Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

1SEIACLONE said:
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.
Click to expand...
The finding fault with UNC, Clemson, Miami, FSU, etc. media valuation is logical if one looks at current ACC media rights per school. But what makes those 4 ACC schools any different than UCLA, Oregon & Washington? On face (Pac12 financials) they don't bring the Big10 $75-$100M annually.

But the Big 10 lives by the NFL playbook, add schools/fan bases in populous states/large media markets. And the SEC isn't going to standby.

Why should the Big12/ACC continue to play football? Because we've played football for 100 years!! The Big12/ACC can put a product on the field that is very competitive and their fans will enjoy. The Big12/ACC will just adhere to a more traditional model where athletes get an academic scholarship and can hire an agency to source NIL.

ISU and every other athletic department are not churning out money to their universities general fund. So why does it matter if revenues are $200M, $125M or $75M?

University of Chicago is still an elite university 75 years after leaving the Big 10. Villanova does well as a university with a FCS football team. And Creighton has flourished without a football team.

And I 100% agree that alumni of Big12/ACC schools aren't going to adopt new Big10/SEC teams just because they play at a higher level. There's always the NFL, Netflix, hiking or a good book if Big12 football doesn't fulfill your college football fix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DukeofStratford
HouClone said:
This Sorsby ruling not helping the Cantwell-Cruz bill with NCAA enforcement vs collectively bargaining which SEC and Big 10 likely want. The latter can enforce themselves without a judge getting in the middle.
Click to expand...
Yeah weird look for the man sponsor/donor of the bill to spit in the face of what he is claiming to save. He has the power to stop this but chooses not to because he just doesn’t care about anything else then TT being relevant
 
isucy86 said:
The finding fault with UNC, Clemson, Miami, FSU, etc. media valuation is logical if one looks at current ACC media rights per school. But what makes those 4 ACC schools any different than UCLA, Oregon & Washington? On face (Pac12 financials) they don't bring the Big10 $75-$100M annually.

But the Big 10 lives by the NFL playbook, add schools/fan bases in populous states/large media markets. And the SEC isn't going to standby.

Why should the Big12/ACC continue to play football? Because we've played football for 100 years!! The Big12/ACC can put a product on the field that is very competitive and their fans will enjoy. The Big12/ACC will just adhere to a more traditional model where athletes get an academic scholarship and can hire an agency to source NIL.

ISU and every other athletic department are not churning out money to their universities general fund. So why does it matter if revenues are $200M, $125M or $75M?

University of Chicago is still an elite university 75 years after leaving the Big 10. Villanova does well as a university with a FCS football team. And Creighton has flourished without a football team.

And I 100% agree that alumni of Big12/ACC schools aren't going to adopt new Big10/SEC teams just because they play at a higher level. There's always the NFL, Netflix, hiking or a good book if Big12 football doesn't fulfill your college football fix.
Click to expand...
It matters because as the gap between the B10/SEC teams and the ACC and B12 teams widen, it makes it more difficult for the teams in those leagues to stay relevant. Much like UNI and those teams struggle recruiting and getting fans against both ISU and EIU.
Now you can do away with football or down grade the level, but the University of Chicago made that discussion 80 years ago, it's a little different than today. Just how much capital has ISU and other B12 schools pumped into building up their football stadium in the past couple of decades, $100's of millions, at many schools, and now they are going to walk away from millions in media revenue and stay open?

How many Washington State, Oregon State, San Diego St, Cal or Stanford fans switched over to become a B10 fan because USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington changed leagues? None, comparing what the B10 did to the NFL is comparing apples to oranges. The state of Iowa, without a team, has fans that support the Vikings, Chiefs, Bears and other teams, that is not going to happen with college teams. Most are not going to switch from liking one to to another team unless they go to that university after cheering for someone else growing up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DukeofStratford
1SEIACLONE said:
It matters because as the gap between the B10/SEC teams and the ACC and B12 teams widen, it makes it more difficult for the teams in those leagues to stay relevant. Much like UNI and those teams struggle recruiting and getting fans against both ISU and EIU.
Now you can do away with football or down grade the level, but the University of Chicago made that discussion 80 years ago, it's a little different than today. Just how much capital has ISU and other B12 schools pumped into building up their football stadium in the past couple of decades, $100's of millions, at many schools, and now they are going to walk away from millions in media revenue and stay open?

How many Washington State, Oregon State, San Diego St, Cal or Stanford fans switched over to become a B10 fan because USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington changed leagues? None, comparing what the B10 did to the NFL is comparing apples to oranges. The state of Iowa, without a team, has fans that support the Vikings, Chiefs, Bears and other teams, that is not going to happen with college teams. Most are not going to switch from liking one to to another team unless they go to that university after cheering for someone else growing up.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this, anyone that’s 25+ with ties to a school like WSU isn’t changing over to UW. If WSU stays irrelevant then they turn into a UNI type team where the fans of that school often also have a fandom for another school in the top division.

That will take years and years to happen though and you’re certainly not going to capture all of them, possibly not even a majority
 
FriendlySpartan said:
Yeah weird look for the man sponsor/donor of the bill to spit in the face of what he is claiming to save. He has the power to stop this but chooses not to because he just doesn’t care about anything else then TT being relevant
Click to expand...


showing that it is absolutely broken is pretty rational

It’s not dissimilar to the P2 claiming things are broken in regards to player compensation/NIL, when they’re the biggest violators of it
 
  • Like
Reactions: DukeofStratford
FinalFourCy said:
showing that it is absolutely broken is pretty rational

It’s not dissimilar to the P2 claiming things are broken in regards to player compensation/NIL, when they’re the biggest violators of it
Click to expand...
Outside of the SEC aren’t too many complaints about NIL, the bigger issue is the unlimited transfers.

Honestly just setting up a rule around that would have complete approval. Trying to hit 100 different things with these bills just means nothing will happen but lobbyists and lawyers getting paid.

Start with the basics that everyone can agree one, NIL isn’t nearly an issue if the transfer limit is in place. Obv allowances if you coach leaves
 
  • Like
Reactions: DukeofStratford
FriendlySpartan said:
Outside of the SEC aren’t too many complaints about NIL, the bigger issue is the unlimited transfers.

Honestly just setting up a rule around that would have complete approval. Trying to hit 100 different things with these bills just means nothing will happen but lobbyists and lawyers getting paid.

Start with the basics that everyone can agree one, NIL isn’t nearly an issue if the transfer limit is in place. Obv allowances if you coach leaves
Click to expand...
Did you miss the BIG media blitz? OSU in particular has an issue. Or Nebraska challenging CSC? 75% of unapproved NIL is in P2. They have an issue following the House settlement, despite agreeing to it.

There are two major rule breakers, the P2 and Tech. The P2 hate that Tech is able to follow them outside the lines.

Now, the Sorsby case is particularly brazen given its proximity to the worst offense in sports.

I don’t have an issue with Tech and Campbell getting Sorsby court-ruled eligible to make a point on how desperately change is needed. Bold, but effective imo.

Actually playing him would be a grotesque misstep though
 
FinalFourCy said:
Did you miss the BIG media blitz? OSU in particular has an issue. Or Nebraska challenging CSC? 75% of unapproved NIL is in P2. They have an issue following the House settlement, despite agreeing to it.

There are two major rule breakers, the P2 and Tech. The P2 hate that Tech is able to follow them outside the lines.

Now, the Sorsby case is particularly brazen given its proximity to the worst offense in sports.

I don’t have an issue with Tech and Campbell getting Sorsby court-ruled eligible to make a point on how desperately change is needed. Bold, but effective imo.

Actually playing him would be a grotesque misstep though
Click to expand...
Yeah they have an issue with CSC, I also don’t think there was much of an option to not sign that wouldn’t open up additional litigation.

They have problems because they want to spend, not that they think players are getting too much. That’s an SEC issue.

Certainly a wild take and you’re out on your own here not having a problem with what TT did. But you do you

Also absolutely no one is scared of TT because at the end of the day it’s still Tech. If the billionaire wants to blow his money to lose in the first round of the playoffs and be the nations villain, go ahead
 
1SEIACLONE said:
It matters because as the gap between the B10/SEC teams and the ACC and B12 teams widen, it makes it more difficult for the teams in those leagues to stay relevant. Much like UNI and those teams struggle recruiting and getting fans against both ISU and EIU.
Now you can do away with football or down grade the level, but the University of Chicago made that discussion 80 years ago, it's a little different than today. Just how much capital has ISU and other B12 schools pumped into building up their football stadium in the past couple of decades, $100's of millions, at many schools, and now they are going to walk away from millions in media revenue and stay open?

How many Washington State, Oregon State, San Diego St, Cal or Stanford fans switched over to become a B10 fan because USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington changed leagues? None, comparing what the B10 did to the NFL is comparing apples to oranges. The state of Iowa, without a team, has fans that support the Vikings, Chiefs, Bears and other teams, that is not going to happen with college teams. Most are not going to switch from liking one to to another team unless they go to that university after cheering for someone else growing up.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anywhere that Big12 or ACC fans would adopt new teams? I agree they won't.

The University of Chicago, Villanova and Creighton examples just show the academic side of schools can thrive without playing P4 football. Isn't that their core mission? Not professional-sport franchises.

I'm a Cyclone fan to the bone. Have been since 1982:
  • How many Big12 titles has ISU won in football? 0
  • How many New Years bowls have we played? 1
  • How many fans showed up for Big12 games, in a conference that has lost: Nebraska, A&M, Texas & OU over the years? Around 60k
Maybe I'm an optimist, but If the Big12 isn't at the P4 level and eligible for the CFP. We'll be just fine in a tier of college football with the best 36-48 teams from the Big12, ACC, MWC, Pac12 & AAC. The competition level & rivialries will be attractive enough to keep most Cyclone football fans engaged. And just like it has always been, our expenses will match our revenues- whether it be $120M or $75M.

Think about it, there are currently 6800 football players at just the P4 level. That talent needs to play somewhere. So your comparison of ISU to UNI is silly. The talent level at Iowa State won't change dramatically. Sure it might decline a little if the Big12/ACC adheres to the House Settlement agreed level ($20Mish) or declines. But kids gotta play somewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BadBoi
FriendlySpartan said:
Yeah they have an issue with CSC, I also don’t think there was much of an option to not sign that wouldn’t open up additional litigation.

They have problems because they want to spend, not that they think players are getting too much. That’s an SEC issue.

Certainly a wild take and you’re out on your own here not having a problem with what TT did. But you do you
Click to expand...
See, it’s fine for P2 to not play by the rules (they helped create)! We can’t expect them to abide by rules created by all, for all.

The ridiculous thing is many in P2 have an issue with Tech also disregarding the CSC and limit. Which is why the OSU president wants it based on conference average revenue, which clearly means the Greenbloods like Tech are not allowed to pay as much as P2 (in his words, “get more revenue” if it’s a problem)

I understand this is beyond your narrow reach, but Tech hasn’t yet done anything, other than prove the NCAA was feckless on the most important issue. I suspect they’ll do the noble thing and not play him
 
  • Haha
Reactions: FriendlySpartan
FinalFourCy said:
See, it’s fine for P2 to not play by the rules (they helped create)! We can’t expect them to abide by rules created by all, for all.

The ridiculous thing is many in P2 have an issue with Tech also disregarding the CSC and limit. Which is why the OSU president wants it based on conference average revenue, which clearly means the Greenbloods like Tech are not allowed to pay as much as P2 (in his words, “get more revenue” if it’s a problem)

I understand this is beyond your narrow reach, but Tech hasn’t yet done anything, other than prove the NCAA was feckless on the most important issue. I suspect they’ll do the noble thing and not play him
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahahahaha

You expect Tech to do the noble thing!?!

Hahahahahahaha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom