Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[CascadeClone]

The trouble is that the discrepancy in media rights is about to become huge. Instead of a 30-40% difference, it's going to be about a 100% difference.

I would counter "diminishing marginal returns" but then I would counter that with "paying players" and "no roster limits".

Ultimately, competitive balance issues will be more important than just money itself. Hopefully they don't blow up the competitive balance with and for the money.

 

[HFCS]

The networks are overpaying the B1G and ultimately the SEC and will have a glut of crappy games too. The supply and demand will ultimately shake back out. Not really worried about it, as long as the Big Xii survivies with Iowa State in it. Then, even if that doesn't happen, I'm still going ot be an ISU fan and go to Cyclone games. "Damn the torpedoes!"

Somebody will do an actual streamers/viewers per $$$ spent analysis and realize Big 12 is a pretty good value in terms of real people actually watching the advertising vs dollar spent.

It's also the reason the Pac is completely imploding and wouldn't have been more valuable than Big 12 even if they all stayed together.

ACC seems pretty uneven from program to program in terms of real interest. With Big Ten/SEC/Big 12 you have vast majority of fan bases that are engaged. With Pac it was a minority of fan bases that are actually engaged viewers.

 

[Klubber]

The Big 12 will be 2nd tier as a conference. Before we were financially just a little behind but most likely in the very near future we will be quite a bit behind 2 conferences. That will currently give 30 schools a huge advantage. Then add in NIL and the transfer rule and we could be looking at a completely different playbook within 5 years.

Nonsense.

How is it "most likely in the near future we'll be quite a bit behind?"

The negotiations for the next Big XII media deal haven't even started yet, and the conference is most likely adding more schools before that happens.

And here's a newsflash: The NIL and transfer rule is not hurting ISU at all, like so many on this board claimed it would. TJ and CMC seem to be doing just fine with recruiting.

 

[Klubber]

The trouble is that the discrepancy in media rights is about to become huge. Instead of a 30-40% difference, it's going to be about a 100% difference.

I seriously doubt that.

 

[CycloneSpinning]

Think about where the nfl is if there is a split to a super conference, then think about who the best teams are in those areas: Penn state, Miami, Florida, FSU, Clemson, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, LSU, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Utah or Byu not both, Arizona or ASU not both, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Washington, Oregon. There’s your NFL light. 32 teams covering all the Major metros and then some, if you think you need to get a team further NE than Penn State, add Rutgers or Maryland and take take out South Carolina or Kansas.

You have it backwards. It's not about getting booted. It's about Fox/ESPN wanting a "superleague". The mega brands "rapture" out in football only to create a 30ish team nationwide league.

​

The B1G still exists, just without PSU, Mich, OSU, etc. Would Iowa make the cut? Maybe, maybe not.

​

Just keep in mind, there was zero evidence of USCLA or OuT happening either. It's not impossible at all to think the real drivers of the bus - TV - might want to consolidate the best teams into a single league in order to get maximum value. Honestly, it's a logical progression based on the driving forces, though that doesn't guarantee it will happen. Stay tuned.

We're not vying for "2nd tier" as you say. That's ridiculous. The Big XII can and will still thrive as a conference with highly ranked teams and playoff appearances.

Do you honestly believe Yormark's and the Big XII AD's strategy going forward is to make the Big XII a 2nd tier conference, a glorified MWC maybe?

The B1G has been making more TV money for quite some time and has that resulted in the conference dominating on the football field? Hardly, LOL.

The doom and gloom on here where the B1G and SEC are going to take over and form their own playoff, and monopolize the airwaves and exclude everyone else is getting really stale.

None of that is going to happen, so everyone needs to relax a little I think...

It’s not happening because getting 32 universities and network executives at 2 different companies will never happen. The networks would want the 32 best teams (which is ever changing obviously, so even locking down who they would want would be nearly impossible). And kicking the Vanderbilts and Rutgers of the world out would be difficult…let alone Iowa, Arkansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Illinois, Nebraska, etc.

If they did manage to do that, then someone like Amazon or Apple would come in and form a league out of those teams…which would be cheaper and just as loved. Then ESPN and Fox would start losing eyeballs and money. Next thing you know they’re deliberately torpedoing football and their agreement by talking about CTE and concussions every night…and we have no more football.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I seriously doubt that.

Isn’t that just math? If the big ten is getting 80-100mil and the Big12 is getting 40-50mil that’s 100% difference. Again I don’t think the money is going to make a huge change except for coaching salaries. The big12’s biggest problem is going to be perception and recruiting not the on field product.

 

[BCClone]

Sitting on the mower I thought about how conferences perceive their current lots, specifically the SEC and Big Ten. The other 3 power conferences are fairly well known in how they stack up (Big 12 is murky, but no one is really gunning for any of them). I thought, if somehow conferences were told that 12 was the magical number of teams and media was only paying for that many, who would conferences trim?

Have to use their recent adds and reasons for who they would trim.

SEC has added large national names/brands so the also rans would be let go.

1) Vanderbilt is a no brainer
2) Miss State I think would be next. They don't deliver much at all.
3)Mizzou, I think they were a carry along with Tammy.
4) Either South Carolina or Arkansas, not sure who. If they could trade Clemson for SC, I think it would be Arkansas then.

The Big ten. They have been adding due to who brings the audience and media rights.

1) I think Illinois would give them Chicago so Northwestern would be cut first.
2) Either Purdue/Indiana, whichever one would be considered the weak link out of the pair.
3) Iowa, you could say MSU, since they double up with Mich and I could see your point, but the state of Michigan is much bigger than Iowa.
4) Nebraska. Nebraska is a small state, and they don't have as much of a pull as they used to as a national brand, still a good amount of older bandwagons, but that is shrinking it seems.

If you put MSU in third, then NE is saved. I would say MSU is fifth.

 

[HFCS]

Isn’t that just math? If the big ten is getting 80-100mil and the Big12 is getting 40-50mil that’s 100% difference. Again I don’t think the money is going to make a huge change except for coaching salaries. The big12’s biggest problem is going to be perception and recruiting not the on field product.

In football we'll see how the committee thing goes. I'd feel a lot better if we still had BCS formula instead of a few Big Ten homers in a room with no consistent criteria.

Some years the committee has done fine, other years the committee might as well be called "Change the Rules Every Single Year to Whatever Helps Ohio State That Year".

It's very possible even if B12 or ACC are competitive after this P2 supercharge, the committee just gets even more obviously biased some years. IMHO they do these rule changes when it's a tough choice. They let Cincy in without some nonsense criteria change because there wasn't a clear better team than them and they beat ND on the road. Had Cincy and Ohio State seemed like a tough choice for 4th spot and only one makes it, I have no doubt they'd make an irrational last minute rule change like they already have for Ohio State two other times.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

In football we'll see how the committee thing goes. I'd feel a lot better if we still had BCS formula instead of a few Big Ten homers in a room with no consistent criteria.

Some years the committee has done fine, other years the committee might as well be called "Change the Rules Every Single Year to Whatever Helps Ohio State That Year".

It's very possible even if B12 or ACC are competitive after this P2 supercharge, the committee just gets even more obviously biased some years. IMHO they do these rule changes when it's a tough choice. They let Cincy in without some nonsense criteria change because there wasn't a clear better team than them and they beat ND on the road. Had Cincy and Ohio State seemed like a tough choice for 4th spot and only one makes it, I have no doubt they'd make an irrational last minute rule change like they already have for Ohio State two other times.

You have to stop counting the covid year as changing rules to help OSU. Every rule that year was made up on the fly. 2 of the P5 weren't even having football until the last min.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

It's very likely a bit of all of this. The AAU told Iowa State that its research dollars or whatever weren't cutting it and they needed to go up or else their membership would be reviewed. ISU probably played along with this for a while before realizing they were likely postponing the inevitable. The university brass didn't want to participate in the dog and pony show (that is biased against ag-heavy universities without medical schools) and they genuinely believe that the direction of the AAU is going opposite of the mission of schools like Iowa State. They probably waited until Jamie Pollard assured them that there was no chance of a B1G invite. Once that happened, the brass decided to back out instead of trying to play along and maybe hang around the AAU for another five years.

I believe ISU received record research dollars this year. The AAU apparently doesn’t love private/corporate research money, as much as public. ISU has been and remains a Tier 1 research institution. Wish we were still AAU, but it is what it is.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

You have to stop counting the covid year as changing rules to help OSU. Every rule that year was made up on the fly. 2 of the P5 weren't even having football until the last min.

I think there is another element to people’s perception here. After Baylor and/or TCU were left out a few years ago, and the lack 13th game was used, people have trouble with data elements. Especially, when it’s going the other way for OSU or other.

 

[BCClone]

I believe ISU received record research dollars this year. The AAU apparently doesn’t love private/corporate research money, as much as public. ISU has been and remains a Tier 1 research institution. Wish we were still AAU, but it is what it is.

Because you know that government never has any stipulations or certain requirements tied to their grants. They are strictly wanting to help the human race, whereas any industry just wants to get things done that will help them. (pirate)

It's odd that these learned college prez's and ranking professors think that researchers are 100% corruptible with private money.

 

[HFCS]

You have to stop counting the covid year as changing rules to help OSU. Every rule that year was made up on the fly. 2 of the P5 weren't even having football until the last min.

They invented the rule that 12 is out and 13 is in on the fly, they make these rules up as they go.

They said the 13th data point showed us soooooooo much...even when TCU actually played the same # of conference games.

Fast forward a few years later...just 6 games or 11 games... NO DIFFERENCE.

Covid or not makes absolutely no difference. TCU/B12 had actually LESS control over 12 games than tOSU/B10 did on those 6 games, at the time TCU weren't even allowed a title game and nothing forced the Big Ten to play half of one season instead of a real season. All it did is expose the obvious bias that has been clear in the makeup of every committee just going down the line on where the people are from and how much stature they carry in the sport.

Joke committee that replaced a far superior ranking system. If they were right to crown a team that only played 50% of a schedule, they were 100% wrong to act like 12 vs 13 was some massive thing or anything at all.

 

[cyclones500]

I think there is another element to people’s perception here. After Baylor and/or TCU were left out a few years ago, and the lack 13th game was used, people have trouble with data elements. Especially, when it’s going the other way for OSU or other.

I still assume "13th data element" was a convenient way to not decide a tie situation for BU or TCU, so it was an easy excuse to omit both.

 

[AlaCyclone]

You have to stop counting the covid year as changing rules to help OSU. Every rule that year was made up on the fly. 2 of the P5 weren't even having football until the last min.

And 3/5 played as tough or tougher schedules than normal. The B1G and / or Pac should not have been given special treatment for handling the situation poorly. Ohio State looked like a team that had only played 7 games when they played seasoned Alabama (10 SEC Reguar Season Games + SEC CCG + Notre Dame). At least they made the right call with Iowa State instead of Indiana in the Fiesta Bowl slot.

 

[Klubber]

Isn’t that just math? If the big ten is getting 80-100mil and the Big12 is getting 40-50mil that’s 100% difference. Again I don’t think the money is going to make a huge change except for coaching salaries. The big12’s biggest problem is going to be perception and recruiting not the on field product.

You're comparing the B1G's new deal with what the Big XII is currently making; not really fair. The Big XII won't be getting only 40-50MM with their next deal.

How has the TV money discrepancy thus far resulted in better results on the field or head to head for that matter? Has the B1G dominated the college football landscape? They should with the best TV package, right? I mean how is it possible to have perennial doormats like Illinois, Maryland et al. with all that TV money?
But of course there's a lot more to winning football games than just collecting a check.

The SEC is a different animal entirely because of the college football insanity that's everywhere down there, not to mention the rampant outright cheating.

As long as the Big XII is at a level where schools can afford all the things needed for winning football, it'll be fine. And at the moment that is the case. Going forward, I expect the money to be a lot more than what they're getting now, so that should continue.

As for your comment about perception and recruiting? I really don't think recruits will be looking at spreadsheets and deciding where they're going based on who has the largest TV deal.

If the Big XII continues to field top teams who compete for the playoff and go to top Bowl games most seasons, the recruiting and perception will be fine.

 

[BryceC]

I seriously doubt that.

I don't.

Isn’t that just math? If the big ten is getting 80-100mil and the Big12 is getting 40-50mil that’s 100% difference. Again I don’t think the money is going to make a huge change except for coaching salaries. The big12’s biggest problem is going to be perception and recruiting not the on field product.

I think it's not going to be a big deal unless Warren gets revenue sharing with players and stuff. Then it's a huge deal.

 

[BryceC]

You're comparing the B1G's new deal with what the Big XII is currently making; not really fair. The Big XII won't be getting only 40-50MM with their next deal.

I sincerely hope you're right, but I highly doubt it.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

You're comparing the B1G's new deal with what the Big XII is currently making; not really fair. The Big XII won't be getting only 40-50MM with their next deal.

How has the TV money discrepancy thus far resulted in better results on the field or head to head for that matter? Has the B1G dominated the college football landscape? They should with the best TV package, right? I mean how is it possible to have perennial doormats like Illinois, Maryland et al. with all that TV money?
But of course there's a lot more to winning football games than just collecting a check.

The SEC is a different animal entirely because of the college football insanity that's everywhere down there, not to mention the rampant outright cheating.

As long as the Big XII is at a level where schools can afford all the things needed for winning football, it'll be fine. And at the moment that is the case. Going forward, I expect the money to be a lot more than what they're getting now, so that should continue.

As for your comment about perception and recruiting? I really don't think recruits will be looking at spreadsheets and deciding where they're going based on who has the largest TV deal.

If the Big XII continues to field top teams who compete for the playoff and go to top Bowl games most seasons, the recruiting and perception will be fine.

I totally agree the money hasn't helped the big ten become dominant. I disagree that you think the big12 will be getting more then 50mil per school. That is higher then anything I have seen but I hope you guys get it.

Perception and recruiting doesn't come from spreadsheets it comes from not having flagship programs. Currently the big 12 has only 3 teams in the top 25 of recruiting right now and those teams will continue to fall down the rankings because they have predominantly 3 star talent. Those 3 teams combined only have 9 total 4 stars or higher. The SEC has 8 teams that have more 4/5 stars combined then those three teams put together and the Big Ten has 5 with more. That is the problem with recruiting and perception that will have to be overcome.

 

[isu81]

This is a somewhat interesting look at how the B10 might look at expansion candidates.

Where Should The Big Ten Expand Next? We Crunched The Numbers.

Which schools should the Big Ten poach next?

fivethirtyeight.com