That is one helluva reference. We watch that movie every Christmas with the kids, but I still wouldn’t have known the toady’s name was Grover Dill.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
If Stanford leaves the Pac 12, for the B10, that will kill the P12 as a conference. They simply cannot afford to lose any of Stanford, Oregon or Washington. If Arizona left for the B12, they could fill in with SDSU, but they could never replace one of the main three for the media side of it.
It's easy to draw a path for the B10 to take Stanford, putting more pressure on ND to join in the future, and the wait to see what happens to the ACC GOR agreement. I still think in their perfect scenario, they want ND, Stanford, UNC and UVA. That would give them the 3 best brands in California and strengthen their position on the East Coast.
When that happens, Oregon and Washington will then have to swallow hard, and join the B12 to stay relevant.
It's easy to draw a path for the B10 to take Stanford, putting more pressure on ND to join in the future, and the wait to see what happens to the ACC GOR agreement. I still think in their perfect scenario, they want ND, Stanford, UNC and UVA. That would give them the 3 best brands in California and strengthen their position on the East Coast.
When that happens, Oregon and Washington will then have to swallow hard, and join the B12 to stay relevant.
More I think about it, I could see Stanford in the Big Ten. Brings sone TVs, good school, will never beat anybody at football. And if you think about it, that's what the big ten has been really good at, adding awful football schools for the original members to beat up on that ad just enough TVs not to dilute the pie.
Big ten saying they’re cooling down is just posturing and again “hey look over there.” ND and Stanford are imo their two top targets right now. UNC, UVA, later for 20 teams. SEC goes after Clemson, Florida st, Miami, VT, and I think Oklahoma state and one other maybe Iowa state if we don’t poach the PAC I think a couple 3 teams from big 12 will look to get into SEC or try.
The days of equal revenue sharing in the P2 if the crap schools are still there will make less. Instead scheduling weak teams outside of conference you’ll have it IN your conference.
The days of equal revenue sharing in the P2 if the crap schools are still there will make less. Instead scheduling weak teams outside of conference you’ll have it IN your conference.
I think you are half right with Oregon. Washington is Big10 worthy and their silence might indicate they are Big10 bound.
My bet is the Big10 wants to go to 20 schools. Just having 2 Pac12 just doesn't make sense. With the BTN model, I think the Big10 wants to add in order: ND, Washington, Stanford and Arizona State. That would put Big10 in the 4 biggest DMA's on west coast.
That would give the Big10 schools in 10 of top 15 media markets.
I don’t disagree, but in talking perfect scenario in which they are able to get ND to join the BIG, why stop there? Wouldn’t they like to have FSU and Miami too, getting BIG a place in FL. The only east state of relevance they’d not have is GA. It’s basically the best of the Alliance, sans Clemson, Oregon, and UW. With two more spots, it’s anyone’s guess- UW, Oregon, Cal (for logistical reasons), Duke, KU? ND pays for a few schools imo, Stanford being one.
Stanford is also a good academic school, good at most sports, and most importantly another ND rival in the B1G.
20 schools make a lot of sense. Why I think they are wanting one more PAC and take ND. Then grab two east coast teams.
If you have 20 teams, in two divisions, then you schedule 9 conference games and 3 non cons. Like the old baseball when it had two divisions who never saw each other until the world series.
You could also do 22 teams with 2 divisions and 10 conference games. Any more and you limit teams that want to travel to areas to gain recognition and such.
If you have 20 teams, in two divisions, then you schedule 9 conference games and 3 non cons. Like the old baseball when it had two divisions who never saw each other until the world series.
You could also do 22 teams with 2 divisions and 10 conference games. Any more and you limit teams that want to travel to areas to gain recognition and such.
Obviously, ACC schools could be in play today. After all, the UT, OU, USC and UCLA moves were all a bit out of the blue.
But I tend to think the ACC schools are a longer term play (6-10 years) and those moves would expand the Big10 to 24. If they come available earlier great, but in the meantime the Big10's goal is to establish a strong foothold in west coast major media centers.
The Big10 adds focus on major media centers (Giants/Rams). The SEC adds focus on rabid fan bases (Packers/Bills).
The ACC could be in play right now in the sense that anything could happen, but no. Your second paragraph is a whole lot more sensible. There’s a reason OUT is sticking around through 2025, and it’s the same reason the ACC will be in place through 2036. There’s unlikely to be a viable legal argument out of the GOR, the other parties have no reason to settle, and the financial implications are gargantuan.
