Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[1SEIACLONE]

LOL that stadium size/fans at games is a measure of popularity or fan base. Oregon's stadium holds 54,000. Think they have no reach?

Indiana has been a great American tale, go from the bottom of the football pool to the top of the mountain in a two year span. It's the type of stories we love to hear. Comparing them to Oregon and their two decades of success to Indiana's two years not the same. They have a small stadium compared to many of their peers in the conference, so unless they plan on enlarging it they are going to struggle with that aspect of the game.
I mean I suppose Indiana could become the power of the B10, but I really doubt it, taking nothing away from what they have accomplished, but even with all the money in the world, they still have to spend it on the right people and get them to produce. Hell if all it took was money Texas would be winning every year.

Have ever seen a team like Indiana rise up out of nowhere, win championships and continue winning at a high level year after year? I sure can't remember any school doing it, but if they can, great for them.

 

[CYCLNST8]

Have ever seen a team like Indiana rise up out of nowhere, win championships and continue winning at a high level year after year? I sure can't remember any school doing it, but if they can, great for them.

Miami Hurricanes. They were discussing axing their football program in the 70s. Then they went on a two decade run of dominance.

 

[Gonzo]

Indiana has been a great American tale, go from the bottom of the football pool to the top of the mountain in a two year span. It's the type of stories we love to hear. Comparing them to Oregon and their two decades of success to Indiana's two years not the same. They have a small stadium compared to many of their peers in the conference, so unless they plan on enlarging it they are going to struggle with that aspect of the game.
I mean I suppose Indiana could become the power of the B10, but I really doubt it, taking nothing away from what they have accomplished, but even with all the money in the world, they still have to spend it on the right people and get them to produce. Hell if all it took was money Texas would be winning every year.

Have ever seen a team like Indiana rise up out of nowhere, win championships and continue winning at a high level year after year? I sure can't remember any school doing it, but if they can, great for them.

We'll see. It definitely takes more than money. It takes coaching. Your Texas comparison is a good one. Sark is a good coach, but he's a guy who before Texas had the reins at a high-powered blueblood, USC. And what did he do? Not much. He's been HC at one of the richest and most resourced programs in the country, Texas, since 2021. And what has he done? Not much, at least relative to all of the advantages he's had in terms of recruits, NIL, $$$, etc. Compare that with what Cignetti has done with a fraction of the resources at a perpetual bottomfeeder.

We'll see. But I don't think Cignetti is going to suddenly start sucking as a coach or as a talent/personnel evaluator.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

Miami Hurricanes. They were discussing axing their football program in the 70s. Then they went on a two decade run of dominance.

We have one, I guess Indiana will be the next.

 

[CYCLNST8]

We have one, I guess Indiana will be the next.

SMU tried to emulate Miami and the powers of the old SWC (Longhorns) pushed the death penalty.

 

[not-the-manager]

Indiana has money and a great coach—they’ll sustain success. They’re also a unicorn, and the suggestion that a super league isn’t the inevitable endpoint of everything we’ve argued about over 1,829 pages because there are other Indianas out there is belied by all evidence in the player-compensation era

 

[FriendlySpartan]

My point is just that the Bug 10’s value is derived mostly from maybe 30% of the membership, but the rest of the league is interchangeable with Big 12 and ACC schools. They’re just lucky financially.

Yep that’s the same for every conference the part is that the 30% can be in flux. Penn State had an awful year and if it wasn’t for their cake schedule this year would continue to be a dumpster fire. They go down, Indiana goes up.

A lot of this is cyclical just some blue bloods have a much higher floor when they are down as long as they don’t stay down too long

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Indiana has money and a great coach—they’ll sustain success. They’re also a unicorn, and the suggestion that a super league isn’t the inevitable endpoint of everything we’ve argued about over 1,829 pages because there are other Indianas out there is belied by all evidence in the player-compensation era

I’d say they are a unicorn in the speed to which they ascended to win a natty but the money aspect isn’t a unicorn. Finding an awesome coach like Cig and keeping him is the real issue.

Also while not winning it all you can easily look at other schools that have had similar rises in the NIL era. Tech, BYU, SMU, Miami, none were as bad as Indiana but also none of them were relevant before NIL

 

[not-the-manager]

I’d say they are a unicorn in the speed to which they ascended to win a natty but the money aspect isn’t a unicorn. Finding an awesome coach like Cig and keeping him is the real issue.

Also while not winning it all you can easily look at other schools that have had similar rises in the NIL era. Tech, BYU, SMU, Miami, none were as bad as Indiana but also none of them were relevant before NIL

Yes, and unrestricted NIL is here to stay. There will be no more risers unless an alumnus has a successful IPO or wins the lottery. I think your argument is that at least that gives the 99% a nonzero chance of keeping their heads above water, though I don’t want to put words in your mouth. But that argument is moot to me, as many athletic departments don’t have another 10 years at current spending levels. The big brands can just wait them out

 

[Big_Sill]

All you need in college football now is a coach and a budget. Indiana obviously benefited from the new world order, but any team can do it. Very scary to BIG 10 and SEC overlords.

Previously, you needed rich tradition, ample recruiting grounds, good coaches, (and of course an under the table budget).

 

[cykadelic2]

Which is why they squirm with fallacies on unequal revenue sharing. And the Duke deal represents a new form of unequal revenue sharing.


ESPN acting in essence as a brokerage, gobbling up bundled rights and selling them à la carte at a premium may serve as an interim step until streaming gets mature in how to make money of billions in rights. Fits with ESPN DTC plans to a degree.

If CFB/CBB had their $hit together with the SBA being amended and central governance of FBS media rights, ESPN wouldn't be permitted to act as a broker like they do now with sublicensing CFP rights to TNT solely for their financial benefit.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Yes, and unrestricted NIL is here to stay. There will be no more risers unless an alumnus has a successful IPO or wins the lottery. I think your argument is that at least that gives the 99% a nonzero chance of keeping their heads above water, though I don’t want to put words in your mouth. But that argument is moot to me, as many athletic departments don’t have another 10 years at current spending levels. The big brands can just wait them out

So I agree with a lot of this but you really underestimate how many schools have staggeringly wealthy alumni, they just need a reason to support the team and that’s usually through winning like what happened at Indiana. The big brands just get a universal support but for those like Indy that never had success often you have to show that success first before people will buy in

 

[1UNI2ISU]

So I agree with a lot of this but you really underestimate how many schools have staggeringly wealthy alumni, they just need a reason to support the team and that’s usually through winning like what happened at Indiana. The big brands just get a universal support but for those like Indy that never had success often you have to show that success first before people will buy in

It's not a coincidence that Vanderbilt getting good in everything happened at the same time that they could pump unrestricted money into their programs.

Of course you have to make the right hires at the same time but the glass ceiling some of these programs had is gone.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Indiana has been a great American tale, go from the bottom of the football pool to the top of the mountain in a two year span. It's the type of stories we love to hear. Comparing them to Oregon and their two decades of success to Indiana's two years not the same. They have a small stadium compared to many of their peers in the conference, so unless they plan on enlarging it they are going to struggle with that aspect of the game.
I mean I suppose Indiana could become the power of the B10, but I really doubt it, taking nothing away from what they have accomplished, but even with all the money in the world, they still have to spend it on the right people and get them to produce. Hell if all it took was money Texas would be winning every year.

Have ever seen a team like Indiana rise up out of nowhere, win championships and continue winning at a high level year after year? I sure can't remember any school doing it, but if they can, great for them.

The NIL era takes a lot of shine off the "great American tale" for me. Give me a program that has a tiny budget in comparison to others in the playoff finding a way to win it all and I'll call it that.

