Realignment talk not going away

[Hurtlocker 2212]

7 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Interesting ranking of schools by athletics revenue. Quite a number of surprises. The author does note that some of them might not be typical for a given year (e.g., Virginia got a one-time $40 million donation). He says they're normally in the UNC range. Louisville appears to be overlooked in a lot of conference realignment preferences if their listed revenue figures are like that every year, but Old Dominion and James Madison are the real surprises.

It'd be really interesting to see a multi-year average for all the athletics departments.

 

That's an interesting way of looking at it.   Sometimes school funds are there to support a lot of non-revenue sports, just two ways of tackling Title IX.   You can either offer the exact same amount of opportunities, which means cutting mens sports not named football and adding more womens, or you can offer all of the sports possible and don't need to balance the scales.

Though, sometimes its because sports gets you on tv and you need to be on tv, so spend the cash.

Both JMU and Old Dominion are exploding in growth because UVA and VTech just can't grow as fast as the state is.   UVA is still 22k students, while if they were like other land grant schools, they'd be 50-60k easy.   What I didn't expect to see though is JMU with nearly twice the revenue as Washington State.   Yeeeooch. 

[bolverk 29683]

6 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

That's an interesting way of looking at it.   Sometimes school funds are there to support a lot of non-revenue sports, just two ways of tackling Title IX.   You can either offer the exact same amount of opportunities, which means cutting mens sports not named football and adding more womens, or you can offer all of the sports possible and don't need to balance the scales.

Though, sometimes its because sports gets you on tv and you need to be on tv, so spend the cash.

Both JMU and Old Dominion are exploding in growth because UVA and VTech just can't grow as fast as the state is.   UVA is still 22k students, while if they were like other land grant schools, they'd be 50-60k easy.   What I didn't expect to see though is JMU with nearly twice the revenue as Washington State.   Yeeeooch. 

And then there's Houston... It looks like the *only* reason you'd ever want them is just for the market. Props to UTSA and Texas State for almost reaching Houston revenue levels though.

Another surprise was how far down Okie Lite is, especially compared to Tech and Iowa State.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

19 minutes ago, bolverk said:

And then there's Houston... It looks like the *only* reason you'd ever want them is just for the market. Props to UTSA and Texas State for almost reaching Houston revenue levels though.

Another surprise was how far down Okie Lite is, especially compared to Tech and Iowa State.

Yeah there are some anomalies.    If you look at the top 50 programs by revenue things get a bit more even:

• $200M+ Club: Ohio State, Texas, Bama, Michigan, Geogia
• >$175m: LSU, A&M, Florida, Penn State, Oklahoma
• >$150m: Auburn, Mich St, Indiana, UVA, FSU, UK, Clemson, Tennessee, Oregon, Arkansas, Iowa
• >$125m: Louisville, Illinois, Washington, Nebraska, South Carolina, Missouri, Minnesota, Ole Miss  (Pretty sure TCU/Baylor/USC fall in this camp)
• >$100m: Zona, UNC, ASU, Cal, Kansas, Utah, Purdue, VTech, ISU, MSU, Tech, Rutgers, Maryland, GTech, WVU, OkSt, UCLA, NCState, Kansas State (I think BYU falls here)

I'd expect you'll see UCF, Colorado, Cinci and Houston join the $100m ranks in the next two years.   This list also has a lot of fluctuation on it depending on who gets a good booster run in any given year.   Like you mentioned with UVA's $50m donation, last year they had $105m.   Two years ago Oregon was #1 with over $200m, now they're back to normal.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Hurtlocker

[Chopper 17235]

What did FSU expect when they signed a contract ~6 years ago putting them on equal footing with the likes of BC until 2036. They really do make 'em dumber in florida. God speed.

Anyway, here's the athletic's explainer for the week ahead.

Quote

 

Florida State’s ACC exit deadline, explained: Will Seminoles act on conference unrest?

By Nicole Auerbach

1h ago

Two weeks ago, Florida State president Rick McCullough issued a threat that was not very veiled. Speaking during a meeting of the Seminoles’ Board of Trustees on Aug. 2, he said the following:

“I believe that FSU will have to, at some point, consider very seriously leaving the ACC, unless there were a radical change to the revenue distribution.”

If they didn’t before that moment, everyone in college sports — both within the ACC and outside of it — now knows that Florida State is unhappy in its current conference. But what can Seminoles leaders do about it? In the days after that board meeting, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah followed Colorado out of the Pac-12 while Oregon and Washington decamped for the Big Ten. By the middle of this week, we’ll know whether the ACC has emerged from this year’s round of realignment rumors unscathed. And it all hinges on what happens in Tallahassee.
go-deeper

GO DEEPER

‘All hell broke loose’: The chaotic final days that shook the Pac-12 and college football to their core
FSU’s ACC unrest and the significance of Aug. 15

The ACC shares the revenue it brings in from its media rights deal equally with all members, and its deal with ESPN runs through 2036. By the end of the decade, ACC schools could be bringing in as much as $30 million less than their peers in the Big Ten and the SEC, the two richest leagues in college sports. And ACC schools have no real opportunities over the next 13 years to renegotiate with ESPN or anyone else to bump up these payouts.

So for the next decade-plus, FSU is set for the same payout from the conference as Boston College, despite vast differences in the two athletic departments’ investment in revenue-generating sports and large gaps in the number of eyeballs they draw for football games. With many CFP hopefuls elsewhere set to draw escalating revenue payouts from their league’s TV deals, that dynamic has led to some angst.

As Florida State athletic director Michael Alford put it in February, “At the end of the day, for Florida State to compete nationally, something has to change moving forward.”

This brings us to an important date on the calendar for all ACC members — and especially FSU and Clemson, the two schools most eager to improve their individual financial situations.

