Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[2speedy1]

As previously pointed out, that's because the Big 12 and all of its existing member schools needed those additions to the conference simply for the conference to survive. The B1G isn't fighting for survival. None of the member institutions (from what I've been able to find) have any kind of problem with USC/UCLA getting a full share immediately, and UO and UW have zero problem taking a reduced share coming in.

A few of you are the only ones who seem to have a problem with it, lol.

No, the only problem I have is B1G fans somehow claiming their unequal revenue is somehow innocent. Fact is they took advantage of their situation and gave far less revenue to new schools.

Same as any, the haves take advantage of the have nots, same as OuT, Same as FSU and Clems. etc. Those people are in the position of strength and want more than others. The B1G was in a position of strength and wanted to make more than their new members who came in in a weaker position.

Its the same damn thing.

 

[Gonzo]

No, the only problem I have is B1G fans somehow claiming their unequal revenue is somehow innocent. Fact is they took advantage of their situation and gave far less revenue to new schools.

Same as any, the haves take advantage of the have nots, same as OuT, Same as FSU and Clems. etc. Those people are in the position of strength and want more than others. The B1G was in a position of strength and wanted to make more than their new members who came in in a weaker position.

Its the same damn thing.

Every new member not named USC/UCLA is brought in at a reduced share.

I guess you can call it the "haves" taking advantage of the "have nots" but in this case the "haves" include Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Iowa, etc.

 

[cyfanatic]

No, the only problem I have is B1G fans somehow claiming their unequal revenue is somehow innocent. Fact is they took advantage of their situation and gave far less revenue to new schools.

Same as any, the haves take advantage of the have nots, same as OuT, Same as FSU and Clems. etc. Those people are in the position of strength and want more than others. The B1G was in a position of strength and wanted to make more than their new members who came in in a weaker position.

Its the same damn thing.

The B1G could have said "pass" and then where would Oregon and UW be? Those two schools were thrilled with the opportunity to take a reduced share...it is fair...they didn't bring as much cache to the league to get what USC/UCLA brought. Now it will be a totally different situation going forward if the B1G decides to pay different members different rates...but no school was forced to join the B1G...and two of the most recent weren't wanted initially and yet jumped at the offer that was extended them.

 

[2speedy1]

The B1G could have said "pass" and then where would Oregon and UW be? Those two schools were thrilled with the opportunity to take a reduced share...it is fair...they didn't bring as much cache to the league to get what USC/UCLA brought. Now it will be a totally different situation going forward if the B1G decides to pay different members different rates...but no school was forced to join the B1G...and two of the most recent weren't wanted initially and yet jumped at the offer that was extended them.

Its still not that different.

Those in the position to take more.... took more. The new members took it because they wanted to be part of the conference. In other cases the members took less because they wanted the high value teams to be part of the conference. In both cases the alternate of saying no, risked taking far less, especially in the long run, in both cases.

The situations are more similar than they are different.

The B1G is not a saint.

 

[cyfanatic]

Its still not that different.

Those in the position to take more.... took more. The new members took it because they wanted to be part of the conference. In other cases the members took less because they wanted the high value teams to be part of the conference. In both cases the alternate of saying no, risked taking far less, especially in the long run, in both cases.

The situations are more similar than they are different.

The B1G is not a saint.

I hate on the B1G all the time...can't stand the attention they get when it just doesn't feel performances are worthy (minus OSU, Mich and maybe PSU)...but in terms of expansion I think they acted more than fairly. Now I am not saying they were being charitable by "saving" Oregon and UW...it is all about the money. But the Big12 was acting in ways to preserve its existence...the B1G was not facing that situation at all.

 

[Cardinal and Gold]

I think @FinalFourCy was making some really interesting points that may have not been quite addressed. They never argued that there is or isn't a difference between USC and Oregon. It's more that there were very real actions with very real monetary benefits that were taken when adding some teams at full share and others at partial. Whether that is right or wrong doesn't matter to their point. It's more that the action was done at all and that could be a very slippery slope.

Think of it from the losers' perspectives. Essentially you are out in the open saying that Oregon and Washington aren't as good as USC (or even their Toad UCLA). But it goes beyond that. Now you are also telling Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers (anyone that came into the league at partial shares) that same thing. I am guessing Nebraska isn't as understanding about this in private than what they may show in public.

Not that inequalities haven't always happened. OSU/Michigan get the best time slots and networks, OSU gets special 2020 treatment, etc; but those inequalities were under a guise. This is out in the open that some universities are better than others.

The new members also probably do not care about the traditions of the Big 10. What happens when USC doesn't want to play night games PT and gets a special by-law actually in writing that they play only at certain times. Then Iowa has a 9:00 pm CT kickoff in Iowa City as a result? (That's extreme, but hopefully you see the point)

TL;DR: It's not about what's right, wrong, or justifiable. It's that inequalities are being actualized out in the open, and it becomes a lot less likely that the buck will stop there. Give a mouse a cookie...

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I think @FinalFourCy was making some really interesting points that may have not been quite addressed. They never argued that there is or isn't a difference between USC and Oregon. It's more that there were very real actions with very real monetary benefits that were taken when adding some teams at full share and others at partial. Whether that is right or wrong doesn't matter to their point. It's more that the action was done at all and that could be a very slippery slope.

Think of it from the losers' perspectives. Essentially you are out in the open saying that Oregon and Washington aren't as good as USC (or even their Toad UCLA). But it goes beyond that. Now you are also telling Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers (anyone that came into the league at partial shares) that same thing. I am guessing Nebraska isn't as understanding about this in private than what they may show in public.

Not that inequalities haven't always happened. OSU/Michigan get the best time slots and networks, OSU gets special 2020 treatment, etc; but those inequalities were under a guise. This is out in the open that some universities are better than others.

The new members also probably do not care about the traditions of the Big 10. What happens when USC doesn't want to play night games PT and gets a special by-law actually in writing that they play only at certain times. Then Iowa has a 9:00 pm CT kickoff in Iowa City as a result? (That's extreme, but hopefully you see the point)

TL;DR: It's not about what's right, wrong, or justifiable. It's that inequalities are being actualized out in the open, and it becomes a lot less likely that the buck will stop there. Give a mouse a cookie...

For the big ten it’s about when the media deals happened. Nebraska joined in 2011 in the middle of a media deal already established (same for Rutgers and Maryland however their case is much different since the big ten loaned them very large sums of money to bail out the AD’s). Once the new media deal kicked in in 2017 Nebraska was made a full member for revenue distribution as they were part of the conference as a new member. USC made its move DURING a media deal negotiation and this allowed the conference to negotiate a deal with those schools included unlike when the previous schools were added.

The deal was already signed when the PNW schools were added so they received the same partial shares of revenue that the first three got as the deal was already done. When the next media deal is up in 2031 (assuming conferences exist and football hasn’t imploded) they will move to full member status the way the other schools did.

It no one is mad about any of this in the conference and it’s honestly more about timing then anything.

Also the conference doesn’t get to pick the time slots for games and how goes where the networks do. It’s why even though it’s known who you are playing week to week the times for many of the games is up in the air till about 2-3 weeks out in a lot of cases.

 

[FinalFourCy]

I think @FinalFourCy was making some really interesting points that may have not been quite addressed. They never argued that there is or isn't a difference between USC and Oregon. It's more that there were very real actions with very real monetary benefits that were taken when adding some teams at full share and others at partial. Whether that is right or wrong doesn't matter to their point. It's more that the action was done at all and that could be a very slippery slope.

Think of it from the losers' perspectives. Essentially you are out in the open saying that Oregon and Washington aren't as good as USC (or even their Toad UCLA). But it goes beyond that. Now you are also telling Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers (anyone that came into the league at partial shares) that same thing. I am guessing Nebraska isn't as understanding about this in private than what they may show in public.

Not that inequalities haven't always happened. OSU/Michigan get the best time slots and networks, OSU gets special 2020 treatment, etc; but those inequalities were under a guise. This is out in the open that some universities are better than others.

The new members also probably do not care about the traditions of the Big 10. What happens when USC doesn't want to play night games PT and gets a special by-law actually in writing that they play only at certain times. Then Iowa has a 9:00 pm CT kickoff in Iowa City as a result? (That's extreme, but hopefully you see the point)

TL;DR: It's not about what's right, wrong, or justifiable. It's that inequalities are being actualized out in the open, and it becomes a lot less likely that the buck will stop there. Give a mouse a cookie...

Unequal is fair imo

Fairness is irrelevant imo, other than the fact thar fair and equal used to be synonymous for BIG revenue decisions. All new schools used to have a buy-in, but now you have some that do, some that don’t, largely based on leverage and valuation dynamics

Also new is the BIG decisions being so dependent on Fox wishes. I don’t think the BIG would have objected to ORUW also getting full shares, had Fox been willing. Such is life when they own a majority of BTN and conference composition/existence is dependent on a handful of schools getting a big enough media deal to stay

Imo it will be difficult for all 34 current P2 schools to be paid equally next round. That would mean the top half of schools are leaving a lot on the table, and that will be exploited

Start with the schools that just left decades of history behind for a bigger paycheck, and offer a premium until you get the one of the OSU or Bama types to jump. That could be to the other P2, or to a new conference

 

[StPaulCyclone]

Its still not that different.

Those in the position to take more.... took more. The new members took it because they wanted to be part of the conference. In other cases the members took less because they wanted the high value teams to be part of the conference. In both cases the alternate of saying no, risked taking far less, especially in the long run, in both cases.

The situations are more similar than they are different.

The B1G is not a saint.

After the “Alliance” and cutting the head off of the P12, does anyone honestly consider them a saint?

 

[FriendlySpartan]

After the “Alliance” and cutting the head off of the P12, does anyone honestly consider them a saint?

Anyone who thought the “alliance” was anything other than empty words has their head in the sand. The alliance was a joke the moment it got published and everyone universally mocked it

 

[RustShack]

And?

4 schools started play this year. 2 of them get full shares, 2 partial. This inequality has never occurred before in BIG.

It’s now a corporate marriage of schools looking to do what’s needed to maximize valuation…aka, keep OSU, Michigan, USC, PSU etc happy

There’s decent odds that in the future several top BIG schools decide they are best served getting more revenue than others in the conference, otherwise they leave for a new conference that doesn’t require them to share revenue with mid value schools.

In the pay to play era, it wouldn’t take much of a premium to unravel the P2 into a P1. Offer mercenary schools like A&M, USC, Oregon, UT, OU along with FSU, Clemson etc a premium over OSU, Michigan. It would only take one of those to jump before BIG is done, same with Bama or UGa in SEC

USC/UCLA were known to be coming to the B1G when they signed the new media deal. Oregon and Washington were added after the deal was signed. That’s the difference.

 

[FinalFourCy]

After the “Alliance” and cutting the head off of the P12, does anyone honestly consider them a saint?

Saint and innocent?

There’s no need for adjudication on whether the BIG has caused damage to schools outside the BIG as they maximize the benefits of the BIG. There’s no apology or admission coming, either.

 

[FinalFourCy]

USC/UCLA were known to be coming to the B1G when they signed the new media deal. Oregon and Washington were added after the deal was signed. That’s the difference.

Lmao, right, because ORUW weren’t available at the same time as USC or before signing the deal

The order of events is not coincidental. I bet you also have posts suggesting “if BIG/Fox were going to invite ORUW, they would have already done so”

The BIG knew ORUW and nearly every all other schools on its target list, would not get full shares like USC. The others didn’t have the power to get that, with ND the obvious exception.

Which again signals the new era of BIG- what schools get depends on their power (value and alternatives). Fox and the BIG knew they had ORUW any time they wanted, and could get them at a discount to their fellow PAC additions

 

[Gonzo]

USC/UCLA were known to be coming to the B1G when they signed the new media deal. Oregon and Washington were added after the deal was signed. That’s the difference.

Not just that, USC/UCLA being added completely shifted the media rights negotiations. All of a sudden the B1G had the #2 media market in the country. That deal wouldn't have been as big as it was without USC/UCLA. That's another reason they came in at a full share, they brought major $$$ value to the conference.

 

[CyCrazy]

Lmao, right, because ORUW weren’t available at the same time as USC or before signing the deal

The order of events is not coincidental. I bet you also have posts suggesting “if BIG/Fox were going to invite ORUW, they would have already done so”

The ignorance on this topic is surprising

Take a break.

 

[t-noah]

Saint and innocent?

There’s no need for adjudication on whether the BIG has caused damage to schools outside the BIG as they maximize the benefits of the BIG. There’s no apology or admission coming, either.

True. And so, without need of big words, the rest of us will just tell the B1G to F***Off.

 

[ClubCy]

Lmao, right, because ORUW weren’t available at the same time as USC or before signing the deal

The order of events is not coincidental. I bet you also have posts suggesting “if BIG/Fox were going to invite ORUW, they would have already done so”

The BIG knew ORUW and nearly every all other schools on its target list, would not get full shares like USC. The others didn’t have the power to get that, with ND the obvious exception.

Which again signals the new era of BIG- what schools get depends on their power (value and alternatives). Fox and the BIG knew they had ORUW any time they wanted, and could get them at a discount to their fellow PAC additions

Your lack of understanding how business and deals work is also surprising.

Saint and innocent?

There’s no need for adjudication on whether the BIG has caused damage to schools outside the BIG as they maximize the benefits of the BIG. There’s no apology or admission coming, either.

Your feelings are hurt because a conference we have never been in or will ever be in won’t apologize or admit they hurt some other schools? Get some air my man.

 

[HFCS]

This is a GOD TIER youtube channel for people who obsess over conference realignment.

I mean if you dig deep enough this guy has videos about Morningside and Simpson conference realignment history.

 

[MountainManHawk]

I think the debate should be about whether a vote on unequal revenue sharing in the Big10 would pass or not.

Obviously the vote passed in conferences like the Big12 and ACC because the have-nots schools didn’t want the blue bloods to leave.

In the Big10, none of us really knows but I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that it would pass or anything. I would hope Iowa would vote against it.

The threat that the Big10 blue bloods will leave and team up with the blue bloods from the SEC in a new breakaway conference doesn’t really scare me. There are actually days I kind of wish it would happen because it feels like such an uneven playing field already that I’d kind of prefer they leave, assuming that we would still have plenty of regional rivals left behind that we could team up with.

As it is, we are going to have a few schools on the schedule every year where we need a David vs Goliath upset to beat them. And the only benefit is we will have more money than everyone not in the P2. But the way things are going, pretty soon we won’t play anyone from outside the P2 anyway so I’m not sure why it will matter. I guess we will be able to go on message boards and theorize that we could win one of the other conferences, while we just finished 7th in the conference we are actually in, but that all feels kind of hollow and I think I’d rather the blue bloods just all leave then sign up for that.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Your lack of understanding how business and deals work is also surprising.


Your feelings are hurt because a conference we have never been in or will ever be in won’t apologize or admit they hurt some other schools? Get some air my man.

JFC man, I get that you’re ignorant on this, I’m sure it’s comforting for you, but please have better comprehension.

Discussing whether the BIG is innocent or a saint is a fools errand.