Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[Gonzo]

Here’s another previously posted that you won’t be able to comprehend:

Meet Cody Campbell, the billionaire Texas Tech booster with plan to save college sports

A billionaire and capital investment savant, Texas Tech booster Cody Campbell has a plan to save college sports from itself.

www.usatoday.com

What's a "booster"?

Good stuff. Obviously if there's an article about it it's real.

How Stanley Kubrick Staged the Moon Landing by Rich Cohen

July 18, 2019 – To understand America, you can start with Apollo 11 and all that is counterfactual that’s grown around it; that’s when the culture of conspiracy, which is the culture of Donald Trump and fake news, was born.

www.theparisreview.org

 

[isucy86]

Each conference bidding separately has resulted in a split of SEC/B10 vs everyone else. Pooling FBS rights enables doubling of revenues for everyone with an element of unequal revenue sharing from the pool based on TV ratings that likely maintains revenue advantages for the SEC/B10.

So where does Notre Dame fit? Doubt the Irish would say they fall into "everyone else".

I know you want to try to justify using a big word for you like bifurcation, but time to hang it up. Trifurcation is available.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

So where does Notre Dame fit? Doubt the Irish would say they fall into "everyone else".

I know you want to try to justify using a big word for you like bifurcation, but time to hang it up. Trifurcation is available.

Hear me out ...

Quadfurcation.

 

[Kinch]

Another example of B10/Fox destruction of Washington State:

Thank you Fox and Big 10/sarc

 

[2speedy1]

You are truly the typical knuckle dragging B10 dip$hit I was referring to in a prior post.

You have no effin clue on the purpose, rationale and impact of FBS media rights pooling and why amending the SBA is being pursued. 7x10 realignment will optimize the pooling with multiple bidders.

I realize you are likely unable to read and comprehend a long form article on the subject but I will post this again:

Is college football undervalued? America's second-most popular game still leaving billions on the table

Ripe for venture capitalists and mega streaming deals down the line, college football's bottom line is getting astronomical

www.cbssports.com

There you go again, insults will never win your argument, they will just turn more people against you and will just solidify those against you, regardless if you are right or not.

The moment you resort to insults your argument is lost.

Do better.

 

[Big_Sill]

Each conference bidding separately has resulted in a split of SEC/B10 vs everyone else. Pooling FBS rights enables doubling of revenues for everyone with an element of unequal revenue sharing from the pool based on TV ratings that likely maintains revenue advantages for the SEC/B10.

Even if this is true and everyone gets more $, the BIG 10 and SEC aren't going to desire anything that remotely levels the playing field (which this would do).

Keeping other conferences down as far as possible is their strategy.

 

[cykadelic2]

Even if this is true and everyone gets more $, the BIG 10 and SEC aren't going to desire anything that remotely levels the playing field (which this would do).

Keeping other conferences down as far as possible is their strategy.

As mentioned multiple times before, the SEC and B10 would maintain their existing revenue advantages with unequal revenue sharing based on TV ratings (e.g. 75 % shared equally; 25% based on TV ratings including CFP).

I really don’t think rational SEC and B10 Presidents (many of whom are struggling to break even) would pass up doubling their revenues just so they can keep the ACC and B12 down.

 

[CascadeClone]

As mentioned multiple times before, the SEC and B10 would maintain their existing revenue advantages with unequal revenue sharing based on TV ratings (e.g. 75 % shared equally; 25% based on TV ratings including CFP).

I really don’t think rational SEC and B10 Presidents (many of whom are struggling to break even) would pass up doubling their revenues just so they can keep the ACC and B12 down.

You are taking this 2x revenue increase and the eventual outcome as gospel truth, but there are real issues with it.
1. Are ya sure bout that? I have seen the math and while I do think they could get more, the 2x seems optimistic to me.
2. Univ Presidents are conservative creatures by nature and generally NOT businessmen anyway.
a) They aren't going to ditch the current great deal for a 'strong maybe' even better deal. They will see it as "why take the risk when we already are winning?" Would you divorce Halle Berry (e.g.) just because Sydney Sweeney has been texting you?
b) Upsetting the conference model to something totally new and different is gonna give them all heartburn. None will want to go first, again huge risk and why risk it when you are winning?
3. The guys writing the checks have something to say about it. Yes, ESPN, Fox, TNT, Netflix et al are competing for scarce product, but they also have a bottom line to meet. And they are going to fight tooth and nail to prevent the employees from Unionizing; they certainly aren't going to promote it. They have plenty of money and influence to throw around and lots of experience doing it.

The ONLY way to overcome #2, is if you have a real deal on the table from someone in #3. Something signable, that covers everyone. So which one of those guys writing the checks is going to double his costs on purpose? And why?


