 2!
It’s truly delusional how self important the non brand schools in that conference perceive themselves
as bad as it would be for college football, I would almost like to see their three schools that matter join the Disney coup.
the reactions of guys like this, when the reality of how much they truly matter would be funny to watch.
I don't watch ISU because I'm a college football fan.
I watch college football because I'm an ISU fan.
I won't watch any league/division where ISU is not a part of. Not at all. There's already a small league with way better teams called the NFL. If ISU is in some way still tied in and competitive I will definitely watch.
The decision-makers better understand how many people like this are out there before they make any division that is too small/exclusive. There are so many really dumb takes assuming an exclusive league of 32 teams or whatever is going to keep the pie the same size just divided by fewer teams.
I think there's actually a lot of non OSU/UM/PSU B1G fans that think their schools provide their own stability and that's what makes the B1G so special.
That article means nothing. What does it say specifically? No FORMAL offer was made. Well no ****. Formal offers are, just as the name implies, a formality. Sports teams don't make formal offers without knowing someone is going to say yes. Amazing how every sports team always gets their top pick, isn't it?
I hope decision makers start to see the value of regional match ups and how keeping the "non-brands" engaged and part of the picture creates significantly more value long term.
One thing I think could be interesting is if football was completely separated from the rest of the sports. The reality is, football is very different from every other sport in terms of media contracts, overall revenue. If basketball mattered, uconn would be in a "power" conference. Football revenue, driven by both ticket sales and media rights, are the reason conferences are making many of the decisions they have. Football funds the athletic dept. So, whatever is needed to max out those revenues is done (media, tickets).
One hope for the future is that instead of restructuring conferences to maximize football revenue, conferences realize that quality football can be achieved through scheduling alliances while keeping all other sports in the current conference structure. This eliminates concerns conferences have over "aau" status, or religious affiliation, etc. The focus is 100% on max out your semi-pro football revenue to fund your athletic dept.
Instead of B10 adding the top PAC brands for example, they simply create a scheduling alliance. If this takes hold, you could see all top teams that want to compete at the top ("FBS" level) quickly break out the top 80 or so brands and build CFB divisions that ignores current conference membership completely.
For example, without changing conference membership, you could group teams based on traditional rivalries and geography. If you have top "80" you don't leave anyone out, you pool the rights of all 80 and create a massive tv deal. This does not mean everyone makes the same money - you still have gaps in ticket revenue, contributions form donors, etc. But it eliminates the gap that is driving realignment. This would need to be forced by a group of conferences (for example, acc, pac, b10 establish a new "college football league" and either the sec joins or they are playing in their own 16 team league - good luck with that).
If TV revenues are split across this league evenly, teams have the ability to compete and overall revenue would be much higher than current payouts since more regional rivalries could be kept in tact and everyone would have a path to the playoff.
80 teams, 16 x 5 team divisions, 4 x 20 team conferences, rotating division pairings each year... could be a lot of fun. Plus, non-conf games would be limited (1 or 2 gms) and allow for more conference games (which now are much more region based).
This could work as alternative to finding homes for every team that is currently outside of a "power" conf. It would come down to pac/acc/b10 wanting a different path forward. This is a long term option... I think it could start by proving value with scheduling aliances.
One thing I think could be interesting is if football was completely separated from the rest of the sports. The reality is, football is very different from every other sport in terms of media contracts, overall revenue. If basketball mattered, uconn would be in a "power" conference. Football revenue, driven by both ticket sales and media rights, are the reason conferences are making many of the decisions they have. Football funds the athletic dept. So, whatever is needed to max out those revenues is done (media, tickets).
One hope for the future is that instead of restructuring conferences to maximize football revenue, conferences realize that quality football can be achieved through scheduling alliances while keeping all other sports in the current conference structure. This eliminates concerns conferences have over "aau" status, or religious affiliation, etc. The focus is 100% on max out your semi-pro football revenue to fund your athletic dept.
Instead of B10 adding the top PAC brands for example, they simply create a scheduling alliance. If this takes hold, you could see all top teams that want to compete at the top ("FBS" level) quickly break out the top 80 or so brands and build CFB divisions that ignores current conference membership completely.
For example, without changing conference membership, you could group teams based on traditional rivalries and geography. If you have top "80" you don't leave anyone out, you pool the rights of all 80 and create a massive tv deal. This does not mean everyone makes the same money - you still have gaps in ticket revenue, contributions form donors, etc. But it eliminates the gap that is driving realignment. This would need to be forced by a group of conferences (for example, acc, pac, b10 establish a new "college football league" and either the sec joins or they are playing in their own 16 team league - good luck with that).
