Realignment talk not going away

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

1 hour ago, CustersDoctor said:

Any of you buying recent rumors that Nebraska could be pushed out of the B1G because their AAU status has changed since they joined the B1G?

No

[bullet 1630]

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-new-college-athlete-compensation-model-may-cost-power-schools-300m-each-over-10-years-003140102.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIIae29YRf0gPY0Ebf9-47Y2PoDbqv0QbxYaauX0XXMyzEe6oqxvGc5WRI8o9Mw2nxL0Ysk6blngAA4V7mXo76p0mBPQ4cXHaxwbVIEu-vcjbrosfoAcusKRpzWYJpKjFxz_QfZFN-qaaMXZkK3yex7C8KP8xkMbvf5Y4cNmb2Wm

 

Will all the P4 stay?  How much of the G5 will be able to afford to stay?  They won't be required to revenue share as they aren't part of this lawsuit, but that doesn't exempt them from other lawsuits and the cost to continue to compete.  And even more, this will increase the number of schools sending their resumes to the Big 10 and SEC.

"...As industry executives continue to negotiate with plaintiff lawyers in the House antitrust case, details of a future compensation model — a necessary piece to any settlement agreement — continue to emerge. Those who shared details were granted anonymity as they were not authorized to speak about a proposed settlement that continues to undergo changes.

While negotiations are active and have been for as many as eight months — not a new revelation within the industry — concepts of the proposed new model are becoming more formalized as leaders work to meet a deadline set by attorneys.

Money figures are becoming clear: For those in the power conferences, the price tag is steep.

The 10-year settlement agreement could cost each power school as much as $300 million over the decade, or $30 million a year. That figure assumes a school meets what is believed to be: (1) a $17-22 million revenue distribution cap for athletes; (2) at least $2 million in withheld NCAA distribution for back damages; and (3) as much as $10 million in additional scholarship costs related to an expansion of sport-specific roster sizes — a concept previously unpublicized...."

 

[thunderlounge 8416]

$30M/yr?

That’s all? Ok then. 

[msucolt45 4233]

There are a vast amount of Remora fish (suckers) that ride on the “sharks” in each conference. Until that ship is righted, which I truly think is what TV/media wants, we’ll continue to have the schools claiming that they have conference legacy. Their claim to still be invited to the adult table is about to end.

IMO - we’re looking at a special league of about 48 teams, for football only, and they will get all the TV money. Maybe prior to 2035?

Hook’em!!!

[TKthunder2 5059]

2 hours ago, msucolt45 said:

There are a vast amount of Remora fish (suckers) that ride on the “sharks” in each conference. Until that ship is righted, which I truly think is what TV/media wants, we’ll continue to have the schools claiming that they have conference legacy. Their claim to still be invited to the adult table is about to end.

IMO - we’re looking at a special league of about 48 teams, for football only, and they will get all the TV money. Maybe prior to 2035?

Hook’em!!!

The big leagues need suckers too unless you want to get beat the hell up all year just to lose in the playoffs. But still, could you cut a few schools a replace with better ones?…absolutely.

Mississippi State is the 3rd smallest state in the P4 (behind Neb & WV) and is the #2 school in the state with the worst academics in the conference that isn’t on anybody’s travel wish list. The only thing they bring is a mid level rivalry with Ole Miss, a solid baseball program and a moderate sized football stadium that still only beats out a basketball school and a private school (I could make a similar post about Purdue in the Big Ten).

So let’s cut MSU (won’t happen but let say we can) you don’t want to replace them with FSU/Clemson. Already 50% of the conference has won a national title in the BCS/CFP era. The Big Ten and ACC are only at 17%, the Big 12 is at 0%. Those two only make sense if you expand to 20. FSU/Clemson solidify your base and shut out competition, while you also expand with a pair of lesser schools as well.

For a single addition you want a school that will bring new fans/eyeballs to the conference, potentially new markets for advertisers and recruiting, and other benefits like quality basketball, baseball, academics, or travel destinations for fans that also is contiguous to the current conference footprint.

That really only leaves 2 options. #1 North Carolina (or if they go North with the B1G, NCSU), and #2 Kansas.

Both have great basketball and as a result good sized fans bases despite lackluster football. Rivalry history with existing members, are good (not great) travel destinations in newish markets that grow the conference footprint, and both have unique color schemes and mascots (please no more red/near red colors or tigers in the SEC) and would slot somewhere into the lower half of the SEC hierarchy. While nobody would celebrate their addition to the football schedule but they would not morn the loss of MSU either and basketball would get a major boost.

[msucolt45 4233]

I’d replace Notre Dame with the other two Indiana schools in a heartbeat, because we’re talking only football. Other B10 schools that were recently added, like Rutgers and Maryland would be gone.

SEC for football only would drop about 3-5 of the non revenue generating schools. Yes - it’ll be the haves vs the have nots, and more like the NFL, as that’s what TV/media wants - big $$$.

Hook’em!!!

[TKthunder2 5059]

47 minutes ago, msucolt45 said:

I’d replace Notre Dame with the other two Indiana schools in a heartbeat, because we’re talking only football. Other B10 schools that were recently added, like Rutgers and Maryland would be gone.

SEC for football only would drop about 3-5 of the non revenue generating schools. Yes - it’ll be the haves vs the have nots, and more like the NFL, as that’s what TV/media wants - big $$$.

Hook’em!!!

Are we talking only football? How would that work exactly? We’ve never done a football only league.

Let’s say the SEC drops Kentucky, Vandy, South Carolina, and MSU from football but still want to play with them in basketball/baseball? Football drives the money here, so you’re going to cut $20 million from their budgets but have them compete against you in all sports?

Say you’re the Big 12 or ACC and you take these schools for football, are you then going to allow Kentucky basketball to play SEC basketball and not Big 12/ACC basketball? So the Big12/ACC will be funding the majority of Kentucky’s athletic department but not get the benefit of their most valuable program?

It sounds great in theory, but practically speaking it’s a logistical land mine. Does the Big 12 let Utah and Arizona not play basketball and non revenue sports with them and rejoin UCLA/USC in a non fb PAC12 league? Not an easy web to unweave.

[thunderlounge 8416]

Sorry, but whatever breakaway happens, there will still be cupcakes to pad wins at the top. They may take less in their share, but they’ll still be there.

 

[Horn of Gabriel 1886]

Here's the problem with dropping the small schools @Al_4_ISU hates because they got a unwarranted seat at the P2 table...conferences don't drop teams.  What happens is the either schools choose to leave on their own, usually because they're de-prioritizing sports (U. of Chicago, Ivies), or the creme of the crop leaves to form up or join a new conference with others more like them (OU/Texas -> SEC, Big12 formation).  There's a lot of legal mess with kicking a school out against their wishes, and no one wants to spend money and time on it when it's relatively easier just to take the top x% and leave to form a new shiny conference.

But herein lies the issue: the B1G and the SEC members are kinda stuck now with the private equity guys circling.  If the top teams leave the SEC/B1G to form something new and drop the Vandys of the world, it provides an opening for the PE groups to fill that vacuum.  There's an old saying in the startup world "do you want to be King, or do you want to be Rich?"  Startup founders often have to choose between the two and rarely do they get both (exceptions are Jobs and Zuck).  Right now the SEC and B1G are both King and Rich.  They could be (marginally) richer, but they are opening a yawning gap on the G7 conferences (American, CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt, MWC, ACC, Big12) already.  Do they trade control for even more money?  Why would they do it when they have both?  I see an impasse unless they can guarantee the control they want, no high level team like Texas, Georgia, OU, and Bama want to get put into a gilded cage by PE overlords - too proud.

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

Or, hear me out, just keep letting the Big 12 and ACC participate but with less money.

Its not that complicated.

[TKthunder2 5059]

36 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Or, hear me out, just keep letting the Big 12 and ACC participate but with less money.

Its not that complicated.

I’m pretty sure it will almost work out that way except Highlander rules:

FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA/Miami/ND will leave and the Big 12 will take the best of the rest.

Boston College and Wake Forest need not apply.

[John80 160]

7 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Are we talking only football? How would that work exactly? We’ve never done a football only league.

Let’s say the SEC drops Kentucky, Vandy, South Carolina, and MSU from football but still want to play with them in basketball/baseball? Football drives the money here, so you’re going to cut $20 million from their budgets but have them compete against you in all sports?

Say you’re the Big 12 or ACC and you take these schools for football, are you then going to allow Kentucky basketball to play SEC basketball and not Big 12/ACC basketball? So the Big12/ACC will be funding the majority of Kentucky’s athletic department but not get the benefit of their most valuable program?

