Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

Die4Cy

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2010
14,972
15,857
113
I just think it's funny watching people shouting at the rain and predicting it'll all go away and things will go back to those bucolic, bygone college football days of 40 years ago, courtesy of the U.S. Congress.
No one is arguing this.
 

1UNI2ISU

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2013
9,062
12,177
113
Waterloo
By that logic, every A10, Valley, CUSA, etc team needs judicial and congressional intervention.

CBS/Turner wants more power league teams in the NCAA tournament for ratings and that came at the expense of those leagues. Our league distribution has gone from $1.3M to $800k. That's financial damage.

I want my intervention too.
 

IceCyIce

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2009
2,632
1,644
113
Grimes
So when is the next diarehha date, someone mentioned Feb 2025 for ESPN to decide if they want to keep the media deal in place for ACC at dimes on the dollar? Not sure why they wouldn't do that.
 

FinalFourCy

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
10,435
10,160
113
41
Michigan and tOSU are the only big draws in the core. USC, Penn St., Oregon are also big draws that they'd be cutting loose.

Which is why one could argue intervention is justified. I mean, only two big draws but they kill three other conferences. Takes something like getting in bed with one of the major networks, forming an Alliance, then poaching


That’s not necessarily my opinion, but favorable relationships with networks undoubtedly had a major impact on how fairly equal conferences got down to 2 peer conferences
 

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
4,047
1,772
113
By that logic, every A10, Valley, CUSA, etc team needs judicial and congressional intervention.

CBS/Turner wants more power league teams in the NCAA tournament for ratings and that came at the expense of those leagues. Our league distribution has gone from $1.3M to $800k. That's financial damage.

I want my intervention too.
Nice try, but CBS/Turner didn't drive that decision, it was P5 conferences. And CBS/Turner doesn't want additional tourney expansion.

And a big difference between $25M of lost annual revenues for relegated PAC, ACC and B12 schools and $500K/yr.
 

FinalFourCy

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
10,435
10,160
113
41
Easy, but let’s start with Private Equity, get it now?

I get it, you actually know little about PE

What you fear about PE is already rampant in college athletics

Let’s not be pedantic. The point is the TV rights aggregation at scale can be profitable for whatever entity that achieves that, and that need for profit being passed on to schools would be beneficial for an industry begging fans for more money, cutting sports, all while revenues are up considerably over the last several decades

It could be PE, it could be companies like Amazon or Apple or even ESPN. It could be a mix of both
 
  • Like
Reactions: SolterraCyclone

FinalFourCy

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
10,435
10,160
113
41
By that logic, every A10, Valley, CUSA, etc team needs judicial and congressional intervention.

CBS/Turner wants more power league teams in the NCAA tournament for ratings and that came at the expense of those leagues. Our league distribution has gone from $1.3M to $800k. That's financial damage.

I want my intervention too.

We’re okay with leaving some schools behind- or never inviting them to the club to begin with.

It’s unlikely to occur, but schools that suffer a big drop in revenue come 2032 will have had over a decade of heads up to the risk. Responsible Big 12 schools had since at least 2017 to know there was major uncertainty on revenue come 2025, let alone 2032

Very unlikely to get intervention in the 2030’s because athletic directors banked on revenue 10+ years out that was no assurances it would be there

You can’t lose what you never had. I’d be surprised if we could even borrow against such revenue right now.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 1UNI2ISU

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
4,047
1,772
113
So, what are they going to do? Again split it up, to networks that dont want the content or are not willing to pay more than ESPN or Fox? They control it because they pay the most, and are sports networks with multiple sports channels to fill content on. Others are either not sports only channels, or have 1 subchannel that is sports, but is a very low value channel, at least at this point that paying huge amounts for content on those channels doesnt make sense.

Are you saying they will break up ABC/ESPN? Fox? How does that equal more money for everyone? They have content in a lot of sports, but because of 1 sport they are going to be broken up? Are they going to force ESPN to give up its rights to another network? That wants to pay less?

Are they going to throw out the Supreme Court decision that took the media negotiations away from the NCAA and now allow them to be a central media negotiator, similar to the NFL?

Seriously, I may be ignorant on the fine details on what qualifies of a duopoly, but you may be on the reality of the situation and what exactly would be the answer, and how that answer would be a benefit for anyone, and really what and how exactly anything is done to change the system.

Unless you believe that Congress or the Supreme Court is going to become the new NCAA and govern the entire system, and revert it back to something from decades ago, I dont see it happening.

You hate the duopoly but want to create a monopoly that controls the entire system. It makes no sense.
It is not a violation of the 1984 NCAA TV court decision for the P4 conferences to aggregate their TV rights and bid them out NFL style to multiple bidders beyond ESPN/Fox. That court decision broke up the NCAA/ABC monopoly on CFB TV rights at that time.

ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 are on a clear path to add more desired CFB brands and relegate/destroy 25-30 more leftover ACC and B12 schools by 2032. Fox/B10 has already wiped out the PAC and destroyed ORSt/Wazzu. And the only way to stop them from doing so is likely going to take some level of Congressional and/or Judicial intervention. And this is coming from JP, not me.

There is a reason that recent B10 and SEC meetings had anti-trust lawyers present. Their desired actions at the request of ESPN and Fox warrant intervention.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FinalFourCy

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
10,887
13,973
113
Have already clearly explained in a prior post the financial destruction of having 25-30 existing P4 schools being relegated including ISU. The probability of that destruction clearly warrants Congressional and Judicial intervention in conjunction with NIL guardrails, etc.
Its not destroying schools though. Just football programs. Not the same thing at all. And theres a nonzero amount of administrators, gvmt officials, and plain old citizens that would WELCOME the end of football at a lot of schools.

A lot of schools, maybe the majority, would be financially better off without football.
 

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
4,047
1,772
113
Its not destroying schools though. Just football programs. Not the same thing at all. And theres a nonzero amount of administrators, gvmt officials, and plain old citizens that would WELCOME the end of football at a lot of schools.

A lot of schools, maybe the majority, would be financially better off without football.
Are you serious?

If ISU has their TV revenues in 2032 cut from $35M annually to $10M or less, that impacts all of its sports programs since FB revenues subsidize all sports at ISU, even MBB to some extent.
Same deal with 25-30 other ACC and B12 schools facing relegation between 2027 and 2032.

And if that competitive/financial relegation does happen to ISU, JTS attendance immediately drops in the 40K range or less, enrollment drops, CyTown development is hosed, ISU becomes a clear 2nd fiddle to TOE, etc., etc.

And this is why ACC and B12 Presidents/ADs are all in on the CST and Rudy/Smash initiatives to prevent destructive relegation (and also why ESPN and Fox are holding a gun to the head of SEC/B10 Presidents/ADs to not be involved with those initiatives).
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FinalFourCy

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,664
10,139
113
38
I get it, you actually know little about PE

What you fear about PE is already rampant in college athletics

Let’s not be pedantic. The point is the TV rights aggregation at scale can be profitable for whatever entity that achieves that, and that need for profit being passed on to schools would be beneficial for an industry begging fans for more money, cutting sports, all while revenues are up considerably over the last several decades

It could be PE, it could be companies like Amazon or Apple or even ESPN. It could be a mix of both
I know plenty about PE, like how an origination is 10 times more likely to go bankrupt if managed by PE. What PE does is by no means already being done in college athletics.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FinalFourCy

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,650
7,513
113
It is not a violation of the 1984 NCAA TV court decision for the P4 conferences to aggregate their TV rights and bid them out NFL style to multiple bidders beyond ESPN/Fox. That court decision broke up the NCAA/ABC monopoly on CFB TV rights at that time.

ESPN/SEC and Fox/B10 are on a clear path to add more desired CFB brands and relegate/destroy 25-30 more leftover ACC and B12 schools by 2032. Fox/B10 has already wiped out the PAC and destroyed ORSt/Wazzu. And the only way to stop them from doing so is likely going to take some level of Congressional and/or Judicial intervention. And this is coming from JP, not me.

