Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
22,732
18,746
113
Sorry, I haven't posted this in a week:

Been saying it for years... all football programs not in the SEC or Big 10 need to band together, demand 100% equal revenue sharing, or threaten to break away.

If they call the bluff... so be it. A seperate league is where this eventually ends up anyway.

Agreed. Go back to an actual NCAA championship and run it the same way they do FCS today. Let the top tier teams have their NFL light and everyone else can get back to college sports about kids playing sports rather than everyone trying to make more money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: State2015

20eyes

Well-Known Member
May 15, 2020
2,011
3,006
113
49
I always liked bowl games, because they offer the chance to go out on a win, but they never really meant anything more than they do. There was just a collective decision over time to stop caring about them, which is unfortunate.

I hate the phrase "bowl games don't mean anything these days". They never meant anything. We all just decided to care.
This was absolutely not true before the realignment that began in the '90's. The Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl typically decided the national champion and typically they did it without outrage. That is why the playoff is absurd. At MOST, what college football needed was a "plus one" game so that for example, in '97, Michigan (Rose Bowl) and Nebraska (Orange Bowl) could've played the plus one to determine the undisputed national champion.

But even then, the outrage was part of the fun. CFB fans have destroyed the essence of what made college football the best sport in America...Bowls that could put an exclamation point on a season, including a National Championship.
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
9,504
11,558
113
With a revenue sharing settlement looming this week, now is the perfect time to create parity (not parody). Cut the FB schollie limit from 85 to 70. Would be the best thing ever to create more CFB parity along with tightening up transfer/NIL rules.
Except the big boys would use side money to bring in another 40 guys on non-scholarship.
 

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
30,671
24,177
113
39
Driftless Region
Visit site
This was absolutely not true before the realignment that began in the '90's. The Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl typically decided the national champion and typically they did it without outrage. That is why the playoff is absurd. At MOST, what college football needed was a "plus one" game so that for example, in '97, Michigan (Rose Bowl) and Nebraska (Orange Bowl) could've played the plus one to determine the undisputed national champion.

But even then, the outrage was part of the fun. CFB fans have destroyed the essence of what made college football the best sport in America...Bowls that could put an exclamation point on a season, including a National Championship.
It was still just an exhibition game that didn't determine a true champion.

For the record, it's fine that they didn't mean anything. I mean, christ, sports don't mean anything other than the meaning we give them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cloned4Life

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
9,504
11,558
113
Never in my dreams would I envision someone favoring the BCS which prohibited P5/G5 conference champs from having a path to the national title like every other NCAA sport. 12 team CFP playoff still does that for 4 G5 conference champs.
I think the BCS nostalgia is that it wasn't 100% about branding and money in a smoke filled room with a bunch of old rich good ole boys. At least 75% of it was actually computers picking teams. I mean, Okie St would have got in in 2011. They would never win a tie vs an SEC or B1G school in the CFP system, old or new.
 

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
30,671
24,177
113
39
Driftless Region
Visit site
I think the BCS nostalgia is that it wasn't 100% about branding and money in a smoke filled room with a bunch of old rich good ole boys. At least 75% of it was actually computers picking teams. I mean, Okie St would have got in in 2011. They would never win a tie vs an SEC or B1G school in the CFP system, old or new.
Okie State should have been in 2011 even with the loss to us, and that's why we have a playoff now.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,984
113
62
That's why you let the third conference participate.

They won't make your money, but they'll have skin in the game and their fans will still watch. We will be in that third conference.
Once the ACC is gone then there will be three leagues left, but if the schools in the B12 do not have near the money those in the SEC and B10 has, then how are they ever going to keep pace. Currently the KSU"s and ISU"s of the conference have enough to be competitive, but once this new contract kicks in and Purdue and NW are bringing in double what the B12 teams are, is that going to be substantiable? Throw in this $20 million to pay the athletes and most of the current B12 schools will either be forced to cut sports or just not allow them to spend on facilities like they currently are upgrading.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cyclonsin

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
30,671
24,177
113
39
Driftless Region
Visit site
Once the ACC is gone then there will be three leagues left, but if the schools in the B12 do not have near the money those in the SEC and B10 has, then how are they ever going to keep pace. Currently the KSU"s and ISU"s of the conference has enough to be competitive, but once this new contract kicks in and Purdue and NW are bringing in double what the B12 teams are, is that going to be substantiable? Throw in this $20 million to pay the athletes and most of the current B12 schools will either be forced to cut sports or just not allow them to spend on facilities like they currently are upgrading.
We've never had the money they do. The only team in the current Big 12 to win a natty in anyone's memory is Colorado nearly 35 years ago. ISU is NEVER going to win a football natty. We all know this. Hell, Iowa's never going to win a football natty. That doesn't really matter to any of us. If it did to you, you wouldn't be here.

Purdue and NW aren't going to keep making that kind of money. I guarantee that in the future, the Big 10 and SEC powers start taking money from the programs that don't contribute financially and say "you can stay in our club, but you aren't getting the same money we do".

At the end of the day as long as there are only 11 guys on the football field at once, there will be high quality players available for the third league. All of these games will be on TV, and their best path to the NFL will be getting their game on tape. It's the same battle we've always fought.
 