It sounds great in theory, but practically speaking it’s a logistical land mine. Does the Big 12 let Utah and Arizona not play basketball and non revenue sports with them and rejoin UCLA/USC in a non fb PAC12 league? Not an easy web to unweave.

Most UK fans would prefer an ACC basketball schedule over an SEC basketball schedule and if UK got booted for whatever reason there's no way UK would play any SEC schools in basketball again. All of UK's basketball rivals except Kansas are in the ACC.

[TKthunder2 5059]

Just now, John80 said:

Most UK fans would prefer an ACC basketball schedule over an SEC basketball schedule and if UK got booted for whatever reason there's no way UK would play any SEC schools in basketball again. All of UK's basketball rivals except Kansas are in the ACC.

Exactly, that was my point.

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

I’m pretty sure it will almost work out that way except Highlander rules:

FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA/Miami/ND will leave and the Big 12 will take the best of the rest.

Boston College and Wake Forest need not apply.

I think it’s something like that and add unequal revenue sharing in the Big 10/SEC.  Purdue and Vanderbilt can stay in the fold but they aren’t getting tOSU/Texas $$

[notre dame joe 205]

23 hours ago, thunderlounge said:

Sorry, but whatever breakaway happens, there will still be cupcakes to pad wins at the top. They may take less in their share, but they’ll still be there.

 

That inequity can be seen all the way from the SWC.  The small schools still get to pad wins for UT et al but no longer got a seat at the table. 

[TKthunder2 5059]

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40095204/college-football-realignment-happens-left-behind

[PilotsError 2337]

this sport is so fucked.  

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

14 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

this sport is so fucked.  

It's the only team sport, really at any level on the planet, where games have objective results, but the post season, power within the sport, etc are largely determined more subjectively.  That's part of what it makes so unique and compelling, but also just absolutely fucking maddening.

[DanTheHorn 5088]

On 5/4/2024 at 11:50 AM, TKthunder2 said:

The big leagues need suckers too unless you want to get beat the hell up all year just to lose in the playoffs. But still, could you cut a few schools a replace with better ones?…absolutely.

Mississippi State is the 3rd smallest state in the P4 (behind Neb & WV) and is the #2 school in the state with the worst academics in the conference that isn’t on anybody’s travel wish list. The only thing they bring is a mid level rivalry with Ole Miss, a solid baseball program and a moderate sized football stadium that still only beats out a basketball school and a private school (I could make a similar post about Purdue in the Big Ten).

So let’s cut MSU (won’t happen but let say we can) you don’t want to replace them with FSU/Clemson. Already 50% of the conference has won a national title in the BCS/CFP era. The Big Ten and ACC are only at 17%, the Big 12 is at 0%. Those two only make sense if you expand to 20. FSU/Clemson solidify your base and shut out competition, while you also expand with a pair of lesser schools as well.

For a single addition you want a school that will bring new fans/eyeballs to the conference, potentially new markets for advertisers and recruiting, and other benefits like quality basketball, baseball, academics, or travel destinations for fans that also is contiguous to the current conference footprint.

That really only leaves 2 options. #1 North Carolina (or if they go North with the B1G, NCSU), and #2 Kansas.

Both have great basketball and as a result good sized fans bases despite lackluster football. Rivalry history with existing members, are good (not great) travel destinations in newish markets that grow the conference footprint, and both have unique color schemes and mascots (please no more red/near red colors or tigers in the SEC) and would slot somewhere into the lower half of the SEC hierarchy. While nobody would celebrate their addition to the football schedule but they would not morn the loss of MSU either and basketball would get a major boost.

With revenue sharing on the way we may see a new conference landscape. The football only conferences. The basketball plus maybe baseball only conferences. Then the the Olympic sports conferences. That way there is a clear divide on the revenue and how it is shared between schools and players. In addition it solves the travel issues. Who knows how it will go but that is where I would take it if I were BIG 10, SEC and Notre Dame. As BIG 10 and SEC I would trim down to the largest football programs and play BIG 12 and ACC schools to lighten the schedule. As Notre Dame I would take the 11 top football schools from the BIG 12 and ACC and create a new conference so I can somewhat keep some level of independence by being the one school that carries the most value. To me two 18 team or three 12 team football only power conferences is just the right greedy number. Additional conferences would exist but they would be the have nots.

[msucolt45 4233]

I’m thinking that with a new, totally separated football league, that will in the small window/future, consist of 48-64 teams. It’ll be broken into divisions just like the NFL. Those teams making the new playoffs might be teams that experience 3-5+ losses within that structure.

Yes, TV/Media will be all over it, but I don’t see “weaker” schools (non-revenue generating schools) on the schedule to just pad the Win column. Maybe by 2035 - IMO.

Hook’em!!!

[BurntOrange&White 41897]

SIAP but this is cool.

 

[statsman 5693]

27 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

SIAP but this is cool.

 

2016-2023 numbers, so it shows Texas just behind OU, which was winning multiple league championships and CFP entries, while Texas was…not. (Plus, Texas had LHN games averaged in). 
 
It really clarifies the Big XII. (For them, you really only had to remove the top two opponents)

And Notre Dame,…wow

Edited May 8 by statsman

[thunderlounge 8416]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

SIAP but this is cool.

 

Kansas: At least we’re not Arizona!

[Deej 77843]

2 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

SIAP but this is cool.

 

aggy 8th in the SEC. 

Greatest. Fans. Ever.

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

Some of those numbers are really interesting (TCU being double what Baylor draws; Aggy being behind Oregon and Auburn; Notre Dame that far out ahead of everyone).  It does show that once FSU and Clemson leave the ACC that the Big 12 is a stronger product (higher floor for sure) and kinda drives home my belief that the ACC and Big 12 will merge into one thing that maintains the whole "seat at the table, but you make less" dynamic.

Virginia gets bandied about as some kind of lock to the Big 10 due to their academics, but they're ahead of only Rutgers as a TV draw.  Shit, UNC's barely ahead of us.

Other things that surprised me:  The bottom of the SEC.  Mizzou and Kentucky behind the Big 12 (and even Wazzu/Ore. St.) by a decent margin was surprising.

 

Edited May 8 by Al_4_ISU

[John80 160]

I'm a UK fan and I knew we wouldn't be in top half of the conference but I'm a bit skeptical of some of the schools that are ahead of us here. We have had relatively good attendance for a bad program and the last several years have been better than average so I'm surprised someone like Indiana has double the viewership and I know there aren't any Indiana football fans. 

[TxEx84 439]

Made this comment before, but I don't think those TV numbers include non-rated channels like Longhorn Network and SEC Network. The numbers in the chart are cumulative, so misleading. If UK appeared multiple times on SECN, those TV numbers may not be there.  Also, two of Texas' games are missing, so UT's numbers would be higher.

Edited May 9 by TxEx84

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

2 minutes ago, TxEx84 said:

Made this comment before, but I don't think those TV numbers include non-metered channels like Longhorn Network and SEC Network. The numbers in the chart are cumulative, so misleading. If UK appeared multiple times on SECN, those TV numbers may not be there.  Also, two of Texas' games are missing, so UT's numbers would be higher.

So then does it include ESPN+, Peacock, etc?

[TxEx84 439]

I've searched the Sports Media Watch website and cannot find any info on which channels are included or what is their methodology. To me makes it suspect.  

[TxEx84 439]

Found it.  Not included.

 

2023 college football TV ratings

The following networks or services are not Nielsen-rated and thus are not included: SEC Network, ACC Network, CBS Sports Network, ESPN+, Pac-12 Network, Peacock.

[TKthunder2 5059]

5 hours ago, TxEx84 said:

Found it.  Not included.

 

2023 college football TV ratings

The following networks or services are not Nielsen-rated and thus are not included: SEC Network, ACC Network, CBS Sports Network, ESPN+, Pac-12 Network, Peacock.

Vandy is on the SECN a lot. Last season they played in the SECN 8 times, on SEC+(streaming only) once, ACCN once, CBSSN once.

Their only rated games last season was against UGA on CBS (which I think was contractually required to pick every team at least once).

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

14 hours ago, TxEx84 said:

Found it.  Not included.

 

2023 college football TV ratings

The following networks or services are not Nielsen-rated and thus are not included: SEC Network, ACC Network, CBS Sports Network, ESPN+, Pac-12 Network, Peacock.

ESPN+ and Pac 12 Network had a ton of the games for the current Big 12 schools.  And a lot of SEC and ACC schools play games on those respective conference networks.

So really, with those numbers being completely excluded, a lot of those schools compare more favorably to the Big 10 on a per broadcast basis than it even looks like.

Edited May 9 by Al_4_ISU

[TxEx84 439]

So that chart that keeps showing up here is worthless.  The Big10 Network is rated so all B1G games are included. But the Big12, SEC, ACC, and Pac12 had goose eggs for some games.

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

2 minutes ago, TxEx84 said:

So that chart that keeps showing up here is worthless.  The Big10 Network is rated so all B1G games are included. But the Big12, SEC, ACC, and Pac12 had goose eggs for some games.

Exactly.  So when it shows ISU barely ahead of Northwestern, that's with 30% of our games showing 0 viewership.  In reality, we're pounding them.  And same applies for UK, Mizzou, Virginia, etc.

[BurntOrange&White 41897]

13 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Exactly.  So when it shows ISU barely ahead of Northwestern, that's with 30% of our games showing 0 viewership.  In reality, we're pounding them.  And same applies for UK, Mizzou, Virginia, etc.

It also means nobody watching yo ass when you are on main networks.

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

8 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

It also means nobody watching yo ass when you are on main networks.

Uhh, its the opposite.  We have fewer games on those networks and still racked up more viewers than 5 Big 10 schools who are getting all of their games counted.

That chart is total views.  25-30% of games for any Big 12, ACC, Pac 12, or bottom half of the SEC school aren't being included and many of those schools are either beating or in the ball park of schools who have all of their games counted.

[TKthunder2 5059]

2 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Exactly.  So when it shows ISU barely ahead of Northwestern, that's with 30% of our games showing 0 viewership.

In reality, we're pounding them.  And same applies for UK, Mizzou, Virginia, etc.

The first part I agree. Though last season it was 15% of your games showing 0 not 30%.

The second part your discounting your own argument you listed in the first part. Last season ISU was on FOX OTA 3 times and Kentucky was on ABC OTA once. ISU was on ESPN 2 times and UK was on it 4 times. ISU had 5 other rated games and 2 unrated, UK had 1 other rated games and 6 unrated. 50% of Kentucky games were unrated, while ISU was only 15%.

I agree with you that I personally would rather watch ISU football over Kentucky, but that’s not pat yourself on the back too hard. You can’t say your unrated games are punishing you and then brag about stats over other schools that have even more games unrated.

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

18 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

The first part I agree. Though last season it was 15% of your games showing 0 not 30%.

The second part your discounting your own argument you listed in the first part. Last season ISU was on FOX OTA 3 times and Kentucky was on ABC OTA once. ISU was on ESPN 2 times and UK was on it 4 times. ISU had 5 other rated games and 2 unrated, UK had 1 other rated games and 6 unrated. 50% of Kentucky games were unrated, while ISU was only 15%.

I agree with you that I personally would rather watch ISU football over Kentucky, but that’s not pat yourself on the back too hard. You can’t say your unrated games are punishing you and then brag about stats over other schools that have even more games unrated.

I'm not trying to make my point about ISU vs Kentucky.  Once I saw that what games weren't included, I understand why they're so low.  And some of ISU's Fox OTA appearances were probably thrown out because at least one was UT who was our highest draw of an opponent.  This was a 7 year window, too.

My point was more that the Big 10 isn't as formidable as it looks and that a lot of schools in the other 4 leagues of that time frame were better than that looks.  In the quoted post, I was referencing NW, who had almost all of their games on rated networks (exceptions being some Peacock games in 2023 alone).

Edited May 9 by Al_4_ISU

[BurntOrange&White 41897]

So glad that conference failed. 

[TKthunder2 5059]

33 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

So glad that conference failed. 

@Sbbruin thoughts?

[Sbbruin 22144]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

@Sbbruin thoughts?

Bullshit.  But typical Cali bullsht.

[Funk Doctor Spock 13287]

On 5/4/2024 at 8:38 PM, Al_4_ISU said:

Or, hear me out, just keep letting the Big 12 and ACC participate but with less money.

Its not that complicated.

Man, if y'all could add Memphis and Miami, the recruiting ground would be fantastic, and the league itself would actually be worth watching. 

[BurntOrange&White 41897]

6 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

Bullshit.  But typical Cali bullsht.

Someone on Twitter dubbed it "Calimony" lol

['stache 22145]

It’s the same university system, doesn’t UT subsidize some of the smