No more than the male athletes that will be cut, and have been cut, to make the balance sheet work
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
No more than the male athletes that will be cut, and have been cut, to make the balance sheet work
So you weren’t around when a couple Big 8 schools would backfill the men’s scholarships and take them off the balance sheet.
The lawyers are already chomping at the bit. Nothing new, but this legislation will be contested.
Also, even if the legislation was solid - what would prevent the Big10 or SEC adding schools prior to the legislation passing? Can't see it getting passed in the next few months and next year is a whole new ball game with Senate & House turnover. The Lobbyist better keep raising money from CC's ilk.
If this is perceived as the last realignment wave. Schools will pull an SMU to get into the Big10 or SEC before legislation passes. The conference media rights revenue difference between Big10/SEC vs Big12/ACC is too big.
If ESPN & FOX are evil as you say, they'll make it happen.
You're completely ignoring the anti-trust implications on the B10/SEC side even if the legislation doesn't pass by YE 2027 and you're completely ignoring the GOR/Exit Fee implications until 2031 for ACC and B12 schools the B10/SEC could poach. SMU leaving the American had far different financial implications than what ACC and B12 schools would face.
Last edited:
You have to appreciate his fear and insecurity on it. It’s very unlikely equal revenue sharing continues in the P2. Especially if they add even more schools.
Another round of expansion, and it’s the BIG in name only. A corporate marriage of pooled TV rights.
Even before player compensation, history suggests eventually the elites start to ask whether the money should be split equally
Exactly. Without government intervention, they're just going to keep peeling off the schools that are different value tiers. They might be allowed to keep participating, but they'll be doing it a financial disadvantage (like we've been).
Just because people don't agree with your opinion or your plan, doesn't mean they are ignoring the facts. Your opinion could obviously be wrong. And a set of facts doesn't mean there is only ONE path forward.
I am not an anti-trust lawyer, so educate me on the anti-trust issues the Big 10 faces go forward.
I did not ignore the exist fees. Texas & Oklahoma announced they were leaving the Big 12 in late July 2021. They weren't scheduled to leave the Big 12 until July 1, 2025. Texas & Oklahoma were able to negotiate a July 1, 2024 early departure to the SEC. With some support from your friends at ESPN. The 2027 Congress could be a very different body with 435 House & 33 Senate spots facing votes this November. So it's very possible if this legislation doesn't pass by November, it's could face an uphill battle to get re-booted.
You'll have to explain how SMU's financial implications were different than Big12 & ACC schools. SMU agreed to take $0 during initial years from the ACC media deal. They walked away from around $10M they would have earned in the American Conference, for the potential to earn $47M annually down the line. So in today's rights fees dollars. What's better to receive $10M in perpetuity or $0 for 9 years and then $47M in perpetuity? What would be better for ACC or Big 12 schools? To make $75M in perpetuity by joining the Big 10/SEC or $45M (ACC)/$40M (Big 12). Even if schools drastically reduced their payback window to something like 2040, being in the Big 10 or SEC is going to make more financial sense.
Remember the ACC drastically reduced it's exit fees in March 2025. The GOR exit fee will be $147M for FY 2026/27 and drops by $18M annually until in reaches $75M in FY 2030/31.
Also not being in the Big10/SEC isn't the end of athletics for Big12/ACC schools, if they decide they can't be competitive on the field. Just means Big12/ACC schools (and their fans) will have to learn to make the best of being Dr Pepper/7Up vs. Coke/Pepsi.
Last edited:
Your thought process doesn't really jive with any other professional sports league (except maybe soccer overseas, I'm not familiar with how that operates) All of the other major American sports leagues have teams that subsidize others (not every team can be located in New York and you don't want too many teams in any city)
You call it wishful thinking for Iowa fans to think they'll be in the league, I think it's wishful thinking on ISU fans part to assume they wouldn't be.
You seem to be under the delusion that they're headed for a 12 team league. If that were beneficial financially, the NFL, MLB, and NBA would be at 12 teams, not 30 or more. There's a pretty decent chance most of the Big 12 schools (including ISU) will make whatever "cut" is coming. Not because Ohio St or Alabama or ESPN or Fox are feeling generous but because there is a **** ton of tv inventory to fill and it does nobody any good to discard that many teams (and would cause a political **** storm)
I think shedding schools unlikely, but adding more schools will expedite unequal revenue sharing. Player compensation is the catalyst imo
Before player compensation, the elites had huge advantage
Soon salary is the primary factor, particularly in P2. Why would OSU want to help fund Purdue types to live at the highest rate, only to have Purdue be able to use that subsidy to marginalize the advantage the elites spent decades building
For the same amount of subsidy to Purdue, OSU gets arguably more benefit if spread across multiple schools- for example, if some goes to getting the BIG into Texas, FL, Georgia,NC etc . More access into population centers, while also not financing the competition to a level playing field
And let’s be real, the networks want this- they want the elites to maintain their historical advantage, while also expanding their P2 footprint (plus the lower legal risk of big tent)
The expanded CFP to 24 will help compensate non-elites, and that in combination with player compensation and portal still represents parity never before had in CFB
But at some point, adding new schools does not bring in the revenue that allows the pie to keep growing. ND would be a money maker, who other than ND adds enough revenue to either the B10 or SEC that insures the schools in the conference do not take a cut in what they are currently making? Is Clemson, Miami, FSU, Virginia or some other school bring in $75 yo $100 million per year on the TV deal?
If the B12 and ACC can't be competitive on the field and money wise, then what is the point of playing football? Would most not be better off scaling back their football teams and pushing all the money into basketball or some other sport? I can't speak for others, but if ISU is left out of this and the B10 and SEC break away, I am not going to pick a new team to follow in one of those leagues, just like many others won't.
the idea that by breaking away with 40 teams is going to cause everyone across the country to become fans of these teams because it happens in the NFL is very short sighted and most likely will fail. The money for media revenue will drop as half the country is left out of the big boy league.
I think that they're either moving to something more exclusive, or some form of unequal revenue sharing.
I don't think Iowa is getting cast aside (I do think there will be a combo of government intervention or public sentiment that stops a full secession), but I think Iowa fans who think they're going to continue getting Ohio State sized checks are crazy. Iowa is around a Top 30-35 type program, and I think there are a ton of ways the future can play out from schools in that spot. To just assume the Big 10 will continue to operate as it has doesn't really make sense as the only constant in all of this is those with power taking more. As long as there is someone more powerful than you, you aren't really safe IMO.
Regarding pro sports, in the pros, the subsidization is understood from the jump and fans and admins don't care. In college, fans and admins constantly whine about subsidizing less profitable schools.
Lastly, I wouldn't call Iowa not making the cut to be any form of wishful thinking, either. If there was a super elite league and Iowa didn't make that cut, they would probably be one of the more resourced and competitive programs in the 2nd tier (which would include ISU) and would probably be pretty god damned dominant. A dominant Iowa in the same tier as ISU is probably worse for ISU fans than Iowa being a punching bag in the highest level.
Let’s stop this false dilemma. I get the comfort in resorting to this fallacy, but His post didn’t allude to a 12 team league being likely
He’s saying the current equality setup is unlikely to continue. His post suggested there’s a range of possible outcomes in terms of that
If the networks and presidents of the elites want to go shopping for more brands and territory, but can’t afford to while also paying all current schools the same rate, there is a VERY easy solution.
Purdue and Co, some of your subsidy is going to UVa.
Also, rights appreciation and adding brands like ND allows them to hide the cost of adding other brands