I think the Big 10 is likely the driving factor in who goes where, and ND is the biggest domino. I could see the Big 10 going to 20 or 22 max without ND, they’re always going to leave that door open. Personally, I think Stanford and 1 of the PNW schools get the invite, probably UW. Their ACC targets largely depend on if they’re still pursuing TV markets as much as if not more than active fanbases. They’d be nuts not to try to add Miami and/or FSU either way. UNC, UVA/VATech and GATech would be targets if their cable model is still alive and well in 10-12 years.
The desire to jump ship will hinge upon whether or not there is a locked in path to the CFP for those that remain. B1G and SEC are pretty confident they can leverage a couple realignment moves into a situation where they can split most of the slots in a larger playoff between them as long as they are magnanimous enough to throw us a bone and guarantee the rest of us one spot each.
But if Washington and Oregon can still make the CFP from a diluted PAC, they still might choose to do it.
A weaker league can survive if people get their slot to the big dance in January. But their conference won't earn anywhere near the share of playoff dough if it gets divided up proportionally as has been discussed.
The question is whether Big 12,ACC, or PAC football is viewed by recruits as "lesser" college football over time as the G5 currently is. If so, the big boy table becomes more important whether the access is there or not.
Last edited:
Barring ESPN bankruptcy, there is little to no reason to even dwell on any ACC migration until the 2030s.
Stanford has finished the season ranked 7 times in the last 12 years. 3rd, 4th, 7th, 7th, 11th, 12th, 20th.
Couple of reasons, I think that Florida St and Maimi if given the choice would rather be stay in the South and will get a bid to the SEC, if one of them does not, they could be there for the B10 to grab.
No one is Georgia is there for the taking, and no way does any of them leave the money from the SEC to get the B10 money and added travel that comes with it.
Why no Duke and KU, they will not bring in enough money that existing members do not have to take a cut in revenue. Is either school worth each current conference schools making $5 to $10 million less, maybe, maybe not, but why take them and the drag their football programs are just for BB. Duke can move to the Big East and be fine, along with Boston College and a few others.
You are also cherry picking to include the most successful period in program history. They have finished ranked once in the last 5 years and traditionally have not been that strong of a program. I don't think moving to a Midwest/east coast dominated league is going to help them any.
Where the Big 12 and ACC are getting hosed is on basketball. We hear Texas complain that "they are tired of carrying us" and that basketball brings little money conferences, compared with football. And yet, Texas and Alabama and Ohio State are the freeloaders while the NCAA is being financed on the backs of the basketball schools of the Big 12 and ACC (and I'll throw in the Big East).
CBS and TNT are paying the NCAA $1 billion per year to televise a two and a half-week tournament. That is three times the contract the SEC and ESPN inked last June. AND YET, while Alabama, Michigan, Texas and Ohio State get to keep 100% of THEIR contract approaching $100 million per school, the Big 12 and ACC schools (which was responsible for the most watched basketball final in history), get to keep only $1 million to $2 million per school on CBS' contract, if I am reading the Big 12 distribution figures correct. Basically, the NCAA funds itself (and all of the mid major and minor conferences) on proceeds from a two and a half week tournament that basically the Big 12 and ACC (and Big East) makes possible, more so than all but a few teams do on the Big 10 and SEC. Why should the Big 12 and ACC carry the load funding the NCAA on basketball and watch while Alabama and Ohio State reap hundreds of millions on football and contribute very little?
I think the quickest and most effective way to have a more equitable system is to use the leverage we have on CBS and NCAA to make sure the Big 10 and SEC stop their free loading. Threaten to either boycott the NCAA tournament or set up our own national tournament and see what the response is.
CBS and TNT are paying the NCAA $1 billion per year to televise a two and a half-week tournament. That is three times the contract the SEC and ESPN inked last June. AND YET, while Alabama, Michigan, Texas and Ohio State get to keep 100% of THEIR contract approaching $100 million per school, the Big 12 and ACC schools (which was responsible for the most watched basketball final in history), get to keep only $1 million to $2 million per school on CBS' contract, if I am reading the Big 12 distribution figures correct. Basically, the NCAA funds itself (and all of the mid major and minor conferences) on proceeds from a two and a half week tournament that basically the Big 12 and ACC (and Big East) makes possible, more so than all but a few teams do on the Big 10 and SEC. Why should the Big 12 and ACC carry the load funding the NCAA on basketball and watch while Alabama and Ohio State reap hundreds of millions on football and contribute very little?
I think the quickest and most effective way to have a more equitable system is to use the leverage we have on CBS and NCAA to make sure the Big 10 and SEC stop their free loading. Threaten to either boycott the NCAA tournament or set up our own national tournament and see what the response is.
I’m just saying that claiming ‘they will never beat anyone in football’ is a stretch. If ISU had that same resume we would be demanding an invitation to the SEC/B1G.
And we would never say ‘ISU will never beat anyone at football’.