There is a reason that recent B10 and SEC meetings had anti-trust lawyers present. Their desired actions at the request of ESPN and Fox warrant intervention.
I believe you are conflating more than what JP said.
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,650
7,513
113
Are you serious?

If ISU has their TV revenues in 2032 cut from $35M annually to $10M or less, that impacts all of its sports programs since FB revenues subsidize all sports at ISU, even MBB to some extent.
Same deal with 25-30 other ACC and B12 schools facing relegation between 2027 and 2032.

And if that competitive/financial relegation does happen to ISU, JTS attendance immediately drops in the 40K range or less, enrollment drops, CyTown development is hosed, ISU becomes a clear 2nd fiddle to TOE, etc., etc.

And this is why ACC and B12 Presidents/ADs are all in on the CST and Rudy/Smash initiatives to prevent destructive relegation (and also why ESPN and Fox are holding a gun to the head of SEC/B10 Presidents/ADs to not be involved with those initiatives).
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: CascadeClone

FinalFourCy

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
10,435
10,160
113
41
I know plenty about PE, like how an origination is 10 times more likely to go bankrupt if managed by PE. What PE does is by no means already being done in college athletics.
Yes, I get it, you know little, and continue to miss the point.

Since you don’t actually know much about PE, let’s focus on the actual point

College athletics is the worst a corporate America. It would benefit being under a single entity that implemented a spending cap and had the power to govern/regulate. A company like Amazon could do that and make money. A win/win
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: FriendlySpartan

QBEagles

Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 11, 2014
69
59
18
Because a loan without the macros of the industry changing is just delaying things

Getting a loan to help get us to the other side should be on the table, but it’s success depends on there being the “other side”


And why would we care about giving up equity and upside if you get them to finance annually at some satisfactory benchmark? We’re non-profit and live to the means. Unloading risk for the certainty of a fixed for floating is better than getting left behind


The sport undergoing a restructuring into an aggregate entity represents one of the possible other sides. There will be schools willing to jump in with PE to get that started
I agree restructuring could work to our advantage, but the schools don't need PE to do that. Once the current media deals run out there's nothing stopping the P4 from getting together, forming an new subdivision, aggregating media rights, and moving teams into geographic divisions. Or at least nothing that a PE-backed plan wouldn't run into as well. They'd just need to come up with a way to split the money and power in a way that makes everyone happy.

It's a nice dream, but I don't see it happening, and while PE funding could help with the money end (in the short term), it just makes the power struggle more complicated. Why invite that in if we don't have to?
 

CascadeClone

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2009
10,887
13,973
113
Are you serious?

If ISU has their TV revenues in 2032 cut from $35M annually to $10M or less, that impacts all of its sports programs since FB revenues subsidize all sports at ISU, even MBB to some extent.
Same deal with 25-30 other ACC and B12 schools facing relegation between 2027 and 2032.

And if that competitive/financial relegation does happen to ISU, JTS attendance immediately drops in the 40K range or less, enrollment drops, CyTown development is hosed, ISU becomes a clear 2nd fiddle to TOE, etc., etc.

And this is why ACC and B12 Presidents/ADs are all in on the CST and Rudy/Smash initiatives to prevent destructive relegation (and also why ESPN and Fox are holding a gun to the head of SEC/B10 Presidents/ADs to not be involved with those initiatives).
Totally agree with all that. Terrible for football and other sports. But sports is not the university, and there will be useful fools that will be on the side of the rich and powerful P2 and media.

I am saying there are huge, probably insurmountable, challenges to aggregation efforts. And thst goes for both gvmt intervention as well as PE. Its hard to kum bah yah everyone, when 1/3rd of the needed players think they are better off as is. Its game theory prisoners dilemma-ish situation.
 

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
4,047
1,772
113
I believe you are conflating more than what JP said.
Already posted a couple of JP's direct quotes and in addition to those, he dropped the intervention scenario on the Coaches Corner podcast claiming that Wazzu/ORSt being destroyed (his words) evidently wasn't enough to move the needle for gov't intervention at this point.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: 2speedy1

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron