Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[cyfan92]

This all gets worse before it gets better IMO...

1. No leadership or real power at the NCAA
2. Needs an incompetent congress to agree on something to pass
3. Old guard has to let go of the past and fully embrace the future
4. SEC and B1G have to give up power or separate

 

[2speedy1]

Your own article points out that this is a pipe dream, as we have been saying. Sure it all sounds good, but it will never happen, and if history is any indication, any changes will likely end up being worse rather than better



"The question becomes, will Congress grant college football similar privileges to professional sports leagues, thereby allowing the sport to sell its media inventory collectively? And if so, would the college conferences come together and agree to do it?

Early indications suggest the answer is “no” on both fronts. For one, the federal government is actively considering whether to revoke the antitrust exemption granted to professional sports leagues, which allows them to sell media rights collectively. It would be quite rich for the feds to investigate that exemption for pro leagues while simultaneously granting that exemption to college football.

​

Second, the Big Ten and SEC have already come out strongly against the idea of centralizing rights, presumably to solidify their structural superiority over every other college conference. The current system already works very well for the two most-powerful conferences; why would they be interested in upending the status quo and potentially letting other conferences back in the fray?

So, while the money would clearly be there if college football were somehow able to move towards a single-seller model, the likelihood of that happening seems low, at least right now. Money, however, tends to win out, especially in college sports, so it’d be unwise to count out a centralized media rights model entirely."

 

[cykadelic2]

Your own article points out that this is a pipe dream, as we have been saying. Sure it all sounds good, but it will never happen, and if history is any indication, any changes will likely end up being worse rather than better



"The question becomes, will Congress grant college football similar privileges to professional sports leagues, thereby allowing the sport to sell its media inventory collectively? And if so, would the college conferences come together and agree to do it?

Early indications suggest the answer is “no” on both fronts. For one, the federal government is actively considering whether to revoke the antitrust exemption granted to professional sports leagues, which allows them to sell media rights collectively. It would be quite rich for the feds to investigate that exemption for pro leagues while simultaneously granting that exemption to college football.

​

Second, the Big Ten and SEC have already come out strongly against the idea of centralizing rights, presumably to solidify their structural superiority over every other college conference. The current system already works very well for the two most-powerful conferences; why would they be interested in upending the status quo and potentially letting other conferences back in the fray?

So, while the money would clearly be there if college football were somehow able to move towards a single-seller model, the likelihood of that happening seems low, at least right now. Money, however, tends to win out, especially in college sports, so it’d be unwise to count out a centralized media rights model entirely."

For the NFL, it is simply a matter of insuring more games on OTA in local markets for the local teams. Once the Feds get that assurance, it will be BAU for the NFL.

And as noted in the last sentence (which you should have also enlarged/bolded), the ongoing proceedings in DC have a couple of major issues of importance, one being adequate financial support for all schools in FBS to continue Olympic sports which pooled FBS media rights would address. So the so called obstacles that you laughingly bold and enlarge as only Speedy Boy can will likely not be factors.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

For the NFL, it is simply a matter of insuring more games on OTA in local markets for the local teams. Once the Feds get that assurance, it will be BAU for the NFL.

And as noted in the last sentence (which you should have also enlarged/bolded), the ongoing proceedings in DC have a couple of major issues of importance, one being adequate financial support for all schools in FBS to continue Olympic sports which pooled FBS media rights would address. So the so called obstacles that you laughingly bold and enlarge as only Speedy Boy can will likely not be factors.

Show me where you're getting 60 votes in the senate when FL, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN, KY, OK, OH, MI, IL, WI, MN, PA, MD, IN are all double 'nays' and IA, TX, MO, CA, WA, OR are going to give you at least 1 'nay'.

That's already 42 and we haven't gotten to the question marks like AZ, CO, UT, VA, NC. The legislation is already dead in its current form. What compromises are you willing to make get it over the line?

 

[cykadelic2]

Show me where you're getting 60 votes in the senate when FL, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, AR, TN, KY, OK, OH, MI, IL, WI, MN, PA, MD, IN are all double 'nays' and IA, TX, MO, CA, WA, OR are going to give you at least 1 'nay'.

You and others have already attempted to use this flawed voting logic for WA and MO and were proven wrong.

Most states with SEC and B10 schools also have G5 athletic programs who are in obvious need of financial support and Senators in those states would rather have ESPN, Fox, Amazon, Paramount, Netflix, NBC/Peacock, etc. pay to support those G5 programs instead of their taxpayers, students, etc.

And again, why in the hell would B10 and SEC Presidents care about other G5 programs double or tripling their media revenues when those same B10 and SEC Presidents are seeing their own schools double/triple their own media revenues? Do you really think any SEC or B10 President wants to get grilled in a Congressional hearing and state otherwise?

The only entities standing to lose are ESPN/Sankey and Fox/Petitti.

 

[isucy86]

So a few thoughts on the media consultants promised windfall.

1. The 3-4x promised money is achieved around 2035. Just look at historical Big10 TV rights deals and by 2035 the Big10 will already be nearing the end of their next deal (2031+). So the Big10 can reach the 3-4x growth factor on their own. And I would expect Disney/ESPN will have to match that to keep it's SEC exclusive deal(2035+). The media rights consultants aren't promising incremental $ by a single negotiation. They're just letting time create their $ growth.
2. Congress can adjust the antitrust exemption to allow a single TV Rights Negotiation, but that doesn't mean Conferences have to jump on it. More likely the Big10 & SEC would do their own thing and maybe the Big12 & ACC would pool media rights.
3. FOX and ESPN have media rights contracts with the Big10 & SEC respectively. Why would FOX & ESPN allow the Big10 & SEC to walk away from those sweetheart deals (as some posters here have characterized)? So any legislation allowing for a single negotiation can't be acted upon until after 2030 for Big10 and 2034 for SEC. And that doesn't take into account FOX's majority ownership of BTN. Somebodies going to have to right FOX a check.

 

[CyCrazy]

You and others have already attempted to use this flawed voting logic for WA and MO and were proven wrong.

Most states with SEC and B10 schools also have G5 athletic programs who are in obvious need of financial support and Senators in those states would rather have ESPN, Fox, Amazon, Paramount, Netflix, NBC/Peacock, etc. pay to support those G5 programs instead of their taxpayers, students, etc.

And again, why in the hell would B10 and SEC Presidents care about other G5 programs double or tripling their media revenues when those same B10 and SEC Presidents are seeing their own schools double/triple their own media revenues? Do you really think any SEC or B10 President wants to get grilled in a Congressional hearing and state otherwise?

The only entities standing to lose are ESPN/Sankey and Fox/Petitti.

You must work up quite the sweat with all of your Olympic level mental gymnastics.

 

[cykadelic2]

You must work up quite the sweat with all of your Olympic level mental gymnastics.

Nah, not really.

And as usual, you are mentally incapable of replying to my post with nothing more than BS like this.

 

[2speedy1]

For the NFL, it is simply a matter of insuring more games on OTA in local markets for the local teams. Once the Feds get that assurance, it will be BAU for the NFL.

And as noted in the last sentence (which you should have also enlarged/bolded), the ongoing proceedings in DC have a couple of major issues of importance, one being adequate financial support for all schools in FBS to continue Olympic sports which pooled FBS media rights would address. So the so called obstacles that you laughingly bold and enlarge as only Speedy Boy can will likely not be factors.

The quote literally said, it was unlikely. The last sentence you point to, basically says... not impossible, but still very unlikely.

But hold your breath, until it does and see how that works out for you.

 

[cykadelic2]

The quote literally said, it was unlikely. The last sentence you point to, basically says... not impossible, but still very unlikely.

You can't read:

Money, however, tends to win out, especially in college sports, so it’d be unwise to count out a centralized media rights model entirely."

And as previously mentioned, financial support for FBS Olympic sports is one of the primary issues being advocated in DC.

 

[2speedy1]

You can't read:

Money, however, tends to win out, especially in college sports, so it’d be unwise to count out a centralized media rights model entirely."

And as previously mentioned, financial support for FBS Olympic sports is one of the primary issues being advocated in DC.

"so it’d be unwise to count out a centralized media rights model entirely."

That quote doesn't sound as optimistic as you like to make it. Again, I read it as it is possible, dont count on it, especially in its totality, but dont say its impossible in some form.

Nothing in that article says anything is likely in any way, and in reality, something you struggle with, it says it is mostly unlikely, although not impossible because money, even though that sky high predictive money is nothing but a speculative guess, by those trying to promote their idea.

I can read just fine, I just am not reading with beer goggles on, with my head in lala land clouds of rainbow marshmallows.

My question to you is can you reply ever, to anyone that disagrees with you without resorting to insults, like a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum. That also seems very unlikely.

 

[cykadelic2]

I am sure the usual suspects will throw hissy fits again over the usage of "bifurcate" here". And note that REP Senator Schmitt is from a SEC state (Missouri), DEM Senator Cantwell is from a B10 state (WA) and Nick Kahn used to do work for the SEC:

 

[Kinch]

Turmoil at Kentucky

Kentucky governor blasts UK athletics' decision-making

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has publicly questioned the decision-making at the University of Kentucky, including the seven-figure gig retiring athletic director Mitch Barnhart was recently given.

www.espn.com

 

[1UNI2ISU]

 

[CyCrazy]

I know someone who is going to be mad about this.

 

[cykadelic2]

I know someone who is going to be mad about this.

Everyone who is a college sports fan should be mad about this. The current climate is not sustainable relative to true NIL, enforcement of transfer rules, etc. without an anti-trust exemption and codification of House which SCORE included.

That said, SCORE without the SBA amendment wasn't going to pass in both the House and Senate.

 

[CycloneT]

 

[2speedy1]

Everyone who is a college sports fan should be mad about this. The current climate is not sustainable relative to true NIL, enforcement of transfer rules, etc. without an anti-trust exemption and codification of House which SCORE included.

That said, SCORE without the SBA amendment wasn't going to pass in both the House and Senate.

The problem is believing the government is actually going to do anything, especially anything that makes it better.

Congress has meetings, interviews, testimony, etc etc constantly, they propose bills constantly, and most of it never amounts to any action whatsoever. How many times have we seen the same people come before congress over and over and nothing ever happens? (think of how many times Zuckerberg has been in front of congress in recent years, with nothing changing) Bills get proposed all the time, many times just for show, because they will never have any chance of actually passing, let alone even making it to the floor. But politicians propose them, so they can claim they are doing something or trying, even though its all for show.

Then 99% of the time, on the rare occasion they actually take action on something, what they enact is so convoluted and full of crap that it makes the situation worse rather than better.

Its all fine they are talking and acting like they care, but in the end, its highly unlikely they actually do anything that actually helps.

 

[ClonesFTW]

Unfortunately the first of many I would assume

 

[Gonzo]

The problem is believing the government is actually going to do anything, especially anything that makes it better.

Congress has meetings, interviews, testimony, etc etc constantly, they propose bills constantly, and most of it never amounts to any action whatsoever. How many times have we seen the same people come before congress over and over and nothing ever happens? (think of how many times Zuckerberg has been in front of congress in recent years, with nothing changing) Bills get proposed all the time, many times just for show, because they will never have any chance of actually passing, let alone even making it to the floor. But politicians propose them, so they can claim they are doing something or trying, even though its all for show.

Then 99% of the time, on the rare occasion they actually take action on something, what they enact is so convoluted and full of crap that it makes the situation worse rather than better.

Its all fine they are talking and acting like they care, but in the end, its highly unlikely they actually do anything that actually helps.

Wait, I was told by someone who fancies himself smarter than pretty much everyone about all this stuff that the government WAS going to make this big shakeup happen and that in about 5 years the B1G, SEC, Big 12, etc. would no longer exist.

Does the rest of Congress NOT know that a Senator each from Missouri and Washington are PUSHING for this 7x10 pooled media revenue model??? Are they seriously trying to fight that tsunami of support?