Any ACC school would need to give notice to the conference that it was departing by Aug. 15 in order to compete elsewhere the following academic year. So, if FSU were to tell the ACC it was leaving by Tuesday, it would be able to compete in another league, or as an independent, for the 2024-25 season.

But the formal decision to leave the ACC is just the first step. There’s a $120 million exit fee involved, plus whatever legal battle would follow between the league and the school trying to get out of a grant of rights that stretches until 2036. That grant of rights means the ACC owns the broadcast rights of every home game of each member school for the next 13 seasons.

This has led to a fascinating dynamic. You’ve got a disgruntled ACC member with deep pockets that wants to bet on itself, believing it brings enough value to entice the Big Ten or SEC. But Florida State would have to jump, this week or in a future year, without knowing its landing spot or the exact cost of getting its TV rights back. Though lawyers have educated guesses, no one has any guarantees. And even if the Big Ten and/or SEC are interested, those leagues have to be careful to avoid being dragged into any legal fight. The length of such a legal battle, and whether or not it would impact the Seminoles’ football season as it unfolds, is unknown.

A number of ACC schools have had lawyers examine the grant of rights, and no school has challenged it yet. Some legal experts have described the document as “ironclad.” As Florida State has discussed its options in recent weeks, attention has centered on the school’s financial support for athletics. In an unprecedented move for a public university, FSU is working with JPMorgan Chase to raise capital from institutional investors, and private equity firm Sixth Street is involved in the discussions, as first reported by Sportico and confirmed by The Athletic.

FSU boosters and trustees have not seemed outwardly concerned about the potential costs of breaking the ACC’s grant of rights.

“That’s the least of my worries based on what we know,” FSU board chair Peter Collins said on Warchant TV. “We understand it. We have gotten a lot of counsel on that document. That will not be the document that keeps us from taking action. And I’ll leave it at that.”

What could happen this week

The most likely outcome is that Tuesday arrives and the Seminoles do nothing, league sources have told The Athletic. FSU would need 24 hours’ notice to call another board meeting, and that hasn’t happened. Time is running out to get everything in place for an ACC exit announcement for next year. Leaving the ACC is still a move that brings with it a massive amount of risk, and although board members and FSU leadership don’t want to let another year pass with a widening gap, they also have to be smart. One trustee suggested earlier this month that FSU give itself a year to figure out its exit strategy from the ACC. That could be the best option right now.

But the ripple effects of a potential FSU departure are already being felt. One of the most compelling reasons for the ACC to consider adding Stanford, Cal and perhaps even SMU was the strategy of adding reinforcements before they’re needed, backfilling in advance in case FSU, Clemson or anyone else ends up leaving in the coming years. Not surprisingly, Florida State and Clemson are among the four schools opposed to these additions, believing that they do not add significant value to the ACC — only logistical and travel headaches. Twelve of the 15 ACC members need to support expansion before it can happen, and right now the league is one vote short. Most of those firm “yes” votes belong to schools that wouldn’t have other options in another Power 5 reorganization and would want to fortify the ACC now.

Don’t be surprised if the end of this week arrives and nothing has changed, with FSU staying put and the ACC opting not to expand westward. Internal angst in this conference is nothing new, although FSU’s peers seem to be getting sick of the Seminoles’ complaints.

“If they want to leave, that’s gonna be their choice, but there are certain obligations that they do have,” North Carolina athletic director Cunningham told 99.9 The Fan earlier this month. “We have an exit fee and we have a grant of rights. I believe that the ACC is a great league. It’s been a great league for a long time. Their frustration about the money, everyone would like to have more money and everyone would like to win more. …

“Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s good for our league for them to be out there barking like that, and I’d rather see them, you know, be a good member of the league and support the league. And if they have to make a decision then so be it. Pay for the exit fee, wait for your grant of rights that you’ve given, and then in 2036, when those rights return to you, do whatever you want.”

This much discontent may not make it all the way to 2036. But the next twists and turns remain to be seen.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Chopper

[CustersDoctor 584]

On another tangent. Stanford used to have a raucous and rabid student presence at its football games. They showed up in mass whether the team was good or bad. They were famously sophomoric, sometimes offensive, usually harmless and often hilarious. But starting in 2014 the Stanford elitist administration began a war on fun at the school. They mainly targeted the Fraternities. Over the last year or two the students began to push back. Students began taking banners and protest signs into the stadium on game days for increased visibility. So the administration retaliated with body searches and pat downs at the students entrance. So now the students just don't go to the games. College football stadiums without college students are less fun for everybody. Now nobody goes to the games.

https://stanforddaily.com/2022/10/24/inside-stanfords-war-on-fun-tensions-mount-over-universitys-handling-of-social-life/

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think they would.   The issue I hear often from the ISU/OSU/BYU crowd isn't that they wouldn't support their team, its that they are against silver spoons.  So, if there is a path to promotion and relegation that they could achieve, set it up.  But Vandy shouldn't get a free meal over them due to luck and happenstance.

If there isn't a way for that to happen, then that's when the number swells.

I don't mind 64 teams too much, if, and only if, every single game on every one of those 64 teams is against each other.   Having a quarter to a third of the schedule against teams a tier or three below is a bigger problem in my mind, like A&M vs Abeline Christian, than if Ohio State plays Rutgers.

If you relegate schools like the bulk of the Big 12 schools, their fans will just lose interest in college football, and ratings will drop.

I think the TV networks think if they relegate the Pokes, those fans will all just watch OU.  That’s not going to happen.  Same with us and Iowa.  I watch Iowa games all the time, because they’re our rival, and we play them every year.  Take ISU out of the equation completely, and I’m only watching an Iowa game if it’s some kind of social gathering.

You can pretty safely extrapolate that to any other fanbase.

And yes, what has always pissed us off is watching our neighbors get a free pass because their overlords were just nice about it.  