If TV revenues are split across this league evenly, teams have the ability to compete and overall revenue would be much higher than current payouts since more regional rivalries could be kept in tact and everyone would have a path to the playoff.
80 teams, 16 x 5 team divisions, 4 x 20 team conferences, rotating division pairings each year... could be a lot of fun. Plus, non-conf games would be limited (1 or 2 gms) and allow for more conference games (which now are much more region based).
This could work as alternative to finding homes for every team that is currently outside of a "power" conf. It would come down to pac/acc/b10 wanting a different path forward. This is a long term option... I think it could start by proving value with scheduling aliances.
Hoiberg has it written to all his contracts that he could leave for the NBA at a much reduced rate. He was interviewing with several teams on top of it. It is proving the opposite point that you want by using him. Besides, it was the fans saying he wouldn’t leave or didn’t want to, Never hoiberg.
Some are better than others, some are better than the ISUs of the world, but in the end, none of the others really matter. I think Wisconsin can make the claim that they bring a lot to the table between their fanbase and geography, and there are others that are certainly nice to have that have their perks. But a conference with OSU, Michigan and Penn State is going to be valuable. You can mix and match whatever other power conference type teams in there, and it isn't going to make a big difference. Swap out ISU and Kansas for Iowa and Purdue, and nobody outside of those schools really cares. The point is people can argue that school X is better than school Y, but in the end those differences in a 14, 16, or 20 team league that has OSU, PSU, and Michigan isn't going to matter that much.
I think that's a big difference between ISU fans and say, Iowa, MSU, Purdue, Minnesota, etc. fans. We all think our schools bring value, but in the end nationally, or even big-picture in the Big 10 none of these schools will or would matter all that much.
I am not saying ISU should be in the Big 10, or that ISU is more valuable than all these schools. But the differences between all of these schools in a media deal spread out over all those teams is inconsequential. ISU fans seem to understand that, while the rest seem to be completely delusional about their value.
Again, when head to head vs. Notre Dame and Pitt, ISU-Okie Lite had better TV ratings. ISU's Alamo Bowl a couple years ago had better ratings than the previous Alamo Bowls that included Texas, Mizzou, and other bigger name programs.
I mean I went to Michigan and Michigan State so I feel like I have a pretty good idea of the break down but i admit my only direct athletic dept experience is with michigan state.
We can agree to disagree on the school equality in the conference but unlike texas its pretty hard to point to any rules (outside of covid craziness) that has directly helped michigan or ohio state and not the rest of the conference.
You came here offering perspective and "much needed" clarification. What @madguy30 and @Cyclones1969 said above is exactly that - perspective. I think you know they're right.
I obv don't believe they are right but can respect their perspective anyways. I could very well be the delusional one but i do understand the way the AD's operate in the big ten and haven't seen much favoritism for one school over the other. Obv exception was last year but the big ten botched that entire situation then had to scramble to fix their own idiotic rules.
There’s nothing to suggest he was Detroit’s top candidate other than the fact that 8 year, $68 million number got thrown out there which was later refuted by a source close to the Lions. Other articles report that Pat Fitzgerald was higher on their list too.
I’ll admit it’s POSSIBLE he got offered informally, but any suggestion he 100% WAS offered is speculative.
Nope nothing new. Big ten is doing a bunch of evaluating and having talks with various entities about how they should proceed. I wouldn't expect anything to happen soon though as fun (and nerve-wracking) as it can be to talk about. Just alot of talks about which schools bring the most value but seems to be centered on Pac12 schools is all i am hearing.
I think WI can add value for if a conference were to take them in, but still not at a point where you could build a conference around them--NOT saying that you're saying that, just reiterating how important OSU and MI are to their stability.
Really one could look at when the B1G originally took in Nebraska and went to Legends and Leaders to show just how unimportant the non blue bloods are.
There was no real rationale on how the divisions were decided, so long as UM and OSU faced off on Thanksgiving weekend.
The sad part of this is that a great deal of thought went into trying to make those divisions balanced. Then they had to be completely completely reworked a few years later and the divisions are sadly very unbalanced now for the championship game.
Even though "the game" hasnt had any meaning in over a decade that's still one tradition that no one wants to see go anywhere
Of course the Lions never made a formal offer - Campbell refused to take the interview. Even the Fords aren’t dumb enough to formally offer someone who said he isn’t interested in the job.
