Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[1SEIACLONE]

I don’t know how many more brands are even worth adding. If you’re saying a couple ACC schools that’s fine but there aren’t many and I don’t think that’s even likely. Possible, but not really likely.

There isn’t much reason for the P2 to change the status quo. But to play devils advocate a bit more let’s just say you are right and the top 4 ACC teams leave. The remainder just join the big 12 and basically it’s not much different then today, just more east coast travel

Its totally different because once those schools leave the ACC then the B10 and SEC will push the remaining schools further into money problems, the left over schools will be not much above the level of the MAC schools or the MW teams. Sure they are playing, but struggling yearly to put a competitive team on the field. The talent will flow towards the money, just like coaches will. It's bad now for the B12 and ACC, if the other two leagues expand again, it will be worse for the teams left over.

As long as the B12 and ACC have a few relative teams, they are still in the game, if those schools leave, all of that ends.

 

[simply1]

Yep, and I think they should be limited to just once. I guess you could have an exception going from G5 to P4 but think it’s just cleaner to have one transfer only.

Not my point. I’m not arguing about transfer rules.

You keep pointing to examples like Indiana and saying, “See? It worked.”

But that’s just a specific outcome. A few success stories don’t prove there aren’t other issues. You’re using those examples as evidence that nothing else is wrong, and I don’t think that’s enough.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Not my point. I’m not arguing about transfer rules.

You keep pointing to examples like Indiana and saying, “See? It worked.”

But that’s just a specific outcome. A few success stories don’t prove there aren’t other issues. You’re using those examples as evidence that nothing else is wrong, and I don’t think that’s enough.

I’m not sure how that wasn’t your point since your entire post was addressing my comments on transfers which I responded to.

I’m saying having 7 different CFB champions in 8 years including teams like Indiana is awesome. ISU getting the top basketball reciting class in 2027 is awesome. The frequency of transfers is the only real major issue. The rest is just improvements from what already existed

 

[simply1]

I’m not sure how that wasn’t your point since your entire post was addressing my comments on transfers which I responded to.

I’m saying having 7 different CFB champions in 8 years including teams like Indiana is awesome. ISU getting the top basketball reciting class in 2027 is awesome. The frequency of transfers is the only real major issue. The rest is just improvements from what already existed

I think we’re talking past each other.

I’m not saying those things aren’t awesome. I agree they are.

I’m saying examples like Indiana and ISU show some good outcomes. They don’t prove the rest of the system is fine or that transfer frequency is the only issue. That conclusion doesn’t automatically follow from those examples.

 

[Al_4_State]

The second paragraph is the only part that I disagree with. The G5 shouldn’t have any say in what the P4 are doing.

Totally agree with the guard rails, need that transfer portal locked down after one transfer unless a coach leaves, no exceptions, and prevent people who sign pro contracts from coming back.

Once that’s done the revenue sports are in great shape and many of the non revs are also seeing incredible growth. College hockey has never been better, WBB has hit a post Clark wall but still doing good, baseball and softball are making noise.

A whole lot of good has come out of the changes except for the transfers

There’s no good reason the G5 can’t be along for the ride.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

I’m not sure how that wasn’t your point since your entire post was addressing my comments on transfers which I responded to.

I’m saying having 7 different CFB champions in 8 years including teams like Indiana is awesome. ISU getting the top basketball reciting class in 2027 is awesome. The frequency of transfers is the only real major issue. The rest is just improvements from what already existed

I really think you are making way to much of Indiana winning the championship last year, they are a total outlier, a school that was horrible for decades, finally gets it right, and hires a great coach, and relying on players he brought with him, and the transfer portal wins a championship. It helped that he brought in the Heisman trophy winner, that would go on to be the 1st pick in the draft. Money started to pour in from a fan base that had never experienced winning on this level and they became a TV darling. Much like CC did at Iowa, both became must watch TV to see if they could pull it off and win a championship.

Everything came together for both of them, good coach, incredible players and some luck to get them through it. That is not going to happen at most schools, only those that have the resources to bring in the coaches and NIL to bring in the kids and get them to stay. As the B10 and SEC separate themselves more each season with their media money, its makes it harder and harder for a team from the ACC or B12 to become the next Indiana, because they will not have the money to keep up, unless you can find a billionaire like BYU or TT did to start pumping money into the program, most schools, do not have those types of people and its one of the major reason the SEC stopped winning titles, the B10 schools have richer alumni and are using that to their advantage, taking away the SEC major advantage of being in the hot bed of recruiting. For a couple of decades they never thought players from the south with go to school in the freezing north, but money talks and has made all the difference in the world in football, tilting the advantage to the B10.

 

[isucy86]

There’s no good reason the G5 can’t be along for the ride.

Would you say that if Big10/SEC break away? And then G5 conferences are pushing narrative that Protect College Sports Act means Big12/ACC should share their TV money with G5.

 

[cykadelic2]

Would you say that if Big10/SEC break away? And then G5 conferences are pushing narrative that Protect College Sports Act means Big12/ACC should share their TV money with G5.

It's not about "sharing", it's about "pooling" in order to optimize revenues for all involved conferences. The sharing element is secondary to pooling. And the B12/ACC/G5 would all make more money via pooling as opposed to bidding their rights separately.

And obviously any exclusion of the SEC and B10 is going to negatively impact the financial benefits that would be derived from full FBS/CFP rights pooling.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Would you say that if Big10/SEC break away? And then G5 conferences are pushing narrative that Protect College Sports Act means Big12/ACC should share their TV money with G5.

How are the P2 breaking away and the PCSA being passed both true in your hypothetical?

If the P2 break away, the bill didn’t pass, and it continues to be every conference and school for themselves.

And there won’t be much money to share, so it’s moot

 

[1SEIACLONE]

It's not about "sharing", it's about "pooling" in order to optimize revenues for all involved conferences. The sharing element is secondary to pooling. And the B12/ACC/G5 would all make more money via pooling as opposed to bidding their rights separately.

And obviously any exclusion of the SEC and B10 is going to negatively impact the financial benefits that would be derived from full FBS/CFP rights pooling.

The smartest thing the NFL ever did was to get all the owners to agree to equally share all media revenue and sell it all under one umbrella. It did not matter if you are in NY, LA or Green Bay, everyone gets an equal share and no one has a money advantage over the other league members. The B10 and SEC refute this line of thinking they want to follow the MLB guidelines that allows the Dodgers, Yankees and a few other teams at the top to continue to win or rebuild quickly when they lose, while poor franchises like the Pirates, and others struggle keeping a team together once it starts to win.

Look at the Royals, they draft well, bring in a group of players that can win a championship, but once they have reached that level, they can't afford to keep them, so they either have to let them walk or trade them and start the rebuild all over again. This is what the B10 and SEC want, to keep the distance in money so large between them and the ACC and B12 that teams in those two league will jump at the chance to be in the money league, and those schools will always struggle to have enough money to do anymore than maintain not really catch those at the top.

 

[Kinch]

The smartest thing the NFL ever did was to get all the owners to agree to equally share all media revenue and sell it all under one umbrella. It did not matter if you are in NY, LA or Green Bay, everyone gets an equal share and no one has a money advantage over the other league members. The B10 and SEC refute this line of thinking they want to follow the MLB guidelines that allows the Dodgers, Yankees and a few other teams at the top to continue to win or rebuild quickly when they lose, while poor franchises like the Pirates, and others struggle keeping a team together once it starts to win.

Look at the Royals, they draft well, bring in a group of players that can win a championship, but once they have reached that level, they can't afford to keep them, so they either have to let them walk or trade them and start the rebuild all over again. This is what the B10 and SEC want, to keep the distance in money so large between them and the ACC and B12 that teams in those two league will jump at the chance to be in the money league, and those schools will always struggle to have enough money to do anymore than maintain not really catch those at the top.

Yep. The idea is to increase the size of the pie not to increase the number of pieces. You can argue that pooling media rights made the largest teams more valuable for their owners than if they weren’t. MLB owners and players shoot themselves in the foot by how they are doing it.

 

[Kinch]

The wheels of justice and the senate grind slowly.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Yep. The idea is to increase the size of the pie not to increase the number of pieces. You can argue that pooling media rights made the largest teams more valuable for their owners than if they weren’t. MLB owners and players shoot themselves in the foot by how they are doing it.

Some MLB owners shoot themselves in the foot, others do not

The biggest difference in size of the pie for MLB and NFL isn’t from how they share revenue though.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

Some MLB owners shoot themselves in the foot, others do not

The biggest difference in size of the pie for MLB and NFL isn’t from how they share revenue though.

But sharing revenue puts everyone on equal footings, doing so would help the league more than hurt. Football is the perfect TV game, its teams plays once a week, unlike MLB which are playing every night, or NBA teams 3/4 times a week. So football becomes a social event as much as a sporting event, which in turn helps TV revenue.
50 years ago MLB was the major game in town, that changed in the 70s and 80s, and MLB has shot themselves in the foot over and over since then. They still black out large portion of their viewing audience for games every night, while it occurs in the NFL its rare. You do not have to go to the game in enjoy it, that is difficult or expensive to follow MLB teams. Get the MLB package and your home teams games are blacked out, great if you are a fan out of your region, but if your aren't, good luck watching them.

