Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Out of all comments/opinions in this thread, the silliest one I see is the thought that Presidents/ADs truly "care" about non-rev sports. Nearly every single move of realignment for 15 years directly contradicts this. Revenue sports is quite literally ALL that matters. No idea how anyone could convincingly think otherwise when UCLA has to fly to Rutgers for a women's lacrosse match...
And no, Presidents/ADs making comments that reflect their support of non-rev sports is not meaningful; the actions that have transpired are.
So what non-rev sports have been cut by SEC/B10 schools in recent years?
The schools in those conferences have been chasing dollars so that their FB revenues can continue to subsidize non-rev sports without cutting them and to financially support the absurdity of UCLA flying to Rutgers for non-rev conference competition.
As previously stated multiple times, pooling doesn't require PE intervention to pull off. Not sure where you're coming with this. And you keep ignoring the fact that Fed intervention is required for pooling and certainly more relevant than your unfounded PE requirement.
They haven't cut them because they don't want to deal with the PR backlash, no one wants to be first.
However, budgets haven't even kept up with inflation. They're basically being starved but they're still fielding teams.
Every AD has shown over and over that any extra dollar they come up with goes to football, and minimally MBB, and that's not going to change regardless of the number that gets sent their way.
Iowa did cut men's swimming,tennis and gymnastics in the last several years. Men's gymnastics was destroyed before covid,realignment,NIL and revenue sharing. There are only 12 D1 schools with the sport and 3 other D3 schools compete with the D1's including Simpson at Indianola. Tennis has taken the brunt of the elimination lately but mainly at the D2,D3 and NAIA levels. The question is what Olympic sport will be next? Maybe it will be a sport that the Big 10 has skin in the game in.
I remember discussing this about 900 pages ago. It's both brand of the team(s) as well as timeslot. How much so - is it 50/50, 80/20, etc -- I am not sure of. With no data, I would guess its 60% slot and 40% teams.
I am more sure that the value of viewers is non-linear, so 10% more viewers is more than 10% more ad value. Thus the desire to put the top 20 best brands into the top 6-8 timeslots every week to maximize ad revenue.
Someone mentioned 150k viewer games on ESPN+ earlier -- that's basically Gunsmoke reruns. They don't need to pay more than $5 for content to get that kind of viewership.
I recall as a child being so frustrated when we couldn't buy a medal in the Olympics because of the Russian and East Germany dominance. I often wonder how did that slide back into our favor? And what kind of revenue does that generate? And, if a large amount, how do we stay competitive? Or are Olympic sports just not worth it anymore? If we cave on funding Olympic sports, we might as well not even compete in the Olympics. Just a long winded, applicable thought.
Technically its not required, but in practical reality it is. I don't think anyone else has the power to force the P2 to the table on this.
The Feds are not going to step in because they think its a neat idea. First, Congress couldn't pass a law saying ice cream is a fun summer treat right now. Second, for every school at risk, there's a bigger, more popular school that benefits - no congressman from Ohio is going to piss off Buckeye fans in order to help out Cincy, Kent State, Akron, et al.
But if some mega-billionaire PE org steps in with a proposal, and a bunch of G5 and non-p2 are willing (maybe even ND?) - then that PE org might have the money and influence to push something through Congress. Maybe.
Why hasn't 'replay' been considered in the overall revenue stream? I just re-watched the USD game, with all the commercials removed. Why wouldn't the network make the game re-watchable immediately after with all the advertising included? And even more questionable is why a second set of advertising can't be inserted to extend the universe of advertisers. Some real eye-opening loss of revenue.
Because the people who rewatch live sports are in the extreme minority. It’s just not worth the time it would take to put in for the few dozen people that do that.
Has anyone seen this reported by anyone else that doesn’t just have a thousand followers? Not saying the info is wrong but I’m trying to get the info as the usual cfb ratings pages haven’t been updated for anything but the top ten lists and I didn’t see this on there.
Also anyone know the difference between “panel” and “data” that is mentioned here?
The info is out there. From what I found you have to google it and compile it yourself from several sources, to get all the games listed. I have not found a complete list of all the games together yet.
If the SEC/B10 want an Anti-Trust Exemption (and existing indications are they want it) , they will need to agree on media rights pooling which SBA amendment approval would enable. That is the leverage the Feds have to force the SEC/B10 on full FBS pooling.
PE doesn't have to get involved in that.
This work?
2025 College Football Week 1 Viewership
A full list of Nielsen measured viewership of College Football games during Week 0 of the 2025 NCAA Division 1 College Football season.
tvmediablog.substack.com
It’s the same dude with 1,000 followers, so yes and no. I just hadn’t seen any one else report number so Ike this and the usual sources don’t have them yet.This work?
2025 College Football Week 1 Viewership
A full list of Nielsen measured viewership of College Football games during Week 0 of the 2025 NCAA Division 1 College Football season.
Not saying he’s wrong just that he self admits he’s just a bored college student in Iowa. Looking for an actual source to follow
You do realize they could also be retaining anti-trust lawyers to make sure they aren't violating anti-trust laws while keeping the status quo, right? They could also be using them for a bunch of other issues completely unrelated to getting an anti-trust exemption that I'm not sure they actually want.
Another non-sequiter
The P2 may or may not want anti-trust.
If they do get it, it won’t be for full pooling in the sense you think. It will be so when they go to a combined 48, they can collectively bargain together
That’s exclusionary but so is cutting things off at the P4 level
They won’t seek antitrust if they feel that will forced them to pool with all of P4, let alone all of FBS
And they have the political muscle to do so.
Also helps that we were following a game with 16M viewers but this is still an awesome number and great for the B12 (and us)