 

[not-the-manager]

So I agree with a lot of this but you really underestimate how many schools have staggeringly wealthy alumni, they just need a reason to support the team and that’s usually through winning like what happened at Indiana. The big brands just get a universal support but for those like Indy that never had success often you have to show that success first before people will buy in

Let's take Michigan State, as they're a great example. They have Big Ten money as well as a recent $401 million infusion—they will be able to tread water for quite a while as they search for their Cignetti/s. My argument is there's not much sand left in the hourglass for the vast majority of athletic departments. That's wonderful for Indiana and Vanderbilt that they have proof of concept before the timers ran out, thus money flowed in, but those examples will be few and far between, in part because of a scarcity of great coaches, and also because luck plays a part in the success of any coach and program. Finding the right coaches, molding programs, and having success takes time, even if less than in the past due to the transfer portal, and some departments have very little time.

I'm not taking sides, but if the consensus in here for months is that @cykadelic2 is blinkered when it comes to restoring some structure in college athletics, then let's not kid ourselves that there's some rosy soft landing whereby half the Big 12, half the ACC, and a handful of G5s survive. That's not where this leads. It's not where the big brands want it to lead, and they go right up to the point of saying so even now, when there are programs proving that unpredictability and underdog stories are strengths of college athletics

 

[isu81]

Indiana has been a great American tale, go from the bottom of the football pool to the top of the mountain in a two year span. It's the type of stories we love to hear. Comparing them to Oregon and their two decades of success to Indiana's two years not the same. They have a small stadium compared to many of their peers in the conference, so unless they plan on enlarging it they are going to struggle with that aspect of the game.
I mean I suppose Indiana could become the power of the B10, but I really doubt it, taking nothing away from what they have accomplished, but even with all the money in the world, they still have to spend it on the right people and get them to produce. Hell if all it took was money Texas would be winning every year.

Have ever seen a team like Indiana rise up out of nowhere, win championships and continue winning at a high level year after year? I sure can't remember any school doing it, but if they can, great for them.

I was responding to your comment regarding the importance or significance of a larger stadium. As several others point out, stadium size and attendance means nothing.

 

[FinalFourCy]

If CFB/CBB had their $hit together with the SBA being amended and central governance of FBS media rights, ESPN wouldn't be permitted to act as a broker like they do now with sublicensing CFP rights to TNT solely for their financial benefit.

It isn’t solely at their benefit. ESPN’s bid, or any bid, is relative to what they can make on it. From selling ads, or reselling it to buyers like streaming.

If ESPN charges too much, then streaming may bypass the middleman for some rights. As new players, it may be awhile before they take billion dollar bets on full seasons or big inventory though

 

[Al_4_State]

Indiana is where they are because A) they have a great coach, and B) they have billionaire sports fan alums that have given a ton of Over-The-Top NIL.

MAC schools could do what Indiana did if they had a Mark Cuban

 

[FinalFourCy]

It's not a coincidence that Vanderbilt getting good in everything happened at the same time that they could pump unrestricted money into their programs.

Of course you have to make the right hires at the same time but the glass ceiling some of these programs had is gone.

Not a coincidence the blue bloods and elite push this narrative of how awful things are now

History/prestige and geography were elite moats. And why college football had awful parity. Schools stacking talent in combo with no playoff, gross

Schools being able to offer a compensating wage to offset geography and prestige may still leave some behind, but the combo of pay to play and CFP expansion has resulted in MANY more programs having a path to elite seasons

Just get a CBA and stop annual free agency. I don’t hate it as every year starts anew, and more surprise ms, but it does make it more difficult to follow

 

[cykadelic2]

It isn’t solely at their benefit. ESPN’s bid, or any bid, is relative to what they can make on it. From selling ads, or reselling it to buyers like streaming.

If ESPN charges too much, then streaming may bypass the middleman for some rights. As new players, it may be awhile before they take billion dollar bets on full seasons or big inventory though

Sure it is to ESPN's sole benefit as it relates to CFB. They and Fox control the sport to the point they currently get a market discount on P4 CFB rights and then inexplicably have the right to sublicense rights as they see fit with the CFP being the most glaring fiasco. That doesn't happen with the NBA and NFL.

And streamers have already made big bets on full season inventory with the NBA's Prime and Peacock deals and the NFL's TNF package with Prime. If given a fair shot at P4 CFB inventory, Prime, Peacock, Paramount all would likely bid on full season inventory.