 

[cykadelic2]

But sharing revenue puts everyone on equal footings, doing so would help the league more than hurt. Football is the perfect TV game, its teams plays once a week, unlike MLB which are playing every night, or NBA teams 3/4 times a week. So football becomes a social event as much as a sporting event, which in turn helps TV revenue.
50 years ago MLB was the major game in town, that changed in the 70s and 80s, and MLB has shot themselves in the foot over and over since then. They still black out large portion of their viewing audience for games every night, while it occurs in the NFL its rare. You do not have to go to the game in enjoy it, that is difficult or expensive to follow MLB teams. Get the MLB package and your home teams games are blacked out, great if you are a fan out of your region, but if your aren't, good luck watching them.

The primary issue with MLB is the extreme disparity of revenues from local TV deals and the recent bankruptcy/collapse of the local TV providers. This is going to be the primary sticking point for some type of salary cap and a revenue sharing mechanism in the ongoing negotiations for a new MLB CBA.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I think we’re talking past each other.

I’m not saying those things aren’t awesome. I agree they are.

I’m saying examples like Indiana and ISU show some good outcomes. They don’t prove the rest of the system is fine or that transfer frequency is the only issue. That conclusion doesn’t automatically follow from those examples.

Ahh I get ya. Without the transfers there haven’t been any real major downsides that’s why I bring them up. WSU and OSU got the short end of the stick but also Cinci, UCF, BYU, SMU, and Houston all got added. There are more teams in the P4 then ever before.

We just haven’t seen any major issues outside of the transfer chaos in the revenue sports and other sports like Hockey and Baseball have also massively benefitted

 

[FriendlySpartan]

There’s no good reason the G5 can’t be along for the ride.

There is zero reason they should be at least for football. Basketball is fine because of March madness and the nature of the sport but zero reason they should be involved in football

 

[isucy86]

It's not about "sharing", it's about "pooling" in order to optimize revenues for all involved conferences. The sharing element is secondary to pooling. And the B12/ACC/G5 would all make more money via pooling as opposed to bidding their rights separately.

And obviously any exclusion of the SEC and B10 is going to negatively impact the financial benefits that would be derived from full FBS/CFP rights pooling.

Pooling only makes sense for Big12, ACC and G5. Because for Big10 & SEC it means a portion of Media Rights money they would have earned unilaterally is SHARED with Big12, ACC & G5.

I realize you firmly believe bidding one CFB Media Rights deal will generate 2-3x more money. And it probably will for Big12/ACC/G5 schools, but it won't maximize what each Big10 and SEC receives annually.

Obviously, the Big10/SEC media consultants are telling them to go it alone. And conversely, Big 12 & ACC media consultants are saying you need the Big 10 & SEC brands to keep up.

 

[isucy86]

Totally get that and I agree with a lot of that. My man pushback is that money isn’t coming from the school. All the schools are paying the same in rev share. If that switch’s then yeah I totally agree with you but even the blue bloods don’t want that.

Milan left because he saw that his NBA career is in doubt and needed to make money while he can. If he got a higher draft grade he would have just stayed in the draft. 100% ****** but pre NIL he would have just left college all together (which is probably easier to swallow but similar result) still ****** he’s at Kentucky

But all the schools aren't paying the same rev share. Schools created in-house NIL Collectives that function to supplement the rev share dollars.

The $22M House Settlement was thought to be a hard cap and it turned out to be a token cap.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Pooling only makes sense for Big12, ACC and G5. Because for Big10 & SEC it means a portion of Media Rights money they would have earned unilaterally is SHARED with Big12, ACC & G5.

I realize you firmly believe bidding one CFB Media Rights deal will generate 2-3x more money. And it probably will for Big12/ACC/G5 schools, but it won't maximize what each Big10 and SEC receives annually.

Obviously, the Big10/SEC media consultants are telling them to go it alone. And conversely, Big 12 & ACC media consultants are saying you need the Big 10 & SEC brands to keep up.

This is just it. The Big Ten and SEC are going to double up anyway in the next round so there is absolutely no incentive for them to come to the table. It absolutely sucks for the Big 12/ACC/G6 but the facts are the facts and, as always, it's very difficult to negotiate when you've got no leverage, I worry they're going to go too far and lose access to games with the Big Ten and SEC.