Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

  • After Iowa State won the Big 12, a Cyclone made a wonderful offer to We Will that now increases our match. Now all gifts up to $400,000 between now and the Final 4 will be matched. Please consider giving at We Will Collective.
    This notice can be dismissed using the upper right corner X button.

StPaulCyclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 9, 2008
2,079
1,664
113
Duh!
No, they discussed it as an offensive move to obstruct Pac expansion, greatly enhancing the Big 12's chances for gaining the 4 corner schools. Wilner, who is a staunch Pac proponent, said he thinks the Big 12 would be wise to grab SDSU before the PAC does, and I agree with him.

Like Wilner, I believe the Big 12 would be better off taking SDSU and 3 Pac schools than to do nothing and allow the Pac to expand.
Obstruction sounds like defense to me. Again, I don’t understand how some can be so comfortable promoting more G5 teams. We can’t afford to have increased competition as this significant round of realignment continues to shake out. They were vetted at least once and weren’t selected. We should already be nervous about the four new adds, versus ISU, in the future.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

aeroclone

Well-Known Member
Oct 30, 2006
9,770
5,768
113
Iowa State and the Big 12 are both in need of exposure. ISU needs to build the brand and show that our current programs are different from most of our history. And the B12 needs to prove that it's quality of play and fan following make us the strongest conference after the P2. To change those perceptions we need to capture the eyes of casual fans. Nobody that isn't already a B12 fan would follow us to Amazon Prime. We would be digging ourselves into a niche.

We need network games. Those will be turned on in every bar, restaurant, bowling alley, and airport in America each weekend. And those networks will be covering and promoting those games all week, and focusing on those games during shows like GameDay. Games on Amazon would be invisible to the world outside of dedicated B12 fans. Repeat that for years and the gap between us and the P2 will grow and grow.

Streaming has grown, but I don't see this new world CW is talking about yet. It may be coming, but it isn't here now. All in on streaming now is demoting ourselves to a second class conference.
 

StPaulCyclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 9, 2008
2,079
1,664
113
Duh!
The sooner the better for a program like ISU that has real paying fans compared to most FBS teams, but only 35-40% of an already small cable TV market.

Get this thing closer to who is actually streaming from where and ISU suddenly isn't on the fringes. It's better now than it was in 2010, but not all the way there.
Definitely real fans, but are you confident in real paying fans? Cyclones.tv took its lumps around here and several said they dropped ESPN+ to teach ESPN a lesson, rather that help support ISU’s streaming numbers. Hopefully, I’ve just seen too much of what is a very small vocal minority.
 

StPaulCyclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 9, 2008
2,079
1,664
113
Duh!
Iowa State and the Big 12 are both in need of exposure. ISU needs to build the brand and show that our current programs are different from most of our history. And the B12 needs to prove that it's quality of play and fan following make us the strongest conference after the P2. To change those perceptions we need to capture the eyes of casual fans. Nobody that isn't already a B12 fan would follow us to Amazon Prime. We would be digging ourselves into a niche.

We need network games. Those will be turned on in every bar, restaurant, bowling alley, and airport in America each weekend. And those networks will be covering and promoting those games all week, and focusing on those games during shows like GameDay. Games on Amazon would be invisible to the world outside of dedicated B12 fans. Repeat that for years and the gap between us and the P2 will grow and grow.

Streaming has grown, but I don't see this new world CW is talking about yet. It may be coming, but it isn't here now. All in on streaming now is demoting ourselves to a second class conference.
Agreed. Without games involving OUUT in the B12 inventory, I worry about how often B12 games will end up on ABC, FOX, NBC and CBS. Those drive the biggest ratings, where your game is shown matters.
 

Pope

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Feb 7, 2015
7,169
16,150
113
Obstruction sounds like defense to me. Again, I don’t understand how some can be so comfortable promoting more G5 teams. We can’t afford to have increased competition as this significant round of realignment continues to shake out. They were vetted at least once and weren’t selected. We should already be nervous about the four new adds, versus ISU, in the future.
We're arguing semantics. Taking SDSU would be a preemptive strike by the Big 12. In my judgement, that's about as offensive as you can get.

SDSU's value isn't just what they themselves bring to the conference. Their value is ending the Pac's hopes for expansion, which ends the PAC as we know it, which causes numerous PAC teams to jump to the Big 12.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
5,630
6,092
113
37
We're arguing semantics. Taking SDSU would be a preemptive strike by the Big 12. In my judgement, that's about as offensive as you can get.

SDSU's value isn't just what they themselves bring to the conference. Their value is ending the Pac's hopes for expansion, which ends the PAC as we know it, which causes numerous PAC teams to jump to the Big 12.
Yes SDSU is this massive get that will save the pac. Come on man you are making them out to be Bama or OSU. They are simply the best available, not a good pick and not one that will help any P5 conference. If they did they would already be in one.

I like the Big12 and think the Big12 is much stronger then it’s perception but if 40% of your teams were G5 teams a year ago then that perception is going to sink even lower.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE

HawaiiClone

Active Member
Dec 4, 2020
647
232
43
However things shake out, conferences ultimately want the opportunity to get the most playoff spots. So how can football be set up like other sports where tournament bids are unevenly distributed based on how many tournament worthy teams are in a conference? To reduce the number of rounds of playoffs you could only award auto berths to say the top 4-6 conference champs and make the rest at-large bids.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
10,992
16,729
113
What about if they only get a partial rights deal with the Big 12 in the next negotiation?

Full rights or partial rights...it really doesn't matter. You, like the rest of us, have no clue what will "make sense" for ESPN in the future.

In any case, barring something totally bizaare like a football/futbol double-header on Telemundo, ESPN is probably going to have at least some of the Big 12 media rights in the future, so we shall see...
If they get a partial rights deal, it’s a whole different ballgame where the ROI of propping it up or killing it could be debated. That’s exactly why I focused on them getting sole rights. And if they get full rights there is not a plausible reason I have heard yet that where killing the Big 12 makes an ounce of sense.

Partial or ultra short term deals with ESPN (or Fox for that matter) need to be viewed with a high level of caution by Yormark.

But if the money is good for exclusive rights for say 4 plus years, then that’s great.

If someone comes up with a reason where an exclusive media partner would trash it’s exclusive conference I’ll listen.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
5,630
6,092
113
37
Sometimes you can posture your issue all the way to the Supreme Court. Funny how you ignore that.
Funny how you seem to think stoping athletes from making money (the definition of American capitalism) vs multibillion dollar institutions negotiating media deals are the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timinatoria

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
5,468
3,431
113
Wilner made a good point. He said for the Pac teams on the fence, Kliavkoff can show the teams a copy of ESPN's, Amazon's, etc. written offer versus the unknown with the Big 12 two years away. How about if the Big 12 goes to market now and gets its own written offer to show the Pac teams? On the flip side, the two years away gives Yormark time to grease the wheels of all the media players to get the best deal.

These schools would have to be delusional to think the P5 is still a thing.

This is only about how do the leftovers consolidate, and no one is going to PAC. If the PAC is too prideful to join the Big 12, the Big 12 schools should consolidate with ACC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agentbear

jctisu

Well-Known Member
Jun 11, 2017
7,435
9,228
113
36
There's nothing the state government can do to block UCLA from leaving the Pac for the B1G.
I think he’s hinting more along the lines of the anti-trust rumblings that have been popping up. There’s real reports (was in CW and Wilners pod) that the BIG and SEC have at least started to give this a little pause due to that threat.

The massive demotion to all of these state schools and universities that will have real economic impact on the towns and surrounding area due to these two P2 manipulating and taking schools thus potentially devastating others (Big 12 and PAC-12 for now and happened to the Big East years ago) absolutely has enough teeth to pump the brakes on this a bit. When it was the Big East there wasn’t enough clout to do anything, but now if you start cutting out the majority of the Big 12 pre-OUT and PAC-12 pre-USC/UCLA and we all know the second the big fish in the ACC can bolt they will, now you add in all of those ACC schools things could get dicey.

All of these schools together would certainly have enough connections to senators and representatives to make some noise if they wanted to. And there have been way worse and more pointless things than college football voted on in Washington DC.

Maybe nothing ever happens but that is a real thing to think about for the P2 and why I think these other conferences will still get playoff access because that’s the bargaining chip to keep them quiet. The P2 cuts everyone out and you bet your ass there’s going to be some stuff happening in Congress.
 

Trice

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2010
6,856
11,204
113
All good points.

1.) Yes, Netflix is shedding subscribers at the moment, but adding live sports would absolutely help reverse that.
2.) Something like 70% of Prime subscribers use it to stream. How much? Hard to say. My main point was a majority of people have no trouble streaming, so it shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as a hurdle.
3.) Should’ve read more! Safe to say, it would be considerably more expensive to get cable for CFB games than to have a streaming option.
4.) Cable sub estimates were all over the place - some said 50m, others said 80m+. Lots pegged it somewhere in the 70s. The estimate I used included Hulu+ and similar streaming cable subs.
5.) Hard to say where the younger generations end up. I went through a period in may late teens/early 20s where I didn’t watch much sports at all. That said, it makes sense the audience would skew slightly older. I don’t think streaming-only is viable at this point, but I’m not convinced there would be a significant difference between FS1 and a streaming option.

I was going to respond to both yours and @FriendlySpartan's posts in response to my comments a few pages back, but I think you've both said about everything I would have, and then some.

The only thing I would add is that cable vs. streaming isn't necessarily and either/or, for many it's both. You cited numbers of households who have a streaming product vs. traditional cable, and I'd bet there is significant overlap among those audiences. And I'd also underscore what @FriendlySpartan said, that many people who stream are using a product like YTTV. I'll grant that watching YTTV may make someone more amenable to visiting other apps to stream content, but in terms of the viewership experience it is, essentially, cable.
 

JUKEBOX

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2008
7,895
1,349
113
Iowa State and the Big 12 are both in need of exposure. ISU needs to build the brand and show that our current programs are different from most of our history. And the B12 needs to prove that it's quality of play and fan following make us the strongest conference after the P2. To change those perceptions we need to capture the eyes of casual fans. Nobody that isn't already a B12 fan would follow us to Amazon Prime. We would be digging ourselves into a niche.

We need network games. Those will be turned on in every bar, restaurant, bowling alley, and airport in America each weekend. And those networks will be covering and promoting those games all week, and focusing on those games during shows like GameDay. Games on Amazon would be invisible to the world outside of dedicated B12 fans. Repeat that for years and the gap between us and the P2 will grow and grow.

Streaming has grown, but I don't see this new world CW is talking about yet. It may be coming, but it isn't here now. All in on streaming now is demoting ourselves to a second class conference.

To me, it would be easier to watch a game on Amazon Prime than FS1 or FS2.

That's anecdotal though, I'm not sure how many people actually sub to Amazon Prime vs. sports packages on cable networks, etc. Also not sure how many casuals you could bring in.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MeanDean

Pope

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Feb 7, 2015
7,169
16,150
113
Yes SDSU is this massive get that will save the pac. Come on man you are making them out to be Bama or OSU. They are simply the best available, not a good pick and not one that will help any P5 conference. If they did they would already be in one.

I like the Big12 and think the Big12 is much stronger then it’s perception but if 40% of your teams were G5 teams a year ago then that perception is going to sink even lower.
So you're saying the Big 12 would be better off standing pat with 12 teams (excluding Texas and Oklahoma) than to add SDSU and at least 3 Pac teams. I'd have to disagree with that.