[billfromlaketravis 11485]

Interesting article on Disney : 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/disneys-future-hot-topic-among-100421410.html

[Evil Bill Obrien 3285]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

And then there's Houston... It looks like the *only* reason you'd ever want them is just for the market. Props to UTSA and Texas State for almost reaching Houston revenue levels though.

Another surprise was how far down Okie Lite is, especially compared to Tech and Iowa State.

Texas State and UTSA generating near identical revenue after one school has won back to back conference titles and the other has been wandering the proverbial football desert for 9ish years (thanks for 7-5 and a bowl game snub in 2014, Franchione) is rather surprising and would start to be concerning to me if I was a road bird fan down in SA. Sure you are gonna make more with the AAC media payout but not by that much...and if Texas State ever wakes up from its football coma then things get really interesting.

I would say its super surprising that both are so close to UH...but when you think about it more its really not, they took away all of Tilmans mob money for this exercise so thats what's left.

[BurntOrange&White 39933]

1 minute ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Texas State and UTSA generating near identical revenue after one school has won back to back conference titles and the other has been wandering the proverbial football desert for 9ish years (thanks for 7-5 and a bowl game snub in 2014, Franchione) is rather surprising and would start to be concerning to me if I was a road bird fan down in SA. Sure you are gonna make more with the AAC media payout but not by that much...and if Texas State ever wakes up from its football coma then things get really interesting.

I would say its super surprising that both are so close to UH...but when you think about it more its really not, they took away all of Tilmans mob money for this exercise so thats what's left.

I'd bet having your own stadium vs having to lease the Alamodome is a huge factor in that. 

[gatormarc 911]

11 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Interesting article on Disney : 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/disneys-future-hot-topic-among-100421410.html

Didn't read, but exciting to see Hot Topic is involved.

[Vertigo 20286]

7 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Interesting article on Disney : 

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/disneys-future-hot-topic-among-100421410.html

It would make sense for them to spin off ESPN. They need a better streaming option for their core content, because them trying desperately to hold on to the cable subscription revenue by itself is a losing proposition. 

[Zhorn96 1773]

I think a lot of people on here are thinking logically from a competitive perspective but not from a TV/ad money perspective.  If the goal is an NFL lite feeder league which generates massive revenues through ads (which I think it is), they don't care about the interest among fans outside of the ones in the final "league" which is why they want the big brands.  They're going to want to invest heavily in those final 24/40/48 teams whatever it is and make it an NFL like spectacle.  All the best HS players will attend these schools and they can market it all and generate massive profits from televising the circus.  Some "good teams" will fail in this model...that's just encouragement to reinvest their money back into the program to make it better so they can earn the prizes that the "winners" will no doubt receive.  And on and on.  The schools not "in" will be forced to de-escalate the arms race and will settle back into the G5/FCS shadows which will ripple effect their ADs and less revenue will be generated.  I believe this is approximately what the networks want to drive towards, NFL Lite.

The logic of 8 geographically based conferences of 8 teams each (or 4 of 16 with 2 divisions) is makes sense from a competitive standpoint.  It feeds into a perfect playoff systems and maintains interest nationally.  Not as much money though...

Edited August 14, 2023 by Zhorn96

[Uncle Nate 2097]

22 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If you relegate schools like the bulk of the Big 12 schools, their fans will just lose interest in college football, and ratings will drop.

I think the TV networks think if they relegate the Pokes, those fans will all just watch OU.  That’s not going to happen.  Same with us and Iowa.  I watch Iowa games all the time, because they’re our rival, and we play them every year.  Take ISU out of the equation completely, and I’m only watching an Iowa game if it’s some kind of social gathering.

You can pretty safely extrapolate that to any other fanbase.

And yes, what has always pissed us off is watching our neighbors get a free pass because their overlords were just nice about it.  

So much this. It amazes me there are “college football fans” on this thread who have absolutely no clue what makes college football distinct from the NFL, and are endorsing eliminating that distinction. 
 

if it’s true this is what the networks want, I predict it will backfire on them horrendously. They want to take away what makes college football such a unique market. 
 

 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3285]

9 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

I'd bet having your own stadium vs having to lease the Alamodome is a huge factor in that. 

I might be wrong but think I remember reading they have a fairly university friendly lease with the city on the dome. City is just happy to have a tenant that they can skim concessions revenue from but other than that and parking rev the university doesn't pay the city hardly anything for using the dome per game and they get to keep ticket and suite revenue.

[BurntOrange&White 39933]

6 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

I might be wrong but think I remember reading they have a fairly university friendly lease with the city on the dome. City is just happy to have a tenant that they can skim concessions revenue from but other than that and parking rev the university doesn't pay the city hardly anything for using the dome per game and they get to keep ticket and suite revenue.

 

Concession/parking revenue is a ton of money though as well as beer sales. I'd imagine if you're not bringing in large crowds you're not making much money with the lease plus not having those items mentioned above. It would probably be in UTSA's best interest moving forward to start planning out an on campus stadium so it makes them more marketable in the landscape of CFB. A 30-45k stadium.

 

 

For example here is some of our numbers from just concessions:

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by BurntOrange&White

[DanTheHorn 4925]

44 minutes ago, Uncle Nate said:

So much this. It amazes me there are “college football fans” on this thread who have absolutely no clue what makes college football distinct from the NFL, and are endorsing eliminating that distinction. 
 

if it’s true this is what the networks want, I predict it will backfire on them horrendously. They want to take away what makes college football such a unique market. 
 

 

I will address what makes college football a unique market. I guessing since you did not list your points.

1. Every game counts and Passion

Nobody likes watching crap games at home so that one can stay undefeated. It is when the big time teams visit that that tailgates start early and stadium has its' largest crowds. Poor argument even though I made it years ago but I see clearly now. The crowds are most passionate when the games matter.

2. Regional

The only reason one could travel at a cheap price is because most teams below the top tier have a fan interest that is not very high and when it is at the brand name stadiums hosting those fans really don't care because see above.

3. Rivalries

Now this one is the one all the fans being left behind are crying about. 11 schools see Texas as their biggest rival while Texas only views 3 teams as rivals and two we were not even playing. I am sure Oklahoma, USC, UCLA, Washington and Oregon have a similar disparity. It is this argument that fans being left behind present as the "strongest" argument. The teams moving did not see these other teams as a rivals and if they do they have offered to continue the rivalry. We are happy to renew our rivalries.

4. The players being only yours.

NIL changed this equation and conference realignment has nothing to do with it

5. Playoffs

As the playoff format changes the home games will take care of filtering out the teams that are undeserving at a shot at the NC and fans of the teams that will probably win will get an extra game. I predict those teams will be the teams that are moving to new conferences or were or have been big dogs in the POWER 2 and not the ones left behind.

6. Eliminate NFL distinction premise is false

The fact that you think that the NFL and college football distinction can be eliminated is what amazes me.  The college football distinction will NEVER be eliminated. One is tied to one's school because we earned the right and the school it is not moving. It is not controlled by a single dickhead and parity is not controlled by a central office. There will always be the haves and have nots and breaking into the fraternity will take a special set of circumstances (i.e. Miami). The haves are probably going to enjoy the changes just fine and they make up most the TV audience anyway. There are only so many slots and you want the most viewers you can get for each slot.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by DanTheHorn

[statsman 5471]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If you relegate schools like the bulk of the Big 12 schools, their fans will just lose interest in college football, and ratings will drop.

I think the TV networks think if they relegate the Pokes, those fans will all just watch OU.  That’s not going to happen.  Same with us and Iowa.  I watch Iowa games all the time, because they’re our rival, and we play them every year.  Take ISU out of the equation completely, and I’m only watching an Iowa game if it’s some kind of social gathering.

You can pretty safely extrapolate that to any other fanbase.

And yes, what has always pissed us off is watching our neighbors get a free pass because their overlords were just nice about it.  

There is so much truth in the last paragraph. The resentment against Texas from the IR8 is because they got used to being carried, getting tens of millions more than they actually merit each year, and are pissed that it’s not continuing. 

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

6 minutes ago, statsman said:

There is so much truth in the last paragraph. The resentment against Texas from the IR8 is because they got used to being carried, getting tens of millions more than they actually merit each year, and are pissed that it’s not continuing. 

We weren’t mad about losing money.  We just wanted to keep a spot in the game, and we have that currently.

I don’t resent Texas for wanting to play more blue bloods, I resent that Iowa’s never had to sweat their seat at the table because Ohio State and Michigan are completely fine letting them, Purdue, Indiana, NW, Illinois, et al be over paid and safe.

We’re getting our actual value now, and at least have access.  Every I8 fan should be completely fine with this arrangement.

[statsman 5471]

7 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I don’t resent Texas for wanting to play more blue bloods, I resent that Iowa’s never had to sweat their seat at the table because Ohio State and Michigan are completely fine letting them, Purdue, Indiana, NW, Illinois, et al be over paid and safe.

Do you think ISU leadership ever asked Iowa leadership why their conference ties are so strong? Think KSU ever considered what they could do to keep the blue bloods happy? Or did y’all just figure that an agreement signed in Kansas City 25 years ago by university leaders that have been replaced three times over was all you need?

I can’t help but laugh at all the comments from the TT, OSU and ISU fans repeating again and again that now they’re just where they want to be, in the third best conference, making good money, standing on their own!

 
Yep, B12, you’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and doggone it! People like you!

[BachelorTrek 2979]

30 minutes ago, statsman said:

Do you think ISU leadership ever asked Iowa leadership why their conference ties are so strong? Think KSU ever considered what they could do to keep the blue bloods happy? Or did y’all just figure that an agreement signed in Kansas City 25 years ago by university leaders that have been replaced three times over was all you need?

I can’t help but laugh at all the comments from the TT, OSU and ISU fans repeating again and again that now they’re just where they want to be, in the third best conference, making good money, standing on their own!

 
Yep, B12, you’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and doggone it! People like you!

 

Lulz.

[camel at sea 589]

If your HS team drops down a level, you stop paying attention to the scores of the teams who still play at your old level.  Fans of the schools at the level you used to play at will pay less attention to you in return.  It's just human nature.  If Iowa State dropped down to FCS tomorrow, casual CFB fans would pay less attention to them than if they were still in FBS.  ISU grads/fans would watch a lot less FBS football.  The idea that you could shrink the top level of college football from 130 schools down to 40 or so schools, without losing a large number of viewers in the process, is absurd.  You can obtain the goal of more/better regular season games without inflicting damage to yourself in the process.

If you've grouped the big brands together into a P2, you've got the elite games you want.  You've got the financial superiority you deserve.  What's the point of kicking the Big 12, the ACC, etc., entirely out of the top tier?  What do you actually gain from that if you're the P2 or the P2's TV partners?  Fewer CFB games to televise?  Fewer people invested in the outcome of the top tier of college football/sports?

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

55 minutes ago, statsman said:

Do you think ISU leadership ever asked Iowa leadership why their conference ties are so strong? Think KSU ever considered what they could do to keep the blue bloods happy? Or did y’all just figure that an agreement signed in Kansas City 25 years ago by university leaders that have been replaced three times over was all you need?

I can’t help but laugh at all the comments from the TT, OSU and ISU fans repeating again and again that now they’re just where they want to be, in the third best conference, making good money, standing on their own!

 
Yep, B12, you’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and doggone it! People like you!

We are though, and that’s what someone like you really doesn’t get.  We know we aren’t blue bloods and don’t expect a blue blood paycheck.  We weren’t pissed when Texas left because we as fans cared about some gravy train, we were pissed because we thought we would get shut out from playing for a championship, arbitrarily.  That’s what we as fans care about. 

You’re assigning your priorities as a Texas fan to us.  You guys care about playing blue bloods, and having the same or more resources than those other blue bloods.  We care about playing schools that we have history with, and having a seat at the table.

Right now, everyone has what they actually want.

And Texas and OU didn’t leave because the Irate 8 were bad conference members that held them back.  The difference between Big 10 cohesion and Big 12 dysfunction was that a million years ago, Ohio State and Michigan got on the same page and stayed there.  The Big 12 was a shotgun marriage with the big dogs from two other conferences battling each other for control and never developing institutional trust.  When some of those big dogs bailed, the league was never going to generate the revenue, exposure, and big matchups that UT and OU sought. 

[bullet 1597]

5 hours ago, statsman said:

The problem is conferences have to weigh adding teams to strengthen the conference vs. conference members’ desire to maximize their own team’s outlook. Yes, FSU and Clemson are competitive at very high levels. Yes, they would like to be in the SEC. Yes, ESPN might like them in the SEC (maybe not- that’s a sweet deal for ESPN the ACC has). But, what’s in it for MSU? Or Arkansas?

 
Maybe the right end result is two conferences having a lot more money than the others, but the others are allowed into the playoffs. They might even win a first round game, as TCU did. 
 
TCU won, because it had a modern offense, and a puncher’s chance, and they made it. Duggan carried the ball 15 times against Michigan. Very few QBs can do that two games in a row against top defenses, and be effective in the second game. No B12 OL and DL can be competitive two games in a row. That’s the advantage the B10 and SEC have - the line play. 
 
So we can have a future where five conferences send teams to the playoffs, but only B10 and SEC teams ever make it to the semifinals. 

That's the advantage Ohio St and Michigan and SEC teams have.  And only Ohio St., Michigan, USC and SEC teams make it to the semi-finals.

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Louisville is probably overlooked because they do not really have a path to joining the Big Ten or SEC.  The Big Ten is never going to invite them for academic reasons and the SEC is not going to invite them as a second school in the state of Kentucky.

Louisville has a sweetheart deal with their arena, so they punch above their weight in revenue.

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I think 80 is the right number, personally. 64 leaves too many good fanbases out and results in too many losses each season for the top teams. That would be a shock to the system when solid top 25 teams are 6-6.

That's historically been the number "truly" in the top division.  When the CFA existed, it had 63-66 schools while the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance had 20.  Some independents and Big West and MAC were left out.   When they set up tiered voting rights in the 90s, the Big West and MAC with their 20 schools got 1 vote each while the 85 in the other conferences got 3 votes for their conferences.  CUSA and WAC had the 3 votes (until the WAC split into MWC and WAC).

 

[statsman 5471]

14 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

And Texas and OU didn’t leave because the Irate 8 were bad conference members that held them back.  The difference between Big 10 cohesion and Big 12 dysfunction was that a million years ago, Ohio State and Michigan got on the same page and stayed there.  The Big 12 was a shotgun marriage with the big dogs from two other conferences battling each other for control and never developing institutional trust.  When some of those big dogs bailed, the league was never going to generate the revenue, exposure, and big matchups that UT and OU sought. 

You have expressed time and time again how you wish the B12 would hold together for the smaller programs like the B10 and SEC do. You express a kinship with Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Indiana and MSU, wishing ISU could have the same security of a stable conference, a place at the grownups’ table with no fear of being cast out like the SEC left behinds or the PAC-4. 
 
I don’t think Florida, in 2008, had to worry about Alabama organizing a voting campaign to keep them out of the BCS game. I don’t think Michigan has to worry about Purdue covering up a gang rape scandal (don’t throw PSU at me- that all came out in the news, unlike with our Baptist friends). When conference networks were suggested in the B10 and SEC, they were evaluated and adopted, not rejected like in the B12 when Texas brought it up. (Then, we heard a dozen years of carping about how selfish Texas is for hogging its tier 3 rights and not sharing them with the conference, that was evidently unable on its own to have any value in its tier 3). 
 
Yeah, it’s Texas’ fault. 
 
Ever notice that Texas never plays FCS teams? Ever think that Texas might appreciate it if no one in the B12 did, either, as a way of improving the media contract value? But, that would give up an auto win and endanger making a bowl game. 
 
But the SEC plays FCS teams! The SEC also plays league games in week 1. Ever think about trying that, again, to contribute to the media contract value? 
 
Did you notice how Northwestern responded to a gambling scandal? Oops! I mean a hazing scandal. 
 
I’m just throwing this out there- maybe ISU, TT, OSU, KSU and BU aren’t the great conference mates you think you are. 

[billfromlaketravis 11485]

Haha.

[DanTheHorn 4925]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

We weren’t mad about losing money.  We just wanted to keep a spot in the game, and we have that currently.

I don’t resent Texas for wanting to play more blue bloods, I resent that Iowa’s never had to sweat their seat at the table because Ohio State and Michigan are completely fine letting them, Purdue, Indiana, NW, Illinois, et al be over paid and safe.

We’re getting our actual value now, and at least have access.  Every I8 fan should be completely fine with this arrangement.

 

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If you relegate schools like the bulk of the Big 12 schools, their fans will just lose interest in college football, and ratings will drop.

I think the TV networks think if they relegate the Pokes, those fans will all just watch OU.  That’s not going to happen.  Same with us and Iowa.  I watch Iowa games all the time, because they’re our rival, and we play them every year.  Take ISU out of the equation completely, and I’m only watching an Iowa game if it’s some kind of social gathering.

You can pretty safely extrapolate that to any other fanbase.

And yes, what has always pissed us off is watching our neighbors get a free pass because their overlords were just nice about it.  

Those two post just have a disconnect I don't understand.

[bullet 1597]

5 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

That's an interesting way of looking at it.   Sometimes school funds are there to support a lot of non-revenue sports, just two ways of tackling Title IX.   You can either offer the exact same amount of opportunities, which means cutting mens sports not named football and adding more womens, or you can offer all of the sports possible and don't need to balance the scales.

Though, sometimes its because sports gets you on tv and you need to be on tv, so spend the cash.

Both JMU and Old Dominion are exploding in growth because UVA and VTech just can't grow as fast as the state is.   UVA is still 22k students, while if they were like other land grant schools, they'd be 50-60k easy.   What I didn't expect to see though is JMU with nearly twice the revenue as Washington State.   Yeeeooch. 

JMU and ODU have massive student fees.  JMU is $45 million.  ODU is $31 million.  WSU has 1.28 million in student fees along with $14 million in institutional support.

[bullet 1597]

4 hours ago, bolverk said:

And then there's Houston... It looks like the *only* reason you'd ever want them is just for the market. Props to UTSA and Texas State for almost reaching Houston revenue levels though.

Another surprise was how far down Okie Lite is, especially compared to Tech and Iowa State.

Again, you have to look at student fees as well.  U of H is 8.5 million.  UTSA is about $14 million and Texas St. is $19 million.

[HookEm 2467]

4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I think the SEC would take NC State over Miami. It’s an invested fanbase in a new, growing market. Miami becomes kind of pointless with FSU in the fold

That's fine.  The Big 12 would fall all over themselves to take Miami if the SEC and Big 10 passed on them.  Miami would be the highest profile team in the conference and could be a nice partner for Virginia Tech and UCF.  

Miami is also a sneaky good basketball program (1 FF, 2 E8, 4 S16 since 2013) which matters to the Big 12. And they are a smaller private school that would fit in with some of the other private schools in the Big 12. 

It baffles me that anyone would take NC State over Miami honestly.  Miami is better at just about everything that matters including academics.   A lot more people would tune in to see Texas Tech vs. Miami than TT vs. NC State.  And the icing on the cake is that you can recruit South Florida, probably the most dense area for NFL caliber talent in the whole country.

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

2 minutes ago, HookEm said:

That's fine.  The Big 12 would fall all over themselves to take Miami if the SEC and Big 10 passed on them.  Miami would be the highest profile team in the conference and could be a nice partner for Virginia Tech and UCF.  

Miami is also a sneaky good basketball program (1 FF, 2 E8, 4 S16 since 2013) which matters to the Big 12. And they are a smaller private school that would fit in with some of the other private schools in the Big 12. 

It baffles me that anyone would take NC State over Miami honestly.  Miami is better at just about everything that matters including academics.   A lot more people would tune in to see Texas Tech vs. Miami than TT vs. NC State.  And the icing on the cake is that you can recruit South Florida, probably the most dense area for NFL caliber talent in the whole country.

Miami fans punch out the second they slip.  NCSU fans are consistently tuned in.  The SEC would own Florida with FSU, and currently has no presence in North Carolina.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

11 minutes ago, bullet said:

JMU and ODU have massive student fees.  JMU is $45 million.  ODU is $31 million.  WSU has 1.28 million in student fees along with $14 million in institutional support.

Yeah, student fees are kind of an accounting trick.   Some schools make kids pay for tickets; some sell them in advance.  Some provide some games for some sports, some provide all.   In Virginia, the state schools all have student tickets as a fee and then there are variations on how much it covers.   JMU's is high, but students get free admission to all sporting events.  It's not quite educational support, in that the school is paying to make the department in the red, but it's clearly a captive audience sale that not all account for in the same way.   UVA and VTech have student fees in the tens of millions too.

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

2 minutes ago, HookEm said:

That's fine.  The Big 12 would fall all over themselves to take Miami if the SEC and Big 10 passed on them.  Miami would be the highest profile team in the conference and could be a nice partner for Virginia Tech and UCF.  

Miami is also a sneaky good basketball program (1 FF, 2 E8, 4 S16 since 2013) which matters to the Big 12. And they are a smaller private school that would fit in with some of the other private schools in the Big 12. 

It baffles me that anyone would take NC State over Miami honestly.  Miami is better at just about everything that matters including academics.   A lot more people would tune in to see Texas Tech vs. Miami than TT vs. NC State.  And the icing on the cake is that you can recruit South Florida, probably the most dense area for NFL caliber talent in the whole country.

It's a small point, but which school is better in academics is arguable.  Miami does better in metrics that favor smaller private schools, like US News, but NC State ranks higher in R&D and is slightly higher in QS World University Rankings.

I doubt it matters because I do not think the SEC is taking either of them, but if you are the SEC, at some point you do not need more schools in the same state.  I doubt they would want three Florida schools.

[Huckleberry 32861]

24 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

 

Those two post just have a disconnect I don't understand.

I don't understand why you think there's a disconnect there. He said schools like his just want a seat at the table and now they have one so they should be good with that. 

Next post quoted says if they didn't have a seat at the table they'd stop watching college football as much if not at all. What's the disconnect? 

Seat at the table = content fans who watch college football

No more seat at the table = upset fans who don't watch college football

And in both posts he says that their anger is envy of other lower revenue schools who don't have to worry, not anger at the blue bloods.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

7 minutes ago, HookEm said:

It baffles me that anyone would take NC State over Miami honestly.  Miami is better at just about everything that matters including academics.   A lot more people would tune in to see Texas Tech vs. Miami than TT vs. NC State.  And the icing on the cake is that you can recruit South Florida, probably the most dense area for NFL caliber talent in the whole country.

Yeah, you wouldn't.   You'd take Miami first.   For those who get stuck in the car and listen to sports radio, they had a conversation on today and one of the national writers, i think from Yahoo, but I came in late, listed what would happen if the ACC fractured.

The basic order was ND was first by an extremely wide margin.   They're number one on everyone's list if they ever join a conference.   After that though the top two were UNC/UVA.    The reasoning given, and they quoted conference and media contact conversations, was location in two rapidly growing states on the east coast and the combined weight of the university brand being far and away greater than the athletic department's brand.   

