Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[MountainManHawk]

Just cash from tournament credits though, not exit fees. The ACC will have both.

Unfortunately for those two, even playing for free in ACC wasn’t an option. The ACC barely had votes for Stanford, Cal, and SMU

Good point. I looked it up out of curiosity and OSU/WSU were left with $65m. At the time I remember thinking it was a lot of money but with the way costs have escalated that will only buy you one season’s worth of a CFP caliber roster before long.

The ACC could have a lot more, but they will also have to split the money a lot of different ways so it might not come out to much on a per-school basis.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Good point. I looked it up out of curiosity and OSU/WSU were left with $65m. At the time I remember thinking it was a lot of money but with the way costs have escalated that will only buy you one season’s worth of a CFP caliber roster before long.

The ACC could have a lot more, but they will also have to split the money a lot of different ways so it might not come out to much on a per-school basis.

It won’t be enough to sustain 11 schools, but definitely enough to entice them to stay over full merger, and certainly enough to stay rather than pay exit fees. $450+ million used as a lure to get 4 Big 12 schools goes a long ways, and would effectively kill Big 12

ESPN will decide. The B12 really needs enough ACC schools to leave that ESPN is able to get out of ACC deal before or concurrent Big 12 is seeking new deal.

 

[MountainManHawk]

It won’t be enough to sustain 11 schools, but definitely enough to entice them to stay over full merger, and certainly enough to stay rather than pay exit fees. $450+ million used as a lure to get 4 Big 12 schools goes a long ways, and would effectively kill Big 12

ESPN will decide. The B12 really needs enough ACC schools to leave that ESPN is able to get out of ACC deal before or concurrent Big 12 is seeking new deal.

For the sake of argument, if the ACC just peeled off the old Pac12 schools from the Big12, then the Big12 would just be back to where they were after TX/OU left with a 12 team conference. And the ACC without its biggest brands and only 16 members wouldn’t be in massively different spot. It would be sort of equivalent to if the SEC/Big10 had poached the ACC at the same time that TX/OU left and the ACC backfilled with Pac12 schools.

 

[FinalFourCy]

For the sake of argument, if the ACC just peeled off the old Pac12 schools from the Big12, then the Big12 would just be back to where they were after TX/OU left with a 12 team conference. And the ACC without its biggest brands and only 16 members wouldn’t be in massively different spot. It would be sort of equivalent to if the SEC/Big10 had poached the ACC at the same time that TX/OU left and the ACC backfilled with Pac12 schools.

I suspect they’d add 1 more

Regardless, the ACC would be in a different spot than B12 given they still have the espn deal to 2036. Plus some good additional markets for ACCN, which likely hasn’t lost any markets (assuming ACC also adds USF)

whereas the Big 12 would be shopping for a deal, without PAC, and likely without ESPN as genuine buyer. That tends to be very bad

 

[1SEIACLONE]

Pedantic. Yes, it is only those metros

Was it not good for the ACC?

Plus revenue raping 3 schools

You have to wonder if the expenses of what it costs schools from the ACC to travel all the way to the west coast is worth the amount of money Cal and Stanford brings into the league. Neither school has much of a fan base, it's not like either school's. games are must see TV.

 

[FinalFourCy]

You have to wonder if the expenses of what it costs schools from the ACC to travel all the way to the west coast is worth the amount of money Cal and Stanford brings into the league. Neither school has much of a fan base, it's not like either school's. games are must see TV.

With selective scheduling, and unequal revenue sharing, they can make the schools with no choice but the ACC to take those costs. More for the good brands, less for the Wake and BC

 

[1UNI2ISU]

You have to wonder if the expenses of what it costs schools from the ACC to travel all the way to the west coast is worth the amount of money Cal and Stanford brings into the league. Neither school has much of a fan base, it's not like either school's. games are must see TV.

They're doing really dumb stuff like meeting the east coast teams in Dallas for softball games. It's just the most ridiculous setup imagineable.

 

[CyCrazy]

They're doing really dumb stuff like meeting the east coast teams in Dallas for softball games. It's just the most ridiculous setup imagineable.

Hahaha wow, thats just ridiculous.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

With selective scheduling, and unequal revenue sharing, they can make the schools with no choice but the ACC to take those costs. More for the good brands, less for the Wake and BC

But those teams are not going to take unequal revenue forever, sooner or later they are going to be getting full shares, much like SMU will. That is what hurts the B12 so much, and why ISU's media money dropped, because we split the pie for more ways on the last expansion, and it will be worse when Cinn, Houston and the others get full shares.

 

[FinalFourCy]

But those teams are not going to take unequal revenue forever, sooner or later they are going to be getting full shares, much like SMU will. That is what hurts the B12 so much, and why ISU's media money dropped, because we split the pie for more ways on the last expansion, and it will be worse when Cinn, Houston and the others get full shares.

By unequal revenue sharing, I mean old ACC schools. BC types will take a lot less forever, because the alternative is American money

And they don’t need to take it forever, just long enough to outlive the Big 12

The three newcomers may eventually get paid more, but it will be at the expense of the BC types

Unequal revenue sharing is going to come to Big 12 too imo

 

[1SEIACLONE]

Unequal media sharing money may be coming but I can see leagues like the B10 and SEC putting in a floor of say $60 million for each team, and then the rest of the money going towards teams that are getting into the playoffs or the NCAA tournaments for BB. No way the B10 will pass a deal that give extra money to the OSU and Michigan's on a yearly basis without them earning it on the field.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Unequal media sharing money may be coming but I can see leagues like the B10 and SEC putting in a floor of say $60 million for each team, and then the rest of the money going towards teams that are getting into the playoffs or the NCAA tournaments for BB. No way the B10 will pass a deal that give extra money to the OSU and Michigan's on a yearly basis without them earning it on the field.

Unlikely it is based only on-field , and unlikely unless there’s collusion between the SEC and BIG

Say the SEC keeps equal revenue sharing. But the BIG pays the big brands substantially more. And there are conference based salary caps

You don’t think UT will get a wandering eye for joining the BIG? Instead of subsidizing basket weaving ole Miss to take their players, as Sark complained, they make more in BIG

 

[1SEIACLONE]

Unlikely it is based only on-field , and unlikely unless there’s collusion between the SEC and BIG

Say the SEC keeps equal revenue sharing. But the BIG pays the big brands substantially more. And there are conference based salary caps

You don’t think UT will get a wandering eye for joining the BIG? Instead of subsidizing basket weaving ole Miss to take their players, as Sark complained, they make more in BIG

I was thinking only the B10, the media deal the SEC signed with ESPN locks them into that contract and their teams until 2033-34, and there is no way ESPN is going to let UT or any other school leave before that date to go to the Fox owned B10. By the time their deal runs out, this entire super league will be decided.

 

[MountainManHawk]

Unlikely it is based only on-field , and unlikely unless there’s collusion between the SEC and BIG

Say the SEC keeps equal revenue sharing. But the BIG pays the big brands substantially more. And there are conference based salary caps

You don’t think UT will get a wandering eye for joining the BIG? Instead of subsidizing basket weaving ole Miss to take their players, as Sark complained, they make more in BIG

All of that would have to get voted on. Schools in the past have voted to accept bad deals because of credible threats that the top schools would leave otherwise. I’m not sure the Rutgers/Purdue type schools would vote to accept a lot less because I don’t believe Ohio State and Michigan could make a credible threat to leave.

That being said, I do think some sort of performance bonus where schools that make the CFP get to eat a lot of what they kill is a pretty likely alternative.

And functionally I’m not sure how much difference it makes. Even under the current system there is a massive difference in revenue (and payrolls) from the top of the conference to the bottom. It’s not like it’s remotely close to a level playing field now, the Ohio State roster has to have at least double the cost of the bottom of the league as it is.

 

[FinalFourCy]

All of that would have to get voted on. Schools in the past have voted to accept bad deals because of credible threats that the top schools would leave otherwise. I’m not sure the Rutgers/Purdue type schools would vote to accept a lot less because I don’t believe Ohio State and Michigan could make a credible threat to leave.

That being said, I do think some sort of performance bonus where schools that make the CFP get to eat a lot of what they kill is a pretty likely alternative.

And functionally I’m not sure how much difference it makes. Even under the current system there is a massive difference in revenue (and payrolls) from the top of the conference to the bottom. It’s not like it’s remotely close to a level playing field now, the Ohio State roster has to have at least double the cost of the bottom of the league as it is.

Meh, everyone may have a vote, but not all have power. A threat of leaving isn’t even needed to get appeasement to the elites.

Without collusion between P2, prisoners dilemma suggests both P2s will come around to voting this way.

Particularly for SEC, given the most obvious flip is UT to BIG, especially if ND ends up in BIG

 

[MountainManHawk]

Meh, everyone may have a vote, but not all have power. A threat of leaving isn’t even needed to get appeasement to the elites.

Without collusion between P2, prisoners dilemma suggests both P2s will come around to voting this way.

Particularly for SEC, given the most obvious flip is UT to BIG, especially if ND ends up in BIG

Could be. My biggest thought every time this is brought up is I’m not sure it will have the impact some think it will. What I mean by that is we already have a very uneven playing field where the bottom of the conference can’t realistically compete with the top as it is. And I’m not sure we ever get a system like the NFL where teams all have the same payroll. It’s just going to be like the MLB and unfortunately the team I root for is going to have to be more like the Brewers than the Dodgers.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Could be. My biggest thought every time this is brought up is I’m not sure it will have the impact some think it will. What I mean by that is we already have a very uneven playing field where the bottom of the conference can’t realistically compete with the top as it is. And I’m not sure we ever get a system like the NFL where teams all have the same payroll. It’s just going to be like the MLB and unfortunately the team I root for is going to have to be more like the Brewers than the Dodgers.

I disagree

You have to remember it’s always been rigged.

Nothing was more exclusive than when brand, history, location, and arms race facilities was the compensation for players , and postseason a popularity contest

Paying players is much more fungible. In combination with player mobility, as long as there are roster limits, there will be more players for non-elites. Expanded CFP also less exclusive

More parity. If the cap is low enough that all (P2) schools can hit it, it’s the NFL


That’s why the elites have a major interest in unequal revenue sharing, as well as increasing the cap. It helps the regain the advantages they once had, by monetizing their brand/history

Right now it is just OSU/P2 targeting Greenbloods like Tech, keeping them out of revenue pool, and wanting caps based on conference revenue. TT is suddenly not allowed to compete with them if that occurs

But eventually they’ll realize Purdue is even worse. They are living in the penthouse on OSU’s dime, and for that generosity, trying to take their food. Using OSU’s subsidies, and spending up to the cap with it. At least Tech isn’t being subsidized by OSU

 

[1UNI2ISU]

I disagree

You have to remember it’s always been rigged.

Nothing was more exclusive than when brand, history, location, and arms race facilities was the compensation for players , and postseason a popularity contest

Paying players is much more fungible. In combination with player mobility, as long as there are roster limits, there will be more players for non-elites. Expanded CFP also less exclusive

More parity. If the cap is low enough that all (P2) schools can hit it, it’s the NFL


That’s why the elites have a major interest in unequal revenue sharing, as well as increasing the cap. It helps the regain the advantages they once had, by monetizing their brand/history

Right now it is just OSU/P2 targeting Greenbloods like Tech, keeping them out of revenue pool, and wanting caps based on conference revenue. TT is suddenly not allowed to compete with them if that occurs

But eventually they’ll realize Purdue is even worse. They are living in the penthouse on OSU’s dime, and for that generosity, trying to take their food. Using OSU’s subsidies, and spending up to the cap with it. At least Tech isn’t being subsidized by OSU

Totally disagree.

Ohio State has an obligation to the networks that are paying the bills to ensure that Purdue, Minnesota, et al remain competitive not to mention their own self interest. The networks and their own fan base want competitive games. Interest dries up real quick if you get to the point where you're just pounding everyone and eventually the fans start voting with their feet (see North Dakota State) and dollars which trickles to the networks. The NFL is what it is because true blowouts are few and far between and that's why it's in the best interest of college football to have some sort of a level playing field, at least within conferences. You also don't want to create a situation where your lesser teams are getting beat by other leagues consistently in bowl and OOC games.

I don't think you'll ever see unequal media revenue sharing because that creates a baseline to keep smaller population, resourced and less historical programs on a reasonably competitive footing. I do think the programs that earn the NCAA and CFP shares will get to keep more of what they earn in the next round of contracts but the media dollars are going to remain as they are.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Totally disagree.

Ohio State has an obligation to the networks that are paying the bills to ensure that Purdue, Minnesota, et al remain competitive not to mention their own self interest. The networks and their own fan base want competitive games. Interest dries up real quick if you get to the point where you're just pounding everyone and eventually the fans start voting with their feet (see North Dakota State) and dollars which trickles to the networks. The NFL is what it is because true blowouts are few and far between and that's why it's in the best interest of college football to have some sort of a level playing field, at least within conferences. You also don't want to create a situation where your lesser teams are getting beat by other leagues consistently in bowl and OOC games.

I don't think you'll ever see unequal media revenue sharing because that creates a baseline to keep smaller population, resourced and less historical programs on a reasonably competitive footing. I do think the programs that earn the NCAA and CFP shares will get to keep more of what they earn in the next round of contracts but the media dollars are going to remain as they are.

Again, you have to remember it’s never been close to parity

Even with unequal revenue sharing, it will be far more parity than ever before.

With any type of salary cap, a backup at OSU can make starter money at Purdue. And transfer there now. Plus expanded CFP

A far cry from when the backup would rather wait their turn at the prestigious brand, or face restrictions on transferring. And even if they did, a 10-2 Purdue team not in the running for anything significant because there wasn’t a playoff

And the networks don’t want parity. They make more when the biggest brands are on top. They don’t necessarily want the filler to have no chance, but again, the filler will have a better chance than ever

 

[MountainManHawk]

I disagree

You have to remember it’s always been rigged.

Nothing was more exclusive than when brand, history, location, and arms race facilities was the compensation for players , and postseason a popularity contest

Paying players is much more fungible. In combination with player mobility, as long as there are roster limits, there will be more players for non-elites. Expanded CFP also less exclusive

More parity. If the cap is low enough that all (P2) schools can hit it, it’s the NFL


That’s why the elites have a major interest in unequal revenue sharing, as well as increasing the cap. It helps the regain the advantages they once had, by monetizing their brand/history

Right now it is just OSU/P2 targeting Greenbloods like Tech, keeping them out of revenue pool, and wanting caps based on conference revenue. TT is suddenly not allowed to compete with them if that occurs

But eventually they’ll realize Purdue is even worse. They are living in the penthouse on OSU’s dime, and for that generosity, trying to take their food. Using OSU’s subsidies, and spending up to the cap with it. At least Tech isn’t being subsidized by OSU

I think my main disagreement is that the cap doesn’t seem to mean much. Teams are openly spending way over the cap as it is and I’m not sure you’ll ever get that to go away. I would love to be wrong of course.