Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[Clonehomer]

There is an interesting paragraph at the end of this article, stating that money-losing bowl games are going to have to go away now that schools are forced to be more focused on the bottom line. We don’t know for sure what will replace them but elsewhere in the article is speculation that the conferences might set up post season games (non playoff) against each other that would be outside the bowl system.


And what of bowl games? It remains uncertain. But, as one leader told Yahoo Sports recently, “the days of schools losing money by playing in bowl games is over.”

With college sports at tipping point, one thing is clear: The SEC and Big Ten are in control of the change that awaits

The SEC and Big Ten's brass held meetings Thursday to discuss the future format of the CFP, football and basketball scheduling arrangements and a post-House settlement way to govern college sports.

sports.yahoo.com

Do these bowls lose money for the school or the conference? Is it just that the conference will have to increase their allowance given to play in the game? Cause someone’s making money. Otherwise they wouldn’t exist.

 

[Gonzo]

There is an interesting paragraph at the end of this article, stating that money-losing bowl games are going to have to go away now that schools are forced to be more focused on the bottom line. We don’t know for sure what will replace them but elsewhere in the article is speculation that the conferences might set up post season games (non playoff) against each other that would be outside the bowl system.


And what of bowl games? It remains uncertain. But, as one leader told Yahoo Sports recently, “the days of schools losing money by playing in bowl games is over.”

With college sports at tipping point, one thing is clear: The SEC and Big Ten are in control of the change that awaits

The SEC and Big Ten's brass held meetings Thursday to discuss the future format of the CFP, football and basketball scheduling arrangements and a post-House settlement way to govern college sports.

sports.yahoo.com

Wow. Sankey felt no hesitation taking some not-so-subtle swipes at the CST thing.

 

[Clark]

Do these bowls lose money for the school or the conference? Is it just that the conference will have to increase their allowance given to play in the game? Cause someone’s making money. Otherwise they wouldn’t exist.

The tv networks make money. The bowls themselves make money. I think most schools treat them as loss leaders (sure we lose money but it's good for the program)

The problem is the value of playing in these games has really diminished so it's harder to sell a school to lose money to play in one.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Schools did it to themselves by taking their bands, cheerleaders and every medium level and above donor to the Frisco Bowl.

You could have easily made money but you chose to outspend your guarantee.

 

[Cyhig]

There is an interesting paragraph at the end of this article, stating that money-losing bowl games are going to have to go away now that schools are forced to be more focused on the bottom line. We don’t know for sure what will replace them but elsewhere in the article is speculation that the conferences might set up post season games (non playoff) against each other that would be outside the bowl system.


And what of bowl games? It remains uncertain. But, as one leader told Yahoo Sports recently, “the days of schools losing money by playing in bowl games is over.”

With college sports at tipping point, one thing is clear: The SEC and Big Ten are in control of the change that awaits

The SEC and Big Ten's brass held meetings Thursday to discuss the future format of the CFP, football and basketball scheduling arrangements and a post-House settlement way to govern college sports.

sports.yahoo.com

Too many bowl games anyway. Look no further than the Quick Lane bowl game last year

5-7 Minnesota vs 7-5 Bowling Green

 

[Gonzo]

Schools did it to themselves by taking their bands, cheerleaders and every medium level and above donor to the Frisco Bowl.

You could have easily made money but you chose to outspend your guarantee.

And that's not a bad thing IMO. Our niece is in ISU's marching band and she's had a blast going to bowl games. Those kids work their butts off.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

And that's not a bad thing IMO. Our niece is in ISU's marching band and she's had a blast going to bowl games. Those kids work their butts off.

Oh absolutely. It's great for the kids but you can't make that choice and then turnaround complaining that you lost money.

 

[2speedy1]

And the B1G offered UO/UW the same entry at a reduced share that the conference offered Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland. The idea that this kind of arrangement was unique to Oregon and Washington is nonsense.

Wasnt unique.

Still is unequal revenue sharing.

B1G is not special.

 

[MountainManHawk]

Do these bowls lose money for the school or the conference? Is it just that the conference will have to increase their allowance given to play in the game? Cause someone’s making money. Otherwise they wouldn’t exist.

Totally agree. I almost said the same thing - obviously someone is making money or they wouldn’t exist. I assume the conferences want to control it themselves so they can be sure they are the ones making the money instead of someone else.

I also wonder if they will try to keep them in vacation destinations or just set more of them up in domed stadiums near the schools to get better attendance.

 

[HouClone]

Get ready for the top bowls not in the CFP to be Big 10 vs SEC. I can see the #2 Big 12 playing the #9 SEC in the Frisco Bowl.

 

[NWICY]

It is sustainable, not for the G5 or some of the poorer P4 but it is. We still haven’t gotten the final details of what the revenues sharing will look like and how it will effect other sports outside of football.

Without those hard numbers it’s honestly impossible to state the impact. Most of the schools in the P4 spend money on a ton of BS because they aren’t supposed to make a profit. Making smart choices would free up millions for many of these schools. Maybe A&M doesn’t need to be paying 70mil in buyouts, or the new locker room doesn’t need an 80ft rockwall and personal spa for players.

The hell they don't, how well those fine scholar athletes ever know they feel appreciated between their free education, and NIL contracts, and salaries.

 

[NWICY]

We don’t see it because it’s not the case. Again, they already had a higher share in the Big 12, so taking less under equal revenue sharing wasn’t going to keep them there. They didn’t go to the Big 10 because they had equal revenue sharing, they went there because even with surrendering dollars for years they saw they would make more money in the long run.

Saying unequal revenue sharing caused the breakup is saying that had the Big 12 had equal revenue sharing Nebraska, A&M, UT and OU wouldn’t have left for better offers, despite making even less money. That’s a completely illogical view.

I'll slightly disagree with this, when Nebby 1st jumped I don't think the money differential was that big of a deal, they were tired of being OU and Texas's b*tch.

Also I'm too lazy to check the money #s.

 

[ClubCy]

I thought there was no money to pay players? I thought FSU could not withstand the money that the ACC gives them to compete so they want to leave? We have been told there’s simply not enough money to withstand the current climate?

I know FSU and Norvell aren’t the only ones doing this but JFC. Can anyone look in the mirror?

 

[RustShack]

I'll slightly disagree with this, when Nebby 1st jumped I don't think the money differential was that big of a deal, they were tired of being OU and Texas's b*tch.

Also I'm too lazy to check the money #s.

It wasn’t. Big12 schools made more money than Nebraska for awhile, and no one knew this media deal 10+ years later was going to explode for the B1G or SEC.

 

[FinalFourCy]

It wasn’t. Big12 schools made more money than Nebraska for awhile, and no one knew this media deal 10+ years later was going to explode for the B1G or SEC.

In large part because of Nebraska’s buy-in.

I agree it wasn’t about money like it was for USC and PAC schools

Nebraska knew it was on borrowed time and it was time cash in via going to a wealthier conference that boosted their institutional brand.


But It’s been known for a long time that the BIG was in far better position in the TV era, an era in which TV rights were known to be increasingly valuable. The BIG knew- that’s why they bet on themselves (recall Shapiro’s remark), as well as going with shorter deals.

July 1, 2011: ESPN’s lowball offer triggered Big Ten expansion

The conventional Big Ten expansion timeline begins Dec. 15, 2009, when the conference released a statement calling for a “thorough evaluation of options.” But uncovering the true origin…

www.chicagotribune.com

And then the BIG added the ability to tax their larger footprint via BTN carriage, and the better TV revenue outlook catalyzed a move NU would have paid to do.

The limited TV potential of the plains has been lingering since the OU and Co lawsuit, both helping birth the Big 12 and nearly end it.

 

[Gonzo]

In large part because of Nebraska’s buy-in.

I agree it wasn’t about money like it was for USC and PAC schools

Nebraska knew it was on borrowed time and it was time cash in via going to a wealthier conference that boosted their institutional brand.


But It’s been known for a long time that the BIG was in far better position in the TV era, an era in which TV rights were known to be increasingly valuable. The BIG knew- that’s why they bet on themselves (recall Shapiro’s remark) and went with shorter deals

And then the BIG added the ability to tax their larger footprint via BTN carriage, and the better TV revenue outlook catalyzed a move NU would have paid to do.

The limited TV potential of the plains has been lingering since the OU and Co lawsuit, both helping birth the Big 12 and nearly end it.

Brilliant move by Delany.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Brilliant move by Delany.

A move they’ve utilized more than once to out-earn the SEC, plus some good fortune on timing

 

[Gonzo]

In large part because of Nebraska’s buy-in.

I agree it wasn’t about money like it was for USC and PAC schools

Nebraska knew it was on borrowed time and it was time cash in via going to a wealthier conference that boosted their institutional brand.


But It’s been known for a long time that the BIG was in far better position in the TV era, an era in which TV rights were known to be increasingly valuable. The BIG knew- that’s why they bet on themselves (recall Shapiro’s remark), as well as going with shorter deals.

July 1, 2011: ESPN’s lowball offer triggered Big Ten expansion

The conventional Big Ten expansion timeline begins Dec. 15, 2009, when the conference released a statement calling for a “thorough evaluation of options.” But uncovering the true origin…

www.chicagotribune.com

And then the BIG added the ability to tax their larger footprint via BTN carriage, and the better TV revenue outlook catalyzed a move NU would have paid to do.

The limited TV potential of the plains has been lingering since the OU and Co lawsuit, both helping birth the Big 12 and nearly end it.

Shapiro: "Take it or leave it. If you don't take our offer, you are rolling the dice."
Delany: "Consider them rolled."

Pretty crazy, if ESPN and Shapiro hadn't tried to lowball and strongarm the B1G that day, there would've been no Big Ten Network. Delany would've taken a fair offer.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Shapiro: "Take it or leave it. If you don't take our offer, you are rolling the dice."
Delany: "Consider them rolled."

Pretty crazy, if ESPN and Shapiro hadn't tried to lowball and strongarm the B1G that day, there would've been no Big Ten Network. Delany would've taken a fair offer.

OUT may be in the BIG if Delany were at the helm.

BTN has been wildly successful, but its biggest realignment value was facilitating Fox as basically having equity in the BIG. I mean, besides the Rutgers addition

 

[cykadelic2]

Love this reporter's take on the ESPN and Fox puppets: