Administrative bloat, needlessly inflated salaries, and an unsustainable "arms" race in student living amenities.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
I find it incredible that their endowment is underperforming by 2 percent. Incompetence is the only thing that can explain that.
Will be curious if revenue sports like football and men's hoops come under scrutiny at some time. It amazes me at number of people in non-coaching positions on P4 staffs.
Hope Lane maximizes every benefit his contract allows. A family trip to Paris before football season starts would be glorious.
It's even filtered down. Murray State had 17 guys in pullovers last year.
It's not sustainable at any level. Hell, Illinois is paying Mark Farley six figures to be in Champaign 2 days a week
University of Michigan President has a ton on his plate.The biggest doesn’t include athletics. Just a year on the job, the medical CEO quit and took a similar job at Vanderbilt.
You'd think at some point coaching salaries/benefits would peak with players being paid now. Somehow, despite all the changes, coaches have gotten off pretty easy.
Last edited:
The anti-expansion language adjustment is good for ISU as long as the B12 doesn't add more commuter schools like UH. UCF and USF:
Last edited:
So the Big 10 and SEC may get their way.
1) No expansion for the P4 was in the original bill. That may go away where any P4 conference can expand.
2) Voluntary pooling language may be changed. It always was voluntary but if 75% of the FBS schools want it, it would happen. Or no changes to the 75%, but the expansion angle would probably shut down pooling. 75% was achieved with the membership right now for the non-SEC or non-Big 10 schools. Just one more invite from those conferences will mean less than 75% if every SEC and Big 10 school votes No to pooling.
3) All NIL deals were under the House settlement cap in the original bill. Likely, the cap will be increased or the 3rd party deals will continue outside the cap. Basically, the Wild West still happens.
If the pooling looks like no chance to succeed, as a Big 12 fan, I would like this bill to fail. I can take #1 and #3. #3 is not good for college football but with everybody getting the same media money, ISU has a chance to compete in NIL. We wouldn't against the Ohio State's, Michigan's, Texas's, Texas Tech's, Oregon's, Miami's of the world. But we wouldn't be hampered against Minnesota, Wisconsin, Purdue, Northwestern, and Iowa.
https://sports.yahoo.com/college-fo...n-support-before-time-runs-out-114424333.html
1) No expansion for the P4 was in the original bill. That may go away where any P4 conference can expand.
2) Voluntary pooling language may be changed. It always was voluntary but if 75% of the FBS schools want it, it would happen. Or no changes to the 75%, but the expansion angle would probably shut down pooling. 75% was achieved with the membership right now for the non-SEC or non-Big 10 schools. Just one more invite from those conferences will mean less than 75% if every SEC and Big 10 school votes No to pooling.
3) All NIL deals were under the House settlement cap in the original bill. Likely, the cap will be increased or the 3rd party deals will continue outside the cap. Basically, the Wild West still happens.
If the pooling looks like no chance to succeed, as a Big 12 fan, I would like this bill to fail. I can take #1 and #3. #3 is not good for college football but with everybody getting the same media money, ISU has a chance to compete in NIL. We wouldn't against the Ohio State's, Michigan's, Texas's, Texas Tech's, Oregon's, Miami's of the world. But we wouldn't be hampered against Minnesota, Wisconsin, Purdue, Northwestern, and Iowa.
https://sports.yahoo.com/college-fo...n-support-before-time-runs-out-114424333.html
In reading the article, not only does the provision allow G5 schools like Wash State (Cantwell's state) to bump up to P4. It would also allow Big12/ACC schools to move to Big10/SEC.
And the language changes prohibit private equity from creating a Super League constituting a smaller group of elite brands. It doesn't restrict the Big10/SEC from growing from their current 34 schools to 40-48 schools.
#1) B10 and SEC aren't getting their way with the revised anti-expansion language since ESPN/Fox cannot further consolidate top brands (e.g. Miami FL) into those two conferences. Any moves like that "may only be made within a certain framework of parameters yet to be formalized". Will depend what those parameters are and one would assume they would prevent relegation of existing ACC and B12 schools like ISU.
#2) B10 and SEC aren't going to add an existing G6 school just to hose up the 75% pooling mechanism. And if they somehow can add existing B12 and ACC schools, that % will likely be modified.
#3) NIL deals were not under the Settlement cap, only RevShare. Not sure where you came up with that. Existing and future true NIL deals will still have to go thru the Clearinghouse. The issue now is whether MMR deals without a valid business purpose will be applied to the RevShare cap and whether the RevShare Cap will be increased as a result.
Not sure I read the same about 3rd party deals. Sounded like certain types would be excluded from cap and other 3rd party deals within cap.
IMO true NIL deals should be excluded from cap. But to be excluded from cap the athletes agency should source the NIL monies. And money should be independent of school athlete is attending. That might weed out NIL deals with boosters/school relationships.
A couple times you've posted that ISU would have equal media revenue if pooling occurs. That isn't going to be a result of pooling. Big brands will create an ecosystem where they continue to get more media revenue. Whether it's tied to appearances on OTA where viewership is higher, etc.
B10/SEC can only expand under TBD provisions and one would hope those provisions would prevent financial/competitive relegation of existing ACC/B12 schools which was the original intent of the anti-expansion language (i.e. no more Wazzus getting effed by the networks).
Why do you think so little of Iowa State? Still waiting on an answer on that one.
Sounds like a very serious and very concrete plan.
That would be pure gold if after all this the P2 just get exactly what they wanted the whole time. Separate media dollars, freedom to expand (don’t want it and hope they don’t) and then get guard rails on some things like transfers.
Honestly would be impressive plus our favorite Billionaire Bootlicker would be apoplectic which would just put a smile on my face
He just can't seem to realize that the Big Ten and SEC, right or wrong, are the biggest swinging dicks in the room and were guaranteed to get everything they wanted the minute the government got involved.
