Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
4,021
1,765
113
The CFP isn't an NCAA championship. You're comparing apples and oranges. The horse that was carrying that possibility left the barn 100+ years ago. The CFP is like the NIT before the NCAA bought it. They have their own criteria and own process and schools can either choose to

They weren't relegated. There isn't an NCAA by law that says this group of schools is entitled to X amount of TV dollars or X amount of conference distribution. It sucks, hate that it happened to them but I'm glad it wasn't Iowa State like it could have been a decade ago. It's not any TV network's responsibility to make sure that every school is compensated, the networks get to make the decision as to what they're willing to pay and who they are going to pay it to.

I don't hate the collective TV ideas and I think it would be great for the health of the sport but they're DOA. We have to live in what really has the possibility of happening.

Lastly, the reason it's going to be hard for senators especially to get involved is how do you advocate on behalf of one university in your state and not others. These people live everyday trying to figure out how to get re-elected. If I'm a senator in, let's say, North Carolina. Real hard to justify to my constituents that I'm out trying to 'save' NC State while Appy and East Carolina don't have a seat at the table. Where do you draw the line?
Point still stands regarding the CFP. It is not at all "open" as you previously suggested as it is for all other college sports, NCAA sponsored or not.

And to state Wazzu and Oregon St weren't financially relegated by the actions of Fox and the B10 is sticking your effin head in the sand.

And CFB is the only American sport that I am aware of where the networks have the power to financially relegate franchises (college football teams) as they see fit. Fox has already done so and ESPN is along the same path. Like every other sport, it is far past time where the Presidents/ADs/Commissioners tell the networks you will bid on these conference packages as we want them, not how you want them that causes Wazzu and ORSt to get destroyed.

And quit focusing so much on the Senate/House, it is more likely a breakup of the ESPN/Fox duopoly occurs at the Judicial level for anti-trust reasons.
 

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
4,021
1,765
113
Suck it, conferences


Conferences would still exist for competition purposes.

Mhver is suggesting they would no longer exist as separate TV negotiating entities and P4 TV rights would be aggregated and bid out NFL style (perhaps G5 rights as well).

I hope he is right on this one.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: CascadeClone

KnappShack

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2008
23,883
32,235
113
Parts Unknown
Conferences would still exist for competition purposes.

Mhver is suggesting they would no longer exist as separate TV negotiating entities and P4 TV rights would be aggregated and bid out NFL style (perhaps G5 rights as well).

I hope he is right on this one.

Guess it depends on the details. Who's kicking in the $100 billion? Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy Fox?

Are we in this mix? Can we get traditional and regional rivalries back?

Nah. Let's kill that golden goose
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: FinalFourCy

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,627
10,118
113
38
And CFB is the only American sport that I am aware of where the networks have the power to financially relegate franchises (college football teams) as they see fit. Fox has already done so and ESPN is along the same path. Like every other sport, it is far past time where the Presidents/ADs/Commissioners tell the networks you will bid on these conference packages as we want them, not how you want them that causes Wazzu and ORSt to get destroyed.
Yeah but this is because college sports aren’t professional sports whose sole goal is to make money. People on here like to throw around that college football/athletics is basically a professional sport but the reality is it couldn’t be farther away. College football subsidizes every other college sport but basketball in most bases and any additional profit that is made goes back into the AD to further help/grow all sports.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: NWICY

Kinch

Well-Known Member
Sep 19, 2021
5,766
5,860
113
Guess it depends on the details. Who's kicking in the $100 billion? Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy Fox?

Are we in this mix? Can we get traditional and regional rivalries back?

Nah. Let's kill that golden goose.
No way someone buys college football, sports and/or its TV rights for $100 billion. If you purchased every NFL franchise you would spend $190 billion. No way is college football valued at half that. IMHO.
 

cykadelic2

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2006
4,021
1,765
113
Yeah but this is because college sports aren’t professional sports whose sole goal is to make money. People on here like to throw around that college football/athletics is basically a professional sport but the reality is it couldn’t be farther away. College football subsidizes every other college sport but basketball in most bases and any additional profit that is made goes back into the AD to further help/grow all sports.
CFB is the 2nd most watched sport in the US so it should be and needs to treated from a TV rights perspective like any other major US TV sports property even if the enterprise is not for profit in theory. The current ESPN/Fox model is leaving millions of dollars on the table in rights money and it enables ESPN/Fox to relegate CFP franchises as they see fit. Great for ESPN/Fox, far from great for P4 ADs.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: FriendlySpartan

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,627
10,118
113
38
CFB is the 2nd most watched sport in the US so it should be and needs to treated from a TV rights perspective like any other major US TV sports property even if the enterprise is not for profit in theory. The current ESPN/Fox model is leaving millions of dollars on the table in rights money and it enables ESPN/Fox to relegate CFP franchises as they see fit. Great for ESPN/Fox, far from great for P4 ADs.
Strong disagree with this, college sports aren’t now and should not be considered for profit enterprises.

