Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Nebraska and aTm had years of great football, and generations of fans watching it. If one grows up watching your team winning championships, or even winning at a high level it takes a decade or two of horrible teams to lose the thought that the school will one day return to their winning ways.
aTm has won nothing in over 20 years and they still pack their stadium, and just like Nebraska, there is not a lot for a student to do on a Saturday in College Station or Lincoln, so they go to the game, and then the bars once it's over. Until apathy sets in and it looks like the university is giving up, people will show up and new fans will continue to be made.
ISU went through the 1980/90 with horrible football, and few winning seasons, but Mac brought back the fan pass, selling the idea of hope, and beating EIU. It has taken some time, but we still have great crowds for the number 2 team in the state, and it's a fan base that is growing.
I appreciate the link.You can actually download high-resolution pictures of him from his bio website and also his Curriculum Vitae (updated monthly no less)! So on top of everything else, he's a narcissist!
https://president.asu.edu/the-president/biography
I don't think I want to use it though, or read any more about him. Who makes the decision whether to dismiss or retain a President? ASU needs to get rid of both Crow and R. Anderson. IMO.
Maybe Crow is really good at what he does, for other things but sports, fan interest, etc., but he and Anderson will not help ASU athletics move forward. That much I can see clearly.
But that's it they wouldn't make it a separate package. It would all be blended in. So if ISU was on tier 2 we would have to pay for tier 1 games as well as tier 2 and vice a versa for teams in tier 1.
There’s a good book, I’m blanking on the name, that examines past corporate blunders like “New Coke” and dives into the psychology behind them. This is a good article from Forbes too on why dumb decisions are made.
A.) Not all decision makers are smart. B.) Even if they were, smart people make stupid decisions all the time.
If it's contractual, then sure, I'd be interested to see what it is. Alliance just seems like the buzz word in the industry right now.
The alliance between the PAC, Big10 and ACC was just a handshake agreement meant to prevent the SEC from taking over the future CFP negotiations after the shock of the SEC taking Texas and OU.
It doesn't appear as though you considered the inter-conference appeal to the game in 2021. You know 'our' conference is better than 'your' conference. I watched it because I valued everything antiB1G. Now that they're in the same conference you've eliminated a huge set of eyes.
It appears BY's blueprint is being followed like a chess master. Didn't see this one coming which is why I'm not commissioner. But, if contractually secured, it gives the ACC stability. And I don't know what the bylaws are for accepting an 'alliance'. It might be just enough to circumvent an FSU, Clemson rejection.
Last edited:
I think you contradicted yourself. If we are already at super conferences, wouldn't the smart people already realize such super conferences would never work, and therefore the current super conferences would never have formed?
Again, I'm not arguing one mega conference or even the current super conferences will work in the long run. But we currently are in a situation of super conferences. And in my opinion, we are not far away from one mega conference made up of only 'national brands'. Will it form? We don't know. If it formed, will it succeed long term? We don't know. I'm just saying based on the trends, one mega conference may eventually form.
It also could be a way to build relationships and common ground with the probable "left behinds" in the case that FSU, Clemson, etc do get poached at some point down the road. Get them to see your vision early and be excited for it. Build future partners.
I guess, for this (these) reason(s), I don't see a superconference any time soon either, but who knows. I've always felt that the more powerful members of any conference need the less powerful to 'feed' on, therefore making their record look good. That is very noticable in the noncon schedule for many.
I suppose partial shares for the 'underperforming' conference members makes more sense, but that is also problematic in the long run.
Perhaps, in the long run, college football will have more regulation, than it does now certainly, and maybe it will be more along the lines of the NFL some day? The 'haves' in college football will not be leading that wave though!
Now, everyone/every team is striving for more money, if there is a way to get it. You would think it will eventually get to a point where there will need to be balance, for the health of the whole.
I wouldn't be surprised if, once the new expanded CFP is figured out beyond 2026, conferences like the B1G which have always distributed media and bowl revenue equally among its members adopt a system where the programs that generate CFP and bowl $$$ for any given year get a larger cut of that revenue.
It sounds ****** and has potential all at the same time.
Brett ain't doing no handshake deals
I could see it going both ways.
As an OOC game, it piques the interest of the general cfb fans interested in seeing how the two conference stack up against each other in addition to it being a unusual matchup that doesn't happen often. The Oregon, Ohio St and will-watch-anything B10 fans will tune in either way.
As a conference game, it's still a good game with conference and CFP implications. But how different is it than, say #8 Michigan vs #12 Wisconsin? Or #15 Penn St vs #23 Michigan St? Not much. All those happen with some regularity, and none are really top-shelf rivalry game. But I think it loses a lot of casual fans who wouldn't view it as a must-see game.
My opinion, there are more general cfb fans that would be more likely to catch the OOC game than B10 fans that would skip the OOC.
This is a good thing. I don’t see it ending in a merger, but rather strength in numbers when you negotiate your next media deal. I always thought the PAC 12, ACC and BiG ”alliance” was only done at the behest of the PAC 12 which was spooked by the OuT.