Big_Sill

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 4, 2008
1,197
1,743
113
42
I think they would ultimately go tell us to kick rocks. The question then is does that separate league looklike….what the Big 12 looks like now or the G5/FCS? In talent, resources, coaches, money, games on tv ect. Personally I have no idea.
I don't know what the separate league looks like either, but operating at 30% (whatever the number is) of the budget of the SEC and BIG 10 is not sustainable in the future pay for play model. Rip the Band-Aid off now, but make one last push to see if the SEC / B10 and the media partners (more importantly) actually want us in the same league (requires equal sharing).

The television contracts offered to the SEC and B10 assume you get ALL the eyeballs of the current college football fans, not just fans of the SEC and B10. Threatening to take some of those away is our last bargaining chip (albeit not a great one).
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
6,436
6,996
113
37
Exactly.

The change I'm lamenting is that now everyone HAS to be playing for the same goal. Which is asinine. There's never been parody in CFB. Why are 130 teams competing for the same goal, that only 1 can achieve, when there's not even the illusion of a level playing field?
I strongly disagree with this take because nothing has changed and on one has to be playing for the same goal. If ISU went 12-1 with a big 12 championship win and then lost in the playoffs people would love that season. It wouldn’t matter it ended in a playoff loss it would be incredible.

The teams that have won nattys and who are regularly competing have that goal, Michigan has that goal but MSU/ISU shouldn’t but we would both love that season I mentioned above.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jctisu

StPaulCyclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 9, 2008
2,123
1,719
113
Duh!
I miss the BCS so freaking much.

Never in my wildest dreams did I think I'd lament a CFB playoff so much.
BCS to pick the CFP participants is what I’ve wanted, not a room full of the viagra & scotch crowd from the elites using the eye test.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
6,436
6,996
113
37
You have to have enough teams in this premium league to not leave out the majority of the country, while also keeping fans interested. I am not sure 40 schools from the B10 and SEC plus a few others would do this. ISU fans are not going to start to watch and cheer for EIU, just because they are playing at the top level and ISU isn't. Those fans all around the country will stay and root for their team and it will take decades for them to move away from that.
For this to work you are going to have to find room for most of the current P5 schools and schools like Memphis or Boise St. that want to try to play at that level. It would not be difficult to come up with a set of standards for schools to use if they want to play at the highest level. Amount of money they are investing in football, attendance and other criteria could be used to see if they are big enough to get in the new league.
I 100% don’t want that to happen just to be clear but if you think anyone needs to “make room for Memphis and Bosie St” then you’re just in a way different space. Neither of those schools matter in the least bit and draw zero eyeballs. Part due to self fulfilling prophecy but also because they just aren’t good.
 

Cyclonsin

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 4, 2020
1,455
2,981
113
35
Savannah, GA
I strongly disagree with this take because nothing has changed and on one has to be playing for the same goal. If ISU went 12-1 with a big 12 championship win and then lost in the playoffs people would love that season. It wouldn’t matter it ended in a playoff loss it would be incredible.

The teams that have won nattys and who are regularly competing have that goal, Michigan has that goal but MSU/ISU shouldn’t but we would both love that season I mentioned above.
But you just named exactly what I don't like that's changed (and I admit I'm in the minority here). Obviously, we'd love and be thrilled with a 12-1 season where we won the conference, but I would have preferred seeing that team play in a NY6 game they had a shot at winning than in a playoff they can't. That's the main thing that's changing for us and that's what I don't like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cayin

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,984
113
62
We've never had the money they do. The only team in the current Big 12 to win a natty in anyone's memory is Colorado nearly 35 years ago. ISU is NEVER going to win a football natty. We all know this. Hell, Iowa's never going to win a football natty. That doesn't really matter to any of us. If it did to you, you wouldn't be here.

Purdue and NW aren't going to keep making that kind of money. I guarantee that in the future, the Big 10 and SEC powers start taking money from the programs that don't contribute financially and say "you can stay in our club, but you aren't getting the same money we do".

At the end of the day as long as there are only 11 guys on the football field at once, there will be high quality players available for the third league. All of these games will be on TV, and their best path to the NFL will be getting their game on tape. It's the same battle we've always fought.
No one is saying winning a title, what they are worried about is having enough money to keep the program competitive. For 22/23 ISU spent $115.5 million on athletics, EIU spent $161.4 million, we are still in the ballpark because they have more sports. EIU spent $47.7 on football, ISU $27.7. What are those numbers going to look like in 2027 when the B10 schools are pulling in over double what the B12 schools are?
 

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
30,671
24,177
113
39
Driftless Region
Visit site
No one is saying winning a title, what they are worried about is having enough money to keep the program competitive. For 22/23 ISU spent $115.5 million on athletics, EIU spent $161.4 million, we are still in the ballpark because they have more sports. EIU spent $47.7 on football, ISU $27.7. What are those numbers going to look like in 2027 when the B10 schools are pulling in over double what the B12 schools are?
I don't think all the Big 10 schools (including Iowa) will be making that kind of money in the future.
 

aeroclone

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2006
9,847
5,908
113
BCS to pick the CFP participants is what I’ve wanted, not a room full of the viagra & scotch crowd from the elites using the eye test.
This. So much this.

Use the BCS formula to pick and seed the participants, then have a playoff. It was so simple, but like everything else in CFB can't ever let a chance for a few extra dollars mess everything up.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
5,370
6,101
113
No one is saying winning a title, what they are worried about is having enough money to keep the program competitive. For 22/23 ISU spent $115.5 million on athletics, EIU spent $161.4 million, we are still in the ballpark because they have more sports. EIU spent $47.7 on football, ISU $27.7. What are those numbers going to look like in 2027 when the B10 schools are pulling in over double what the B12 schools are?
Over Double? In 2027? I have not seen that anywhere. They are speculated to get $80-100M by the end of their contract, not in year 3. And that wont be more than double the Big 12. And many of those estimates include estimated playoff bumps, where those are going to all, albeit at an uneven rate possibly.

A couple years ago people said the B12 was going to fall apart. Didnt happen.
Then they said the B12 was going to take a huge media pay cut. Didnt happen, we increased in new contract.
Then they said the P12 was going to get a giant contract from Apple or Amazon etc and the B12 was going to be left in the dust. Didnt happen.
They said the B12 was going to fall to number 5 conference. Didnt happen, we solidified our 3rd place spot and eliminated the 5th conference.

At this point we dont know what next week is going to bring, but I will hedge any bets on the sky falling until there is a lot more proof.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gorm and Cloneon

ISU_Guy

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2021
3,231
2,603
113
46
Des Moines
This is all so depressing honestly.
The only way ISU can remotely compete with all this is to cut costs (it already runs a lean shop), charge more for things (hard to do now that NIL requires fans to help with that also), or get creative.

Cytown money, concerts, Sell booze at games etc would help some.

The worst case is cutting sports, but it would have to be on the already lean Men's side because Title 9 can't figure out how to play nice with football, which is why all other sports exist.

I wouldn't be shocked if schools outside of the P2 start cutting women's sports and replacing them with cheaper to run and manage sports.

for example replace an expensive sport like swimming and diving with womens bowling.
probably will be e-gaming at some point to replace something else. But even all this doesn't get us anywhere close to the BIG/SEC.

There will be some books written about this era in history.
When greed of a few, ruined hundreds of athletic departments
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,984
113
62
Over Double? In 2027? I have not seen that anywhere. They are speculated to get $80-100M by the end of their contract, not in year 3. And that wont be more than double the Big 12. And many of those estimates include estimated playoff bumps, where those are going to all, albeit at an uneven rate possibly.

A couple years ago people said the B12 was going to fall apart. Didnt happen.
Then they said the B12 was going to take a huge media pay cut. Didnt happen, we increased in new contract.
Then they said the P12 was going to get a giant contract from Apple or Amazon etc and the B12 was going to be left in the dust. Didnt happen.
They said the B12 was going to fall to number 5 conference. Didnt happen, we solidified our 3rd place spot and eliminated the 5th conference.

At this point we dont know what next week is going to bring, but I will hedge any bets on the sky falling until there is a lot more proof.
My fault, what I should have said was in 2029/30 when the contract runs outs, not in 2027. That year the teams are going to be getting anywhere between $80 to $100 million per team, they got $60 million this year according to the Athletic article posted yesterday.
So when is this cut between the haves and the have nots in the B10 going to happen and NW and others start taking less than Penn St. and Michigan? According to the current contract that is place it will not happen until 2030/31 at the earliest. We can crow all we want but when the Big 12 schools are getting 40 to 50 million and the B10 schools are getting twice that we are going to have a problem. That is what the contracts say.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
5,370
6,101
113
My fault, what I should have said was in 2029/30 when the contract runs outs, not in 2027. That year the teams are going to be getting anywhere between $80 to $100 million per team, they got $60 million this year according to the Athletic article posted yesterday.
So when is this cut between the haves and the have nots in the B10 going to happen and NW and others start taking less than Penn St. and Michigan? According to the current contract that is place it will not happen until 2030/31 at the earliest. We can crow all we want but when the Big 12 schools are getting 40 to 50 million and the B10 schools are getting twice that we are going to have a problem. That is what the contracts say.
The last report I saw was the B1G paid out an average of 58.8M or "around 60M", not the "More than 60M" the Athletic rag said.

The big 12 is currently getting mid 40s, including reductions for adding the first 4 teams, prior to new contract. Prior to any increases in the new contract and playoff. We will not be getting 40-50M in 2030, ours will significantly increase too. So I mean if you want to use todays payouts for us and theirs in 7 years, I guess you can say they "may" get double, not more than double. But for me I would rather compare what we may be getting at that time too. But as I said, things change constantly so thinking we have any idea what things will be in 2030 is crazy.

Personally I believe the Big 12 payouts will be in the neighborhood of 70M by that time, but that is just a guess looking at all things. If you look at all things you can see the possibility of that number being even higher than that, especially when you include all the things that are included in that B1G number people speculate.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron