Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[exCyDing]

I'm not looking far enough in the future? Your the person who keeps referencing past or existing sport media conditions.

Why did the Big 10 add Rutgers? Was it a mistake for the Big10? No it made 100% sense based on the cable carriage model at the time and that continues today.

But the live sport model is going to change. Fans are going to need to pay. Disney/ESPN is projected to launch its direct to consumer (DTC) platform/app in Fall 2025. Disney, FOX and Warner Brothers are scheduled to launch a DTC sports platform this fall. It's impact will probably be gradual, but over the next decade access to live sports will change.

And legacy providers like FUBOTV know it's a threat to existing platforms.

Disney/FOX/Warner Platform

FUBO Lawsuit

But like I commented in my prior post, the trend for live sports on subscription platforms will only continue to grow. We are seeing that with the Big10's deal with NBC/Peacock. But those platforms are focused on more than just College Football, they are focused on more than just Live Sports. They want to be a 1 stop shop for TV eyes. Why? Because like you said, there's a good chance an Amazon, Apple or Netflix might enter the live sport marketplace when the next media deals are done.

This argument contradicts your "get the large metro markets" argument. If people in those markets weren't already watching the games that were OTA or on their cable package, why would they sign up for a DTC or add a subscription to their streaming platform?

 

[FriendlySpartan]

It’s already happening, or dont you count that Oregon and washington are taking less.

Don’t count them because they were new ads, if they were permanently kept at a lower payout then I would

 

[FriendlySpartan]

So, what you are saying is the greed stops once the B10 and SEC destroy the ACC. We have to include the SEC because they and the B10 are the ones doing this to the other conferences. Now, why would it stop then and allow the weaker schools to keep getting equal money to the bigger brands? According to you, because it has never occurred before and it will not in the future. You know, most of the P12 schools thought the same thing a year or two ago, they had been a conference over a 100 years, they were all in it together. Hell, they had an agreement with the B10 and ACC to work together for the betterment of all. That all went up in smoke when USC and UCLA wanted more money, but somehow the B10 and SEC are going to be different after the ACC is destroyed and then be satisfied and sit back and collect all their media rights equally.

You are right, I cannot the future, but we can look at the past to make an educated guess of what that future looks like, and its not pretty for the Rutgers, Purdue's and NW's of the conference.

This is the key point, the big ten and SEC aren’t destroying the ACC, the ACC’s own members are breaking it apart. Same with the PAC. That’s why it’s different.

If you look at the past like you claim you would realize that no conference has ever kicked out a member before. Especially not the conference that has been around since the 1800’s

 

[snowcraig2.0]

This is the key point, the big ten and SEC aren’t destroying the ACC, the ACC’s own members are breaking it apart. Same with the PAC. That’s why it’s different.

If you look at the past like you claim you would realize that no conference has ever kicked out a member before. Especially not the conference that has been around since the 1800’s

Depending on how big the revenue gap is, you could argue that being a middle class high major team in the Big 12 might be better than being in the B1G or SEC with the upper class teams dominating those conferences and eating up the CFP bids.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Depending on how big the revenue gap is, you could argue that being a middle class high major team in the Big 12 might be better than being in the B1G or SEC with the upper class teams dominating those conferences and eating up the CFP bids.

I completely agree with that. I’ve said constantly that ISU is in a much better position than Iowa, there is no reason to think you can’t make the playoff on a semi regular basis. With the west gone Iowa is going to need a miracle season and forget ever actually winning the conference again

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

This is the key point, the big ten and SEC aren’t destroying the ACC, the ACC’s own members are breaking it apart. Same with the PAC. That’s why it’s different.

If you look at the past like you claim you would realize that no conference has ever kicked out a member before. Especially not the conference that has been around since the 1800’s

So you are saying that USC and UCLA were not meeting secretly with the B10 before they jumped, or the SEC was not talking to OU and UT before they jumped. Why did the B10 not tell the P12 that USC and UCLA had approached them about leaving the P12 for the B10? I mean the two conferences had an agreement to work together along with the ACC. Because it benefitted the B10 not to tell the P12 that they were talking behind close doors to those schools.
You want to claim that the B10 and SEC did nothing wrong, but it was the schools that were at fault, but it takes two to make a deal. The only thing each conference had to say was, "NO, we are not interested" but they didn't.

