Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
5,370
6,101
113
Again the only one saying we are getting less is you. We added four new schools but each school is going to make more money, even though the contract says each school will make the same.

Can you show me one report that says we will be getting the $70 million you are suggesting, just one will do.
I said around 70, you know maths and stuff. I see a lot of people downplaying what we will get, like all the media people like to poo poo on the big 12. They like to lowball our estimate and not include half the stuff they include in the B1G and SEC estimates. I have yet to see a single site estimate what our pay out will be after the new contract and the new playoff payout. not one, yet almost all of them estimate what that will be for the SEC and B1G. Half the people still use the report that came out a couple years ago showing we would be 5th after the new contract behind even the Pac12.

But hey I guess we will see. I have been right on this stuff before, been wrong too. But I think we will be closer to 70M in 2030 than 50M.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
5,370
6,101
113


Notice it says at the end of the contract, each of the original schools received $42 million not $45 million.
Big 12 paid 42.6M in 21-22
44M in 22-23.

Then there is the 10 month old ESTIMATE you quote in that article of 42M. Because the number has not been released yet. So I guess we could get less than the 2 previous years, although I dont believe our revenue has decreased year over year in a long time, even during Covid.

I guess you will have to point out where it says at the "end of the contract" as the only end of contract it talks about is our current one, not the new contract starting this year.

All I see is this, and notice it says could push it above 50M!! But the way I read it is with the new members joining which is this year!! Not the end of the new contract.

New additions could push annual revenue above $50M

Then there is this, I dont read it as at the end of the contract I read it as once everyone joins the amount will be finalized for all members as they say this will happen in 2025-26:

Once we get to the 2025-26 season, UCF — and the other 15 schools — get full drops. The final annual revenue total under the new media deal with ESPN and Fox would push into the range of $50 million per school. The new deal will run from 2025-31 and include a Grant of Rights provision.

And again this was 10 months ago before any new numbers for playoff etc came out, none of that is included in their estimate, they are only going on the old numbers.

Again believe what you want. But the actual payout for last year should drop soon and we will see if we get less than the last 2 years or more.
 
Last edited:

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
17,604
11,171
113
Honestly I think your question is kinda backwards, the only group this actually hurts are student athletes with the crazy travel. It gets offset by NIL and amazing facilities but still hurts. For everyone else it’s a plus or neutral.

Only other group would be the fans that really want to attend every away game but that is a very very small group and is offset by the alums that live in the new realignment areas.
The Beavs and Wazzou would like a word. Beyond them, we're all ecstatic about conference realignment and the current P2.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
5,370
6,101
113
Wait the athletic is a rag now?
It is in my book. Mandel and his cronies are hacks, just like 90% of clickbait reporters and publications. Mandel and the Athletic Pac12 homers have been wrong on just about everything for the past 2+ years. They have an obvious bias hell their Iowa State reporter has been a Hawkeye forever, and is absolute garbage.
 

ClubCy

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 8, 2023
1,727
2,414
113
It is in my book. Mandel and his cronies are hacks, just like 90% of clickbait reporters and publications. Mandel and the Athletic Pac12 homers have been wrong on just about everything for the past 2+ years. They have an obvious bias hell their Iowa State reporter has been a Hawkeye forever, and is absolute garbage.
While we may have not liked their messaging immediately after OUT left (can’t really blaming them for doubting us at the time) they have pretty credible writers. Dochterman even wrote a pretty good in depth article just last week about Iowa State.
 

LivntheCyLife

Well-Known Member
Nov 25, 2006
1,925
902
113
St. Louis, MO
Btw after talking with some people at an alumni event for Michigan on Saturday, I think this expanded playoff is going to really murder the regular season’s importance for a lot of the blue bloods even with the “bye” option and soon it’s going to hurt ratings.

Simply put going into next year a team like Michigan or OSU is likely to make the playoff even with 3 or 4 losses. Michigan could drop games to Texas, OSU, and Oregon and still pretty easily make the playoff just based on blue blood bias and pre season ranking. That makes those games start to matter a whole lot less when before if you dropped 1 you were potentially at risk of being left out. NFL gets away with it so there is clearly a path but I think game to game enthusiasm could take a hit once people realize that.
A couple things the NFL does:
1) Small 4 team divisions. It nicely balances having rival teams every year on the schedule and your team coming to your city every few years no matter where you live. Many hate the idea of pods but I really think these big conferences will realize it's a necessity soon.
2) Has much more parity. And even with that parity the NFL schedule is still partially based on previous year's standings.

Sure, the playoffs are the goal and college can move towards mimicking that but I just don't think these giant rotating conference schedules are going to work.
 

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
17,604
11,171
113
The Big 12 gets less of the playoff cut, but is still allowed in. That would continue.

My preference is something like #1, but with the top cut being whittled down to 16-18 schools. Iowa wouldn't make that cut, and Nebraska might not either. That would allow the remaining 50+ former P5 schools to reorganize geographically.

You would see the top division look like this:
OSU
Michigan
Penn State
Notre Dame
USC
Oregon
Texas
Oklahoma
Florida
Bama
Georgia
FSU
Clemson
Tennessee
Aggy
LSU
Miami
Auburn

Then everyone else is left in another division that can organize along geographical and historical lines. Maybe have the remaining 54 teams of the former P5 organize into 6 9 team divisions. Our division would be something like this:
ISU
Iowa
Kansas
Kansas State
Nebraska
Mizzou
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Okie State

I would prefer this to basically any arrangement ISU's ever been a part of.
And in that scenario, those 'top' 18 teams can go crazy and have to play only mostly themselves, with two 9 team divisions. They can beat up on each other and see how they like it. Winning their 'elite' conference with a 7-3 conference record should be what's in store, for a pretty good year, and often 'just above', or 'just below' a winning conference record would be the norm. Hack away and eat each other, for all I care.

They could play G5 or lesser teams in their non-conference schedule. Pay 'em a hunk of money to look good play the big boys. They could be allowed to play the rest of the former P5 teams in the non-conference also, but only if they pay them an equal share of revenue for that game. Otherwise go take a hike.

But alas, the 'elite' 18 will make all their own rules, and they will try to push whatever they come up with, down our throats. I'm not sure I would ever watch one of those 18 teams again. It would likely only be if one of the 'other' teams was involved.

More parity is the way to go. Not happening, not watching.
 
Last edited:

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
17,604
11,171
113
Honestly, me too. Compete with your actual peers, not the super-mega schools. But still big enough that people nationwide care. I'd miss the occasional App St over Michigan, or Boise over OU, but with the way things are changing those will become more rare I suppose.

I'd add Washington for sure, and one of Nubs or UCLA to make it 20 teams. Probably UCLA, just to have 4 teams on the west coast. They'd have 5 divisions of 4, take the 5 winners and 3 wildcards and have a huge playoff.

View attachment 129277

There's your NFL-lite, right there. That's a TV exec's wettest dream.

11 game regular season (3 in your div, plus 2/4 of the other 4 divs). Plus 1 or 2 games out of league vs left behinds (e.g. Clemson vs SCar, Wash vs Wazzu, etc).

So you have 8 to 10 games a week, which matches your supply of prime networks and timeslots to maximize revenue. Make about $3B on the games, give each school $100M, and net a cool $1B every year.

Don't give me "someone has to lose" arguments. Which one of those fanbases and AD's is going to say "this is too hard for us, let's drop out and win games and only make $25M annual" - I will hang up and listen.

The argument "fans of other schools won't watch and ratings will be less than projected" - now that I won't argue. But I think the TV execs don't believe it and/or think its manageable or will change in their favor over time.
I like your thought process. But I still wouldn't watch any of it! The TV execs can make their bed, and sleep in it, and slowly watch their resort community decline. It won't wind up how they would hope. I'm pretty sure.

The upper end of College football won't be worth watching for more than half the country. I could be completely wrong.
 

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
17,604
11,171
113
This would be incredible, but I don't see a world where the top tier is that small. I bet it will be closer to 30 teams, maybe even 40.

Right now, they have a combined 34 teams. If they kick out any schools, I can only really foresee Vandy, Northwestern, & Rutgers getting chopped, but they'd easily backfill with ND, Clemson, & FSU.

I don't see a world where Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan State, etc. drop a level. At worst they'd be on the wrong end of "performance-based" payments, but that's it.

The big dogs, and the TV networks, know they can't cut off too much. They need to keep it national and the undisputed top level of CFB.
I still have an aversion to espn for what they tried to do (ruin the Big 12, and Pac 12), what they are doing, and what they will try to do in the future.

If is is a choice between espn or nothing, or espn and a competitor, I am very likely to not side with, or choose, espn. They are one of my least favorite networks now.
 

t-noah

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2007
17,604
11,171
113
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.
Agree. And who will make up the rules for this new playground? Oh yes, a board or committee favoring the P2 in most every way that matters financially? But not so much that it won't appear at least marginally equitable.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
30,671
24,177
113
39
Driftless Region
Visit site
There's no way to draw a strict midwest conference of 9 or 10 schools and have it be viable. Those states are all smaller population and don't produce enough D1 athletes. Same problem presents in gaining viewership. It'd be the Big 10 West in to no time flat.

That said, I'm all for regional-ish conference alignment, but there's got to be a little bit of overlap between the different divisions or whatever. Swap Iowa/Wisconsin for TCU/Baylor (barf) and Mizzou for Cincinnati and you might be talking.
That tier of 50+ schools would collectively negotiate. There wouldn’t be conferences as we know them.
 

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,793
6,984
113
62
Big 12 paid 42.6M in 21-22
44M in 22-23.

Then there is the 10 month old ESTIMATE you quote in that article of 42M. Because the number has not been released yet. So I guess we could get less than the 2 previous years, although I dont believe our revenue has decreased year over year in a long time, even during Covid.

I guess you will have to point out where it says at the "end of the contract" as the only end of contract it talks about is our current one, not the new contract starting this year.

All I see is this, and notice it says could push it above 50M!! But the way I read it is with the new members joining which is this year!! Not the end of the new contract.

New additions could push annual revenue above $50M

Then there is this, I dont read it as at the end of the contract I read it as once everyone joins the amount will be finalized for all members as they say this will happen in 2025-26:

Once we get to the 2025-26 season, UCF — and the other 15 schools — get full drops. The final annual revenue total under the new media deal with ESPN and Fox would push into the range of $50 million per school. The new deal will run from 2025-31 and include a Grant of Rights provision.

And again this was 10 months ago before any new numbers for playoff etc came out, none of that is included in their estimate, they are only going on the old numbers.

Again believe what you want. But the actual payout for last year should drop soon and we will see if we get less than the last 2 years or more.
You just keep digging this hole deeper and deeper, every link provided has shown that the B12 is going to peak out around $50 million, but you keep digging, "what about the new playoff money?" That money is going to be paid out to the conference of the teams in the playoff, not equally to the conferences. The B10 and SEC have ensured that they are going to get 8 to 9 teams a year into the playoff, while the ACC, B12 and maybe one smaller conference gets in the last 3 or 4 teams. So, the SEC and B10 is going to dwarf what the other two power conferences get in playoff money, the rich get richer and the ACC and B12 struggle to stay relevant.

That $80 to $100 million the B10 is getting is also before any playoff money, so while both estimates are just from media to televise the games, the B10 is going to get a hell of a lot more teams into the playoff on a yearly basis than the B12. They will be bringing in at least twice what we are by the end of the contract from TV and the playoff.

Still waiting for a link to showing that $70 million dollar media figure you were talking about.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: isu81 and 2speedy1