Look, I would love having some variant of 7x10 sensible geographic division conferences and a fair playing field and actual rules on players NIL, transfers, etc. EVERYONE would. But the odds are super stacked against it.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

You are truly the typical knuckle dragging B10 dip$hit I was referring to in a prior post.

You have no effin clue on the purpose, rationale and impact of FBS media rights pooling and why amending the SBA is being pursued. 7x10 realignment will optimize the pooling with multiple bidders.

I realize you are likely unable to read and comprehend a long form article on the subject but I will post this again:

Is college football undervalued? America's second-most popular game still leaving billions on the table

Ripe for venture capitalists and mega streaming deals down the line, college football's bottom line is getting astronomical

www.cbssports.com

I haven’t read all your fantasy novels in a while. But I do know you often quote that CFB revenues would double or triple by pooling rights.

In that CBS article, Wasserman estimates $4-5 billion in lost revenue by not pooling. The current total media revenue for CFB is $17B in aggregate media rights across college football.

That’s not doubling or tripling revenue. That’s a 30% increase (which I actually do think is realistic). A 30% increase in total media revenue is not enough to double or triple every FBS school’s current media revenue.

 

[isucy86]

You are truly the typical knuckle dragging B10 dip$hit I was referring to in a prior post.

You have no effin clue on the purpose, rationale and impact of FBS media rights pooling and why amending the SBA is being pursued. 7x10 realignment will optimize the pooling with multiple bidders.

I realize you are likely unable to read and comprehend a long form article on the subject but I will post this again:

Is college football undervalued? America's second-most popular game still leaving billions on the table

Ripe for venture capitalists and mega streaming deals down the line, college football's bottom line is getting astronomical

www.cbssports.com

You might want to find a new article.

First, it's great Dennis Dodd of CBS Sports can quote outside sources on how CFB media rights is undervalued. But does he ask anyone from CBS Sports if current CFB media rights deals are undervalued? His employer might take exception, CBS is paying $350M annually to televise 12-15 Big10 games each season.

Second, Casey Wasserman is quoted in the article. He has been linked to the Espstein debacle and will probably be cancelled for a while.

 

[Jkclone15]

One thing is apparent, nobody likes what we have now. Even the BIG/SEC coaches don't like the distance and and lack of guardrails to know what is right and what's not.

Unpopular opinion: this new B12 has been pretty great for Iowa State. Maybe I would feel differently if we didn't have great coaches in the Big 4 sports, but all the teams have been competitive in conference, basketball and wrestling have been making waves nationally, and the B12 as a whole feels more unified and on the same page than it ever did with Texas and OU.

Nationally, football and basketball as a whole seem to be thriving despite (or even because of) controversy

The real losers are the Olympic sports. I'm afraid there's going to be a real drop off for the U.S. in the next couple of Olympics due to the death of the PAC12 and cost cutting.

 

[isucy86]

As mentioned multiple times before, the SEC and B10 would maintain their existing revenue advantages with unequal revenue sharing based on TV ratings (e.g. 75 % shared equally; 25% based on TV ratings including CFP).

I really don’t think rational SEC and B10 Presidents (many of whom are struggling to break even) would pass up doubling their revenues just so they can keep the ACC and B12 down.

The SEC and B10 would maintain their existing revenue advantages.

That sounds like a great soundbite. But why would the Big10 agree to the status quo from a "revenue advantage" perspective, but give up ABSOLUTE CONTROL in decision making process on how media rights money is distributed among its 18 schools? I don't see why they would feel it would be advantageous to put their "existing revenue advantage" at risk to the whims of 52 other university leaders. Down the line, the 52 other schools could change the rules for distributing pooled media rights monies.

Doubling or Tripling of Future Media Rights Deals

The Big10 already is achieving those growth promises. Look at the Big10's two most recent media rights deals:

• 6 Yr Deal from Fall 2017 to Summer 2023 - $2.64B. That's $440M annually or $31.4M annually split evenly among 14 schools.
• 7 Yr Deal from Fall 2023 to Summer 2030 -$7.70B. That's $1.1B annually or $61.1M annually split evenly among 18 schools (and that doesn't reflect actual split as some schools like Oregon & Washington aren't receiving full shares).

So the Big10's recent 7 year deal is 2.5x bigger on an annual basis. And the SEC's new deal is an even bigger increase.

 

[isucy86]

........

The real losers are the Olympic sports. I'm afraid there's going to be a real drop off for the U.S. in the next couple of Olympics due to the death of the PAC12 and cost cutting.

I hope that doesn't happen to Olympic Sports. The one thing that might prevent it, is Yormark's stated desire to break apart media rights negotiations by sport. He specific mention Men's Basketball shortly after he took over as Big12 Commissioner. But take it a step further, why not bid out separately:

1. FB
2. MBB
3. WBB
4. Hockey
5. Wrestling
6. VB
7. Baseball
8. Softball
9. All Other Sports

That's a bit on the extreme side. Media rights revenue might increase by bundling sports like MBB/WBB or BB/SB because their seasons overlap

 

[FriendlySpartan]

The SEC and B10 would maintain their existing revenue advantages.

That sounds like a great soundbite. But why would the Big10 agree to the status quo from a "revenue advantage" perspective, but give up ABSOLUTE CONTROL in decision making process on how media rights money is distributed among its 18 schools? I don't see why they would feel it would be advantageous to put their "existing revenue advantage" at risk to the whims of 52 other university leaders. Down the line, the 52 other schools could change the rules for distributing pooled media rights monies.

Doubling or Tripling of Future Media Rights Deals

The Big10 already is achieving those growth promises. Look at the Big10's two most recent media rights deals:

• 6 Yr Deal from Fall 2017 to Summer 2023 - $2.64B. That's $440M annually or $31.4M annually split evenly among 14 schools.
• 7 Yr Deal from Fall 2023 to Summer 2030 -$7.70B. That's $1.1B annually or $61.1M annually split evenly among 18 schools (and that doesn't reflect actual split as some schools like Oregon & Washington aren't receiving full shares).

So the Big10's recent 7 year deal is 2.5x bigger on an annual basis. And the SEC's new deal is an even bigger increase.

You last part isn’t he biggest reason why this has less then zero chance of happening.

The big tens media deal is up in 4 years which means negotiations will be starting by in about 2.5-3years. With the rise of Indiana in football and the recent success of the rest of the conference if that continues even to a lesser extent the new media deal is going to be substantially higher.

If the promise of blowing everything up is to double revenues (in exchange for chaos and less control) why would the big tens or SEC agree when those regimes are going to double anyways in a few years?

 

[Gonzo]

The SEC and B10 would maintain their existing revenue advantages.

That sounds like a great soundbite. But why would the Big10 agree to the status quo from a "revenue advantage" perspective, but give up ABSOLUTE CONTROL in decision making process on how media rights money is distributed among its 18 schools? I don't see why they would feel it would be advantageous to put their "existing revenue advantage" at risk to the whims of 52 other university leaders. Down the line, the 52 other schools could change the rules for distributing pooled media rights monies.

Doubling or Tripling of Future Media Rights Deals

The Big10 already is achieving those growth promises. Look at the Big10's two most recent media rights deals:

• 6 Yr Deal from Fall 2017 to Summer 2023 - $2.64B. That's $440M annually or $31.4M annually split evenly among 14 schools.
• 7 Yr Deal from Fall 2023 to Summer 2030 -$7.70B. That's $1.1B annually or $61.1M annually split evenly among 18 schools (and that doesn't reflect actual split as some schools like Oregon & Washington aren't receiving full shares).

So the Big10's recent 7 year deal is 2.5x bigger on an annual basis. And the SEC's new deal is an even bigger increase.

Oh now you've done it. Get ready for another "bifurcation" word salad.

Knuckle-dragger.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

I am so sick of you puppets....

 

[IceCyIce]

Unpopular opinion: this new B12 has been pretty great for Iowa State. Maybe I would feel differently if we didn't have great coaches in the Big 4 sports, but all the teams have been competitive in conference, basketball and wrestling have been making waves nationally, and the B12 as a whole feels more unified and on the same page than it ever did with Texas and OU.

Nationally, football and basketball as a whole seem to be thriving despite (or even because of) controversy

The real losers are the Olympic sports. I'm afraid there's going to be a real drop off for the U.S. in the next couple of Olympics due to the death of the PAC12 and cost cutting.

I would agree with the above. Biggest issue is until there is salary cap (THATS FOLLOWED) with sever consequences for under the table cheating BS. The Big12 is in danger of further attrition to the BIG/SEC players and teams. Without similar revenue paths the BIG10/SEC can swing and miss on coaches, players etc and just buy more. Look at LSU they are paying 3 coaches right now and so are others in the SEC. We could not do anything close to that.

 

[IceCyIce]

Even if this is true and everyone gets more $, the BIG 10 and SEC aren't going to desire anything that remotely levels the playing field (which this would do).

Keeping other conferences down as far as possible is their strategy.

This is exactly true!!

 

[MugNight]

I'm trying to approach this as gently as I can.

Do you genuinely believe we will ever see the 7 x10 scenario? Not SHOULD see it, mind you, but WILL see it.

Simply put: why would anyone with a monopoly want to break it up?

 

[2speedy1]

Simply put: why would anyone with a monopoly want to break it up?

...... because Cody Campbell says so.