Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Seems like a stretch but maybe they plan to use the PE money to buy their way in SMU style?
It’s either that or B10 presidents desperately want Utah Health in their research circle.
They are in medium sized city that has wealth but the wealth is behind BYU. They have an above average football program with below average athletic department. This doesn’t help BTN. It’s not like their tv ratings are great either. Their rivalry game draws terribly too.
Who turned the Big Ten down if they are at that point on their invite list? (kidding...kind of)
Why would the Big 10 want them now? They could have had them, probably at a substantially reduced rate or maybe free two years ago.
BTN isn’t espn+, it’s getting paid fees by the cable companies and TV streamers. There’s also BTN+ that is a paid streaming service and I’d bet that loses money
I want everyone to pay attention to who’s posted this…one day people will learn
Would be surprised if any school buys their way into Big10 or SEC. Future realignment for the Big 10/SEC will be driven by TV eyes. Will be surprised if the Big 10/SEC add any schools until early 2030, when next TV deal is up for bid (Big10).
Will be interesting how large the Networks want Big 10/SEC to be- 20, 24 or 28 teams? In both cases their priority is likely:
- Notre Dame
- Preferred ACC schools
- Preferred Big12 schools
Last edited:
I’m not sure why the SEC would even bother adding anyone even after that. They already draw viewership at a rate that is substantially higher than even the Big 10, they will likely get a monster deal when they are up. Not sure who would even be an add? Maybe Florida State or Miami?
I don’t even know if anymore schools get added. Unless ND is willing to join up I just don’t see the value or reason why the conferences want to add.
I doubt the TV Consultants are telling the SEC they can maximize total viewers by being a 16 team league with schools in 12 states. Allowing the Big 10 carte blanche to grow nationally.
The days when OTA linear channels are the distribution method for top tier games are limited. Matter of time when all games are behind a subscription service. So total viewers buying subscriptions will be critical to maximize revenue for TV partners.
Last edited:
Conferences don’t want to add, networks do. And ESPN and Fox want to financially relegate and destroy 20-25 more ACC and B12 schools (including ISU) and as JP has pointed out, it will take Fed intervention to prevent it. And the wheels are in motion to prevent it over the next two years before the next TV deals are negotiated.
Sure bud. ESPN just re upped the ACC deal (which you said they wouldn’t then for this exact reason) but what’s to destroy the ACC.
Conferences make the decisions on who they add, networks don’t. Always have, always will.
So you think this fed intervention is coming in the next two years huh? Glad to know you put a timeline on it, at least now when it doesn’t happen you will get off your favorite oil billionaires ****
If there's one group that definitely listens to outside influence, it's a room full of university presidents and chancellors...
Always fun dialing up this thread to hear the latest takes from the usual suspects on things that never actually happen. Lol.
Yeah,ESPN picked up the ACC option (without a payout increase) but certainly didn’t stand in the way of having a cheaper off ramp for the schools they want to add to the SEC in the 2030s
And B10 expansion has been driven by Fox and their puppet B10 commissioners. The majority of legacy B10 Presidents would prefer going back to 10 and at least double their revenues in doing so. And hopefully they get their wish by 2030.
Got some quotes for you last comment about multiple legacy presidents wanting to go back? Would love to read those.
Glad you got to type puppets, I was worried about you during this down period and just assumed you muttered puppets over and over again in the middle of the night to help you sleep.
Expansion has been exactly in line with what the big ten and SEC wanted. If networks wanted someone that the schools didn’t, it wouldn’t get done
But they obviously listen to money. If the TV networks say they will pay increased payments per school if X, Y & Z schools are added- the presidents will.
Also, when the Big 10 PE stuff was leaked with tiered payments, is there a similar approach in future media rights distributions among schools? In that case, media rights fees don't necessarily have to be accretive on a per school basis.
Regardless, don't see realignment happening much before Big 10 media rights go out to bid.
I like you Spartan, but some of this response defies logic. 'Technically', you are correct about the 'conferences' adding schools; not the networks. BUT, it'd be foolish to assume the conference would still add a school if the networks said there was no business model to do so. Unless, of course, there was an alternative business model outside of the networks. Which could happen, but is quite unlikely.
Oh no I totally agree with what you said, if the big ten as an example loved Cal and wanted to add them but the media partners said we aren’t paying for that then you are totally correct it wouldn’t happen.
My point is that as he always talks about the media partners having the final and only say on these things (it’s why he uses the word puppet like he’s an AI chat bot) and in his world if the media parters said add North Dakota state we will pay for it he thinks the would.
Latest posts
-
Chicago Bears bought Arlington Heights track only to build in Indiana?
- Latest: southernfriedCY
-
-
-
-
