How is that evidenced by Cruz-cantwell when is has zero chance of passing? That’s the exact opposite of having political capital
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
But is that a blip on the screen or the future for ISU football? Everyone understands we do not have the resources to go out and spend $25 to $40 million a year for NIL in football, but do we have the resources to spend $15 to $20 million a year to put a halfway competitive team on the field is the question. ISU has done well in the past stretching every dollar and making due with less, but I fear we will be priced out of the market unless something is done to bring the cost of fielding a half way competitive team down or at least slow down the increase each year.
If it doesn't pass either this year or next, the reason why won't be due to SEC/B10 restrictions on additional brand consolidation.
But everyone is now well aware at the Fed and State level politically of the desired ESPN/SEC and B10/Fox intentions and the devastating impacts of additional financial and competitive relegation facing +20 ACC/B12 schools and those intentions will be stifled at the Fed level in some fashion even without Cruz-Cantwell passing.
I do love your consistency and somehow still having faith that the govt will somehow swoop in and fix things in a way that doesn’t make things worse.
It’s impressive really
There wouldn't be anywhere close to this number of big brand matchups. LOL at your inability or lack of desire to understand this. Putting 10+ big brand teams in the same conference rather than diluting them across 3 or more conferences makes the math fairly simple.
It's not a coincidence that the final eight in the football playoff all were among those with the highest budgets.
The networks don't care about regional appeal and butts in seats. They care that Rutgers is going to do a bigger number in more populated areas than Purdue-Minnesota is going to do in Indianapolis.
The other poster is right. The bigger those leagues are, the more premier matchups they're going to get and more time slots they cover.
Why should the government be choosing winners and losers in college athletics? Washington State and Oregon State are still fully functioning universities and have actually seen attendance go UP now that they're playing peer institutions.
Right sizing isn't 'devastating'.
Your biggest mistake is you think lawmakers care. You do realize the President's and ADs at B10 and SEC schools are going to be in their congressman/senator ear to shut down any federal action.
Your second biggest misunderstanding is, you think the ISUs, Kansas States, Baylors, of the world matter and bring more value than they actually do.
Exactly. There are 5 schools left (plus Notre Dame) that matter and move the needle and once those 5 are called up, we're at the final stage.
Miami
Florida State
Clemson
North Carolina
Virginia
Rutgers is a poor example of viewership, last season they averaged 633K per game, 53rd in the nation, ahead of only Maryland, NW, and Purdue in 2025. Both Maryland and Rutgers were brought in under the old line of thinking, meaning that households in the region determined the amount of money the league could charge on BTN. No one is watching those two schools games.
Last edited:
Probably several more
IMO the mechanics of how the media generates revenues suggest 24+ in each P2 possible
Realignment is about consolidation of viewers to the P2 game in the three prime windows during the week (noon, 3:30, primetime). The BIG is using expansion to create interest in BIG in more population centers. Not necessarily so they can show that school a lot, but so more people watch the 3 featured BIG games each week.
And at some level, they’re willing to add to prevent a 3rd conference from being able to cannibalize their matchups.
Before streaming, they were a bit capped at how many they could take at a premium rate due to the lack of premium windows. But with streaming they can hide more of their weekly excess inventory from casual viewers, but still getting paid well due to subscriptions. And bundling a lot of schools drives more subscribers.
So expansion guts 3rd conference from taking casual viewers, concentrating even more fans to their featured games. It mitigates any threat a new media entrant can gain footing, and helps drive subscribers. It means sharing even less of postseason revenues/berths, including the coming new CBB postseason deal. It lowers political risk due to achieving a big tent.
And if the market for rights increases regardless, they’ll be able to hide that some new additions are below current average
Last edited:
One has to wonder just what is the criteria for teams to be brought into any super league. Is it viewership, history, recent success, size of the media market or a combination of all. ISU was ranked #40 in viewership last season, ahead of many conference teams, and schools like Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue and NW from the B10. The only four schools ranked above them from the ACC were FSU, Clemson, Miami, and G Tech, we were far ahead of both Virginia and North Carolina.
But somehow speaking strictly football, we get lost out of the conversation of teams to add to the league.
But somehow speaking strictly football, we get lost out of the conversation of teams to add to the league.
It’s about desirable franchise locations and peer schools they want in their club
We don’t have the location or the popularity to get an invite to their club. Which is why JP wasn’t worried about pissing off those that will be making invites. No chance.
It’s all about maintaining CFP access and bringing about unequal revenue sharing in P2 for us & most of the M2
Last edited:
I don’t see it being a priority in the house depending on who wins the midterms. My humble opinion.
I also think that eventually the middies of the P2 will have the same fear.
Especially if the top teams start pushing for uneven revenue. If that happens, teams in the bottom middle and bottom are going to be in a lot of trouble.
In five years it would be interesting to see what Indiana pays out in total expenses. Winning a natty is great and priceless but now they are paying the piper. $13 million for a coach, not to mention his assistants, facility upgrades he will demand, etc, might put just a little strain on the ol athletic director. They have some sugar daddies. We’ll see how they manage.
IU will be fine. They have the resources to not blink, even before the next BIG deal, and given the last two years, can consider it in essence back pay.
But there are several P2 that need equal revenue sharing to continue, otherwise in a worse spot than M2s
