Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
I've hammered MHVer3 for years, but during the 2023 realignment it became pretty obvious that he talks to someone who knows something legitimately. I think he gets fed a lot of BS in the process, but I no longer think he's indulging in his own fan fiction. Someone more connected than himself is telling him these things.
Ok. I’ll try to address your rebuttals again one by one.
Revenue is increasing because the amount they receive in television rights (due to football) have been increasing. Not because spend has been increasing. This isn’t a situation like the federal government increasing its debt each year. Which schools have been bailed out by taxpayers? I haven’t heard about
RE if a single entity investing in 64 schools, but that’s not how a PE deal would work. PE would be looking at investing into an individual conference or a school. In no world will 64 schools agree to a PE deal with a single investor. Everyone’s interests are too disparate. And I imagine there would be regulatory hurdles with that as well.
And regarding your next paragraph, why would most schools agree to PE taking all revenue over a certain amount? That would be a terrible deal because you’d still need to account for continual increase in costs and it would inhibit growth on the school side for reinvestment.
You say you understand PE is not a loan, but you speak as if it is one. Just pay them over $80M and you won’t need to deal with them like a homeowner would do on a mortgage. I’ll skip to your last paragraph here on a PE being hands off. I also have loads of experience with companies who have outside funding. I don’t know what you do for work, but I’ve presented in more board meeting than I can count. At no point were they hands off in my experience. This won’t be a rich guy buying a boat, any investing entity will be hyper-involved in decisions and will have aggressive targets to hit.
Your point regarding CyTown is a good one. Fair enough on that. Also the networks not getting growth is my opinion and I won’t derail here, but have made it in other threads in the past. I’ll just say look at CFP ratings and national championship ratings the past 10 years compared to the 90s. There are signals CFP popularity is actually waning and there are serious landmines (TV rights bubble, NFL on Saturdays, etc.). Alright, no derail.
Next paragraph. I actually began commenting on this topic by saying that PE WASN’T the boogeyman. I’m aware investment in college athletics can come from anywhere. I never said it would be a VC firm or even a financial company. Not sure what you’re referencing here.
I agree that to date, schools have been making short-sighted decisions to maximize revenue. No question. But, PE will start making short-term decisions to maximize PROFITS. You started out your response by saying “still find itself in peril , with sports potentially on the chopping block.” If PE is involved, sports will be cut. Point blank. Probably immediately. 0 sports except for football, men’s basketball, and in some cases women’s basketball are profitable. Maybe they keep volleyball around to ease Title IX concerns. A PE firm is going to cut all other sports, that’s the lowest-hanging fruit there is to maximize profits.
Agree, though it depends a lot on the timeframe. 5 years vs in perpetuity is a big difference.
Seems like he’s fed enough crap to maintain plausible deniability and protect identity of his source. It’s a flood of information and not all of it sticks, but some does. Is it luck? Who knows.
He is tied to WV and from what I gathered, it is through a contact of Oliver Luck and others as well so whatever he passes on is generally pro WV and B12 and pro WV getting back in a conference with existing ACC schools. WV President Gordon Gee is on the CST board so there is going to be an information flow to MHver that would include pro-CST info which the latest tweet suggests. You always got to assess what could be plausible and could pan out and what is not.
I think it boils down to leadership and having a single competent (at least potentially competent) entity running CFB as a sport. That's where PE would/could bring value. Not as just a source of money.
(I suspect when B12 was talking to PE it was to see how much it would cost to get cash to cover the House settlement etc, and they found out debt was cheaper than equity.)
The vision would be like the NFL with a single organization running the show in everyone's best interests.
That should be better than current status with yahoos like Sankey deliberately trying to hurt other programs, and morons like Kliavkoff and Larry Scott who shouldn't be in charge of a lemonade stand stepping on $100M rakes.
Nobody becomes a fan because of budget.
People do remain active fans partially due to Iowa State competing at the highest level.
Less people will care if we drop to some FCS equivalent. Thats just a fact.
I wouldn’t become a fan of some other team either and likely nobody else would. We’d just stop caring as much attendance and excitement overall would decrease.
The budget would become a major issue because we have debt to service.
If a PE firm would walk into a forum of P4 Presidents/ADs and present this type of plan, they would be immediately ignored and dismissed.
Agree
No doubt. Which is probably why the PE meeting with CVC didn’t go anywhere. Because college athletics isn’t a for-profit entity. Which is why I wouldn’t get in bed with PE
I agree with pretty much all of this. But PE isn’t the best avenue to get centralized (or even competent necessarily) leadership.
Sankey is the devil we know. PE could be the devil we don’t.
Who's saying ISU would drop to an FCS level? We wouldn't be competing for a Playoff Championship against programs from the MVFC, Mid-American, Sunbelt, etc.. ISU would be in a division with schools from the Big12/ACC that don't get absorbed by the Big10/SEC plus schools from the MWC and AAC.
I agree, some fans would stop buying tickets or watching games if ISU isn't "competing at the highest level." But your bolded statement cuts additional ways:
- If ISU (and other ACC/Big12 schools) have a very limited path to a CFP bid, don't you think fan interest will wane? Having the SEC/Big10 guaranteed 8 or 9 playoff bids in a 12 team playoff doesn't sound like a level playing field. Sounds more like a Big, Big Brother vs. Little Brother with his hand tied behind his back relationship.
- If the money gap between Big10/SEC and Big12/ACC schools results in a huge gap in head-to-head wins, that will also cause fan interest to wane.
Look at the Big East- all thriving college campuses and alumni bases without elite level college football.
You and I have very different opinions on nothing wrong.
Not sure how any ISU fan would characterize JTS being 2/3 or 1/2 full for all games as "nothing wrong" along with competing at a lower level than TOE.
It would be absolutely terrible for ISU and the worst case scenario effective 2032.
First, I appreciate people providing numbers to support their arguments. However, please, when we talk about 'increasing' amounts, no matter what they are, can we please speak in inflation adjusted value? Can we please assign some numbers of increased viewership so we can get some association per capita? Can we please provide some form of potential alumni contribution value? Of course everything $$$$ ... are going up, but we don't really have any baseline to compare against if things aren't adjusted. Thanks!!
No thanks. Much rather prefer people speaking in vague absolutes as to what they think will happen in the next 5-10 years. My bingo card is almost filled.
If the Big 12 is getting teams into the playoff every year, then ISU is fine. We've shown we can compete at a financial disadvantage.
The biggest risk to ISU is the idea of the SEC and Big 10 as they're currently constructed saying "we're no longer playing schools from other conferences" and having their own playoff. Which is extremely unlikely, BUT feasible. I say it's unlikely because it would ultimately lead to the Big 10 and SEC making less money than they do today due to diminished interest in their product and lesser ratings. But those fanbases are big enough to guarantee a profitable product on their own.
A far more likely outcome is a playoff expansion that ends up with the Big 12 and ACC having guaranteed access, but less guaranteed access than the Big 10 and SEC. Something like 4/4/2/2. That's not really any change over where we've been for awhile, and that's something ISU fans can have as much fun as we've ever had with.
The biggest risk to ISU is the idea of the SEC and Big 10 as they're currently constructed saying "we're no longer playing schools from other conferences" and having their own playoff. Which is extremely unlikely, BUT feasible. I say it's unlikely because it would ultimately lead to the Big 10 and SEC making less money than they do today due to diminished interest in their product and lesser ratings. But those fanbases are big enough to guarantee a profitable product on their own.
A far more likely outcome is a playoff expansion that ends up with the Big 12 and ACC having guaranteed access, but less guaranteed access than the Big 10 and SEC. Something like 4/4/2/2. That's not really any change over where we've been for awhile, and that's something ISU fans can have as much fun as we've ever had with.
College athletics is absolutely a for-profit entity. Pretending otherwise is burying your head in the sand.
Firstly, the Media is definitely for-profit, and they are paying for everything.
And all that media money going to the ADs - that's not all going to educate kids, not even close. Maybe 25%? Lots of people (coaches are the biggest single benefactor) are making millions and millions. ADs and lots of associated meatpacking glitterati within the ADs are also getting paid a lot to do a little. Building over-the-top facilities. Private jet recruiting trips. All those expenses are not suggestive of non-profit behavior or mission. Just because they don't have "owners" and just because they are a 501c3 doesnt change that behavior.
The guy running United Way is not making $8M a year with a 5 year guaranteed contract buyout.
Sounds like if there is that much excess that doesn’t go to anything it should be easy to find 20mil to pay the players and none of this is an issue then, just cut that excess right?
Fair optimism.
On the other hand:
The biggest risk is the P2 expand and then later separate. Incrementally culling just a handful of schools per round after first marginalizing, which makes it much more feasible politically. My guess is going to 48 biggest brands across the nation would make a big enough tent
Imo, if separation is even on the table at all, the sooner the better. The smaller the P2 the better. Don’t give an inch and force the current P2 to be willing to bring on Armageddon.
I wonder if that’s why the P2 have so far successfully gotten unequal treatment. If the Big 12 and ACC don’t agree, the P2 will just add enough schools until separation is feasible.
Basketball will be impacted more by that, as generally we’ve spent close to most P5s, and there’s no ability to improve postseason access as an equalizer. It is intentional that the CFP deal expires at the same time as NCAA. The monetization of basketball is going to change. We’ll be lucky if we can prevent a similar inequitable situation.