After that it was FSU and then a knife fight between if it would be Clemson or Miami.   Next tiering was VTech, though they're picking a rough time to be bad at everything, then everyone else in the order we'd probably pick them in.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't understand why you think there's a disconnect there. He said schools like his just want a seat at the table and now they have one so they should be good with that. 

Next post quoted says if they didn't have a seat at the table they'd stop watching college football as much if not at all. What's the disconnect? 

Seat at the table = content fans who watch college football

No more seat at the table = upset fans who don't watch college football

And in both posts he says that their anger is envy of other lower revenue schools who don't have to worry, not anger at the blue bloods.

Words, right?

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

22 minutes ago, DanTheHorn said:

 

Those two post just have a disconnect I don't understand.

You’re going to have to explain.

When I say “relegated” I don’t mean “taking a pay cut”.  I mean not being granted playoff access.

If you make it so the bulk of the current Big 12 programs have no way to make the playoffs, those fans aren’t going to care about watching the schools that do.

As a fan of an Irate 8 school, I’m pretty pumped about the current arrangement, and I no longer hold ill will against UT or OU for leaving.  I did at one time, but as reasonable people are known to do, I changed my mind as the situation changed.  But you know, you’re not allowed to charge your opinion nowadays.  I am still concerned about some lingering desire to actually relegate a large chunk of the sport going forward, but for now life is good.

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

4 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah, student fees are kind of an accounting trick.   Some schools make kids pay for tickets; some sell them in advance.  Some provide some games for some sports, some provide all.   In Virginia, the state schools all have student tickets as a fee and then there are variations on how much it covers.   JMU's is high, but students get free admission to all sporting events.  It's not quite educational support, in that the school is paying to make the department in the red, but it's clearly a captive audience sale that not all account for in the same way.   UVA and VTech have student fees in the tens of millions too.

There is quite a bit of variance in the amount of the fees - UNC's is $279; UVA's is $742; and JMU's is $2,362.  I think students voluntarily paying for tickets or passes is different than just taking it out of everyone's tuition.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

2 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

There is quite a bit of variance in the amount of the fees - UNC's is $279; UVA's is $742; and JMU's is $2,362.  I think students voluntarily paying for tickets or passes is different than just taking it out of everyone's tuition.

Its drastically different.   It's not a volunteer fee, but it's also not institutional support.

[bullet 1597]

38 minutes ago, statsman said:

You have expressed time and time again how you wish the B12 would hold together for the smaller programs like the B10 and SEC do. You express a kinship with Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Indiana and MSU, wishing ISU could have the same security of a stable conference, a place at the grownups’ table with no fear of being cast out like the SEC left behinds or the PAC-4. 
 
I don’t think Florida, in 2008, had to worry about Alabama organizing a voting campaign to keep them out of the BCS game. I don’t think Michigan has to worry about Purdue covering up a gang rape scandal (don’t throw PSU at me- that all came out in the news, unlike with our Baptist friends). When conference networks were suggested in the B10 and SEC, they were evaluated and adopted, not rejected like in the B12 when Texas brought it up. (Then, we heard a dozen years of carping about how selfish Texas is for hogging its tier 3 rights and not sharing them with the conference, that was evidently unable on its own to have any value in its tier 3). 
 
Yeah, it’s Texas’ fault. 
 
Ever notice that Texas never plays FCS teams? Ever think that Texas might appreciate it if no one in the B12 did, either, as a way of improving the media contract value? But, that would give up an auto win and endanger making a bowl game. 
 
But the SEC plays FCS teams! The SEC also plays league games in week 1. Ever think about trying that, again, to contribute to the media contract value? 
 
Did you notice how Northwestern responded to a gambling scandal? Oops! I mean a hazing scandal. 
 
I’m just throwing this out there- maybe ISU, TT, OSU, KSU and BU aren’t the great conference mates you think you are. 

Uh, everyone at Penn St. knew Sandusky was a problem in 2001.  Some knew in 1998.  It wasn't until 2011 that it came out.

Baylor only took about 4 years to come out.  Not to excuse Baylor, but Penn St. and Michigan St. (2011 notification by government, fired Nassar in 2016) were every bit as bad in their coverups if not worse.

[Al_4_ISU 12463]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I don't understand why you think there's a disconnect there. He said schools like his just want a seat at the table and now they have one so they should be good with that. 

Next post quoted says if they didn't have a seat at the table they'd stop watching college football as much if not at all. What's the disconnect? 

Seat at the table = content fans who watch college football

No more seat at the table = upset fans who don't watch college football

And in both posts he says that their anger is envy of other lower revenue schools who don't have to worry, not anger at the blue bloods.

Exactly.

It wouldn’t even bother me if the Top 16 revenue generators got together and made their own super league and left 17-70 with our own division.

I realize that Texas and Iowa State are very different things.  I resent that Iowa and Minnesota never have to go through the same existential dread that we’ve been facing for over a decade.

Just now, bullet said:

Uh, everyone at Penn St. knew Sandusky was a problem in 2001.  Some knew in 1998.  It wasn't until 2011 that it came out.

Baylor only took about 4 years to come out.  Not to excuse Baylor, but Penn St. and Michigan St. (2011 notification by government, fired Nassar in 2016) were every bit as bad in their coverups if not worse.

Forget it, he’s rolling.

[bullet 1597]

15 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

It's a small point, but which school is better in academics is arguable.  Miami does better in metrics that favor smaller private schools, like US News, but NC State ranks higher in R&D and is slightly higher in QS World University Rankings.

I doubt it matters because I do not think the SEC is taking either of them, but if you are the SEC, at some point you do not need more schools in the same state.  I doubt they would want three Florida schools.

Miami just got admitted to the AAU, so that trumps NCSU.

[bullet 1597]

https://247sports.com/college/arizona/article/pac-12-propoganda-and-inside-story-failed-media-deal-214257173/

Scheer's retrospective.

"...Meanwhile, Arizona president Robert C. Robbins had already made up his mind. Colorado going to the Big 12 was one of the worst kept secrets in college athletics. If George Kliavkoff did not know that the Buffs were leaving the conference, he deserved to be fired on the spot. Most schools were operating under the belief that Colorado was gone and it was just a matter of time.

Arizona may not have been at that level, but the administration was planning the departure for longer than any of the remaining schools. The idea that Robbins deserved an Oscar or was openly telling people he was staying is something that nobody would confirm to us, likely because it was not true.

Our source was consistent with its messaging for months: “Everything is on track.” Those four words indicated that a Big 12 move was the plan unless the Pac-12 came back with some remarkable numbers.

We do acknowledge that Crow tried to ruin the entire thing, though Robbins was planning to go without ASU and ask for forgiveness later if he had to.

At the Arizona Board of Regents meeting on August 4, sources that were in the room said that Crow was “embarrassing” in his behavior. At that point there were multiple people in the ASU Athletic Department that recognized the need to move to the Big 12, but convincing Crow was a completely different animal. Arizona left the meeting with the belief that it would still wind up in the Big 12, but Crow had not done the Wildcats any favors.

The following day was the craziest day of the realignment process. We reported earlier that week that Oregon and Washington already had their invitations to the Big 10 and were ready to accept them. There was going to be one more meeting on that Friday morning and schools would show up out of professional courtesy and all the moves would be made...."

[statsman 5471]

8 minutes ago, bullet said:

Uh, everyone at Penn St. knew Sandusky was a problem in 2001.  Some knew in 1998.  It wasn't until 2011 that it came out.

Baylor only took about 4 years to come out.  Not to excuse Baylor, but Penn St. and Michigan St. (2011 notification by government, fired Nassar in 2016) were every bit as bad in their coverups if not worse.

Oh, really? Where is the official report and accounting on Baylor? I can’t find it when I google, just references to “oral reports to the regents” and settlements with accusers, with NDAs attached. 

[HookEm 2467]

I think it will be interesting to see which schools make a leap in the the coming years.  It wouldn't surprise me to see UCF become relevant.  Their program has only been around ~40 years and the university has grown rapidly in recent years.  Back in 2000, they only had around ~30,000 students.  Today they have 71,000 and are the largest school in the country.  That is a lot of eyeballs.  When they start collecting Big 12 money and play more national games, it will be fun to see if they take advantage of the opportunity. 

[CustersDoctor 584]

[DanTheHorn 4925]

46 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

You’re going to have to explain.

When I say “relegated” I don’t mean “taking a pay cut”.  I mean not being granted playoff access.

If you make it so the bulk of the current Big 12 programs have no way to make the playoffs, those fans aren’t going to care about watching the schools that do.

As a fan of an Irate 8 school, I’m pretty pumped about the current arrangement, and I no longer hold ill will against UT or OU for leaving.  I did at one time, but as reasonable people are known to do, I changed my mind as the situation changed.  But you know, you’re not allowed to charge your opinion nowadays.  I am still concerned about some lingering desire to actually relegate a large chunk of the sport going forward, but for now life is good.

"If you relegate schools like the bulk of the Big 12 schools, their fans will just lose interest in college football"  vs "Every I8 fan should be completely fine with this arrangement"

Right now the BIG 12 has one auto birth. The remaining 6 at large could easily go to the BIG 10 and SEC just like when Ohio State jumped TCU. It is a fact that the brand name schools will probably jump non-brand name schools. To me that is relegating the bulk of BIG 12 schools. So I did not understand how you guys were fine with the arrangement. Had the BIG 12 remained schools other than the champions that finished ahead of Texas and Oklahoma could have claim multiple wins against brand name programs to reach the playoffs.

It may be possible that the BIG 12 will get two teams in but as elite recruits start to all flow to the Power 2 then I see it as improbable.

[TKthunder2 4991]

44 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I resent that Iowa and Minnesota never have to go through the same existential dread that we’ve been facing for over a decade.

If you had said Indiana or Illinois then I would agree, but…

Iowa - flagship school of the state with 3 million people, with 5 national titles, top 40 in all time wins and a top 25 stadium by capacity

Minnesota -flagship and ONLY FBS school of a state with 6 million people, 7 national titles, top 25 in all time wins, top 50 stadium by capacity 

vs

Iowa State - 2nd school in a state of 3 million people, zero national titles, top 90 in all time wins, top 30 stadium by capacity

 

You guys have a nice stadium but otherwise I don’t get the resentment on programs that are clearly superior.

['stache 21816]

Just now, DanTheHorn said:

"If you relegate schools like the bulk of the Big 12 schools, their fans will just lose interest in college football"  vs "Every I8 fan should be completely fine with this arrangement"

Right now the BIG 12 has one auto birth. The remaining 6 at large could easily go to the BIG 10 and SEC just like when Ohio State jumped TCU. It is a fact that the brand name schools will probably jump non-brand name schools. To me that is relegating the bulk of BIG 12 schools. So I did not understand how you guys were fine with the arrangement. Had the BIG 12 remained schools other than the champions that finished ahead of Texas and Oklahoma could have claim multiple wins against brand name programs to reach the playoffs.

It may be possible that the BIG 12 will get two teams in but as elite recruits start to all flow to the Power 2 then I see it as improbable.

He explained that "relegated" to him means completely shut out, like the BIG/SEC forming a new division. The BIG 12 will have every opportunity to get more than one playoff bid in any given year. In fact, I think it'll happen every few years. More than 2, probably not. It's understood that BIG/SEC will take the majority of the spots. It is what it is, but the Big XII champ at least will get their opportunity, like TCU this year in a four team playoff, beating a damn good Michigan team, then, well, you know. It doesn't take away the Michigan win. What really sucks for TCU is they didn't get a conference title trophy out of it, which blows.