I’ve also always disagreed with your notion that this is leaving millions of dollars on the table but no need to rehash that.
 

Gonzo

Well-Known Member
Mar 10, 2009
26,746
31,098
113
Behind you
No way someone buys college football, sports and/or its TV rights for $100 billion. If you purchased every NFL franchise you would spend $190 billion. No way is college football valued at half that. IMHO.
Only thing I've read with regards to PE is buying into programs, not conferences or college football as a whole. And if that's the case the only ones who will likely benefit are the bluebloods that have the brands capable of providing a return on what would be a pretty massive investment. I have no idea why fans of middling/bottom-half P2 programs or Big 12/ACC programs would be jazzed about PE coming in thinking they're going to invest in everyone. And yes I know that includes Iowa.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: FinalFourCy

Cloneon

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2015
3,005
3,120
113
West Virginia
I love this thread. For one, it's a circular argument with both sides having very good points.

However, when discussing 'anti-trust', most everyone here is in the dark. If one understands the circle jerk of Blackrock, they then also understand the circle jerk of ESPN. The intent of the anti-trust laws have been circumvented by developing circular strongholds through investment. And if anyone doesn't think there's collusion between the circular strong hold of these entities, they're blind fools. The government can't intervene because their anti-trust laws are nearly 100 years old and there are too many greedy obstacles to change them.

These are now the crippling threat to the free-market concept.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FinalFourCy

FinalFourCy

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
10,435
10,160
113
41
[
Guess it depends on the details. Who's kicking in the $100 billion? Wouldn't it be cheaper to buy Fox?

Are we in this mix? Can we get traditional and regional rivalries back?

Nah. Let's kill that golden goose

You mean save the golden goose?

Nothing kills the golden goose more than the current path of these schools prioritizing money over everything else, all so less than 40 current ADs and presidents can ballon their budgets and salaries while killing the goose

A profit driven rewrite would save most rivalries, as outside of big brand vs big brand, they’re the best for profit

1.) get rid of buy games
2.) split 48 to 64 schools along P2 fault lines BIG and SEC. Tap into a north/south and red/blue hate
3.) create divisions in the two, generally along legacy conferences, in which you play 7 games against regional/historical rivals, leaving another 5 against others made for TV, and setup previous year
4.) ideally limit BIG vs SEC matchups to postseason to retain intrigue in non-CFP postseason
 

2speedy1

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
6,641
7,503
113
So wrong on multiple counts with this post.

There is competitive and financial relegation. Both Wazzu/ORSt clearly got financially relegated ($25M/yr reduction in TV payouts) and also competitively relegated as well for CFB with the new PAC. The new PAC isn't part of P4 autonomy and will obviously have more difficult access to the CFP.

Also, their history and alum interest justifies inclusion in a 70-school Super League concept. They clearly beat the hell out of effin Houston. Too bad the B12 doesn't have a do over where they initially expand with only UC and BYU and then later add Wazzu and ORSt as well.

And the CFP doesn't offer every school a chance to advance. D1 CFB is the only NCAA sport where all conference champs aren't guaranteed a spot in the playoff like every other NCAA sport does.
You keep saying this. Where are you coming up with this number? Last I checked no media deal had been announced. And you are comparing it to what? The Big 12 number? Because last I checked the Pac 12 was struggling to get $25M for a deal, not $35. So what exactly are you basing their supposed reduction in TV payouts on?

Saying they would get more if it was before this team or that team left, is just hypothetical, just like the SECs hypothetical playoff game wins.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,627
10,118
113
38
[

You mean save the golden goose?

Nothing kills the golden goose more than the current path of these schools prioritizing money over everything else, all so less than 40 current ADs and presidents can ballon their budgets and salaries while killing the goose

A profit driven rewrite would save most rivalries, as outside of big brand vs big brand, they’re the best for profit

1.) get rid of buy games
2.) split 48 to 64 schools along P2 fault lines BIG and SEC. Tap into a north/south and red/blue hate
3.) create divisions in the two, generally along legacy conferences, in which you play 7 games against regional/historical rivals, leaving another 5 against others made for TV, and setup previous year
4.) ideally limit BIG vs SEC matchups to postseason to retain intrigue in non-CFP postseason
I think this argument plays a lot better once this 20mil payment mandate kicks in because right now nothing of what you’re saying is happening.

All P4 conferences are making more money then they have ever made in history. Ratings have been going up. ISU just had a record setting season, ASU won its first outright conference title in 30 years and made its first playoff, SMU, Boise, and Indiana also had similar seasons. Colorado is relevant for the first time in decades.

In basketball BYU just landed the number 1 overall recruit, UConn is coming off back to back championships, and ISU has a shot at a 1 seed.

Women’s basketball (and in a very minor case gymnastics) has never had better ratings or awareness.

Again, I totally get looking down at the future and seeing huge issues but right now this idea that college athletics and athletes are doing anything but amazing is completely misplaced.
 

FinalFourCy

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
10,435
10,160
113
41
Only thing I've read with regards to PE is buying into programs, not conferences or college football as a whole. And if that's the case the only ones who will likely benefit are the bluebloods that have the brands capable of providing a return on what would be a pretty massive investment. I have no idea why fans of middling/bottom-half P2 programs or Big 12/ACC programs would be jazzed about PE coming in thinking they're going to invest in everyone. And yes I know that includes Iowa.

Anyone putting in that level of investment is thinking bigger than what they can make off programs. It’s a great alternative investment asset class, if bought in scale.

Controlling a company can make them okay money. Controlling an industry makes them more.

An industry that collectively has had tremendous revenue growth, yet most business break even due to prisoners dilemma between businesses. Better yet, every business that’s pulling in revenue is non-profit, has inherent/captive customers that ******* donate to pay production costs.
 
Last edited:

FinalFourCy

Well-Known Member
Mar 5, 2017
10,435
10,160
113
41
I think this argument plays a lot better once this 20mil payment mandate kicks in because right now nothing of what you’re saying is happening.

All P4 conferences are making more money then they have ever made in history. Ratings have been going up. ISU just had a record setting season, ASU won its first outright conference title in 30 years and made its first playoff, SMU, Boise, and Indiana also had similar seasons. Colorado is relevant for the first time in decades.

In basketball BYU just landed the number 1 overall recruit, UConn is coming off back to back championships, and ISU has a shot at a 1 seed.

Women’s basketball (and in a very minor case gymnastics) has never had better ratings or awareness.

Again, I totally get looking down at the future and seeing huge issues but right now this idea that college athletics and athletes are doing anything but amazing is completely misplaced.

That’s a limited P2 POV, and the revenue disparity has really just started

Go read JPs letter, and talk to fans across the country about how they feel about needing to spend even more


I’m a proponent that the sport needed to become more national and pay players. But doing so in a manner that results in sports being cut in $120 million/year budgets isn’t amazing
 

Die4Cy

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2010
14,972
15,857
113
Neither Wazzu nor Oregon State have been destroyed by any reasonable metric.

JP is an AD of what is currently considered a “power conference” athletic department. He has a peculiar perspective, and even then is being hyperbolic.

The consensus opinion is that post election Congress will pass a measure granting antitrust exemptions to overcome court rulings that determined athletes could be considered employees and that athletes can’t be denied compensation. The various “college sports” organizations (NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA, Ivy League, Big 10, MVC, etc) will have more autonomy to set their own rules.

Do you really think this same federal government will have the stomach to interfere in media contracts these organizations pursue because a few dozen schools see their payouts cut by 60%?
I think the general understanding is that media contracts would be something the NCAA/ some other governing body would be able to negotiate like any other sports league with the protection of an antitrust exemption. There are many downstream effects going back over the past 35 years from the NCAA arguing their athletics program are academic pursuits in order to protect nonprofit status at the universities. Losing TV rights to conferences and schools was one of them.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
9,627
10,118
113
38
That’s a limited P2 POV, and the revenue disparity has really just started

Go read JPs letter, and talk to fans across the country about how they feel about needing to spend even more


I’m a proponent that the sport needed to become more national and pay players. But doing so in a manner that results in sports being cut in $120 million/year budgets isn’t amazing
Who is forcing you to pay more? Yes tickets are going up and you have to pay sales tax now, that’s what happens when teams have this level of success. You have two of the greatest coaches in the history of ISU sports right now, yeah you have to pay them and their staff to retain them. But again, you as a fan? No one is forcing you to do anything.

If you were coming off a 4 win season and having missed the tourney for a couple years those salaries are millions of dollars less. Also as people have pointed out part of this is AD’s anticipating having money before the ink was signed on contracts.

The bulk of this change is due to being forced to pay the athletes their fair share by the courts. This was going to happen regardless of realignment
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FinalFourCy

Die4Cy

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2010
14,972
15,857
113
I love college sports. But why should congress step in to regulate or legislate how it operates? Isn't the primary reason colleges exist is to educate students vs. develop semi-pro athletes into professional athletes?

If it ends up that Big12 & ACC schools can't compete with Big10 & SEC then the Presidents and AD's of Big12 & ACC schools have to realistically decide the appropriate business model. Aka are they willing to be the Twins/Rays/Royals/Rangers vs. Dodgers/Yankees. Or after 4-5 years does it become a Harlem Globetrotters vs. Washington Generals relationship?

If the latter happens, then I am OK with Iowa State existing in a 2nd tier of college athletics. IMO that won't change the game day experience for Cyclone fans. But IMO that would be a step back from the more national product that is college sport today.
Congress won't be regulating regulating college sports. They would be saying the NCAA has legal authority to broadly regulate all aspects of college sports. They do not have this, which is why they keep losing consistently in court since 1984 when it was first challenged.