It's naive to think that the both the SEC and B10 have not sent out signals or had behind the scenes talks to schools in the ACC, telling the ones that they would take that there is a place for you if those schools can get out of the GOR.

The B10 doesn't have to kick any school out, if the "haves" just set up their own little football league, and just not invite the "have nots".

 

[FriendlySpartan]

So you are saying that USC and UCLA were not meeting secretly with the B10 before they jumped, or the SEC was not talking to OU and UT before they jumped. Why did the B10 not tell the P12 that USC and UCLA had approached them about leaving the P12 for the B10? I mean the two conferences had an agreement to work together along with the ACC. Because it benefitted the B10 not to tell the P12 that they were talking behind close doors to those schools.
You want to claim that the B10 and SEC did nothing wrong, but it was the schools that were at fault, but it takes two to make a deal. The only thing each conference had to say was, "NO, we are not interested" but they didn't.

It's naive to think that the both the SEC and B10 have not sent out signals or had behind the scenes talks to schools in the ACC, telling the ones that they would take that there is a place for you if those schools can get out of the GOR.

The B10 doesn't have to kick any school out, if the "haves" just set up their own little football league, and just not invite the "have nots".

The haves are not leaving the big ten and for the millionth time I’ve never said anything about the SEC or made any comments about the SEC’s future.

Big ten didn’t approach the LA schools, they approached them because their conference was being driven into the ground. Happened pretty quickly but it wasn’t the big ten that reached out.

Big ten is entirely to blame for Nebraska and to a far lesser extent Rutgers and Maryland but not really with the PAC chaos. That was brought by their own ineptitude and horrific leadership

 

[Al_4_State]

This is the key point, the big ten and SEC aren’t destroying the ACC, the ACC’s own members are breaking it apart. Same with the PAC. That’s why it’s different.

If you look at the past like you claim you would realize that no conference has ever kicked out a member before. Especially not the conference that has been around since the 1800’s

This is semantics/plausible deniability.

The Big 10 and SEC could have just stayed put at 11 and 12 and we'd still have the Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC as we knew them.

The Big 10 and SEC have allowed TV networks to use them as agents of chaos and destruction in college sports. You can't deny this with a straight face.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

The haves are not leaving the big ten and for the millionth time I’ve never said anything about the SEC or made any comments about the SEC’s future.

Big ten didn’t approach the LA schools, they approached them because their conference was being driven into the ground. Happened pretty quickly but it wasn’t the big ten that reached out.

Big ten is entirely to blame for Nebraska and to a far lesser extent Rutgers and Maryland but not really with the PAC chaos. That was brought by their own ineptitude and horrific leadership

Did the B10 tell their partner conference the P12 that USC and UCLA approached them? No, they did not, why not? Because it benefitted the B10 to break up the P12, just like if they can break up the ACC it will benefit the B10. I include the SEC because they are doing the same thing, are the two working together or separately to reach the same goal is unimportant. We do know the two conferences have worked together along with ESPN to get more money than the B12 and ACC from the enlarged football playoff.

 

[Gonzo]

So you are saying that USC and UCLA were not meeting secretly with the B10 before they jumped, or the SEC was not talking to OU and UT before they jumped. Why did the B10 not tell the P12 that USC and UCLA had approached them about leaving the P12 for the B10? I mean the two conferences had an agreement to work together along with the ACC. Because it benefitted the B10 not to tell the P12 that they were talking behind close doors to those schools.
You want to claim that the B10 and SEC did nothing wrong, but it was the schools that were at fault, but it takes two to make a deal. The only thing each conference had to say was, "NO, we are not interested" but they didn't.

It's naive to think that the both the SEC and B10 have not sent out signals or had behind the scenes talks to schools in the ACC, telling the ones that they would take that there is a place for you if those schools can get out of the GOR.

The B10 doesn't have to kick any school out, if the "haves" just set up their own little football league, and just not invite the "have nots".

Isn't this what the Big 12 did with ASU, Utah, Colorado, etc?

 

[aeroclone]

This is the key point, the big ten and SEC aren’t destroying the ACC, the ACC’s own members are breaking it apart. Same with the PAC. That’s why it’s different.

If you look at the past like you claim you would realize that no conference has ever kicked out a member before. Especially not the conference that has been around since the 1800’s

I mean they are technically still in the Pac 12, but I would imagine Washington State and Oregon State would tell you they were effectively kicked out of the Pac.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Isn't this what the Big 12 did with ASU, Utah, Colorado, etc?

Sure, it is, but at least the B12 was up front about it, and did so after USC and UCLA had already left. The new schools would not have joined if the B10 had not finally killed the P12 by taking Oregon and Washington. The Athletic had more than one article saying that a deal was in place to keep the P12 going without USC and UCLA, and then night before the vote, both Washington and Oregon agreed to join the B10 and not take the same money that USC and UCLA had been given. With Washington and Oregon gone, what choice did the four schools have but to take the B12 offer?

 

[Al_4_State]

Isn't this what the Big 12 did with ASU, Utah, Colorado, etc?

Yup. But the Big 12 did so out of a position of survival.

The SEC and Big 10 never needed to start raiding other power conferences to be incredibly wealthy. They did so out of greed and because they could. Once that started, the other conferences had to fight for survival.

The Big 12 has spent the last nearly 15 years with a loaded gun pointed at it's head constantly. It raided the Pac 12 in order to avoid being killed off. If the Big 12 hadn't done that, it would be where the Pac 12 is today. The Big 10 and SEC have never been, and would never be, in that position.

 

[CloneLawman]

Yup. But the Big 12 did so out of a position of survival.

The SEC and Big 10 never needed to start raiding other power conferences to be incredibly wealthy. They did so out of greed and because they could. Once that started, the other conferences had to fight for survival.

The Big 12 has spent the last nearly 15 years with a loaded gun pointed at it's head constantly.

Absolutely right! **** the B1G and the greed of Delaney and his successors. And **** the B1G fans who eat it up.

 

[jcyclonee]

The haves are not leaving the big ten and for the millionth time I’ve never said anything about the SEC or made any comments about the SEC’s future.

Big ten didn’t approach the LA schools, they approached them because their conference was being driven into the ground. Happened pretty quickly but it wasn’t the big ten that reached out.

Big ten is entirely to blame for Nebraska and to a far lesser extent Rutgers and Maryland but not really with the PAC chaos. That was brought by their own ineptitude and horrific leadership

I'm going to disagree with you about the last paragraph. The BIG was only partially to blame for Nebraska but was fully to blame for Rutgers and Maryland. They really wanted the NYC and DC TV markets.

 

[Al_4_State]

Absolutely right! **** the B1G and the greed of Delaney and his successors. And **** the B1G fans who eat it up.

The SEC is just as bad.

 

[CloneLawman]

The SEC is just as bad.

Of course. **** them as well, but I don't see their fans coming onto the ISU boards trying to normalize their ****** acts.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Sure, it is, but at least the B12 was up front about it, and did so after USC and UCLA had already left. The new schools would not have joined if the B10 had not finally killed the P12 by taking Oregon and Washington. The Athletic had more than one article saying that a deal was in place to keep the P12 going without USC and UCLA, and then night before the vote, both Washington and Oregon agreed to join the B10 and not take the same money that USC and UCLA had been given. With Washington and Oregon gone, what choice did the four schools have but to take the B12 offer?

Yeah they kept claiming a deal was in place yet no AD had ever actually seen a deal from the commish. The PAC did this to themselves this time around with horrible leadership and mismanagement. It’s like being mad at airbus for getting additional market share when Boeings planes are falling apart mid air.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

The SEC is just as bad.

While I agree with this comment I also think OUT should be taking an equal amount of the blame in that one, more Texas than OU but everyone knows how toxic Texas is.

 

[SCNCY]

Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska did not start at full shares of the media revenue, and only Nebraska is at a full share now. Rutgers and Maryland took out a loan on their future payments to either spend on the exit fees to their former conference or to use to get their athletic programs out of debt. Both Maryland and Rutgers athletic departments were being subsidized 10s of millions from their school.

As someone said, Washington and Oregon are not getting full shares next season, but USC and UCLA are, so they have unequal revenue sharing now.

I'd add a disclaimer to this that when USC and UCLA were added, their values were included in the new Big10 media negotiations package as it was known prior to signing the deal. Washington and Oregon were not, so their value was not negotiated. Any money media money they get, is from the the new Big10 media deal and therefore, I believe is deducted from the other schools' payouts (just like the Bigt12's with two of the PACs schools).

So technically yes there is unequal revenue sharing, but it's because Washington and Oregon were not included in the current media deal, in the next media deal, I'd assume they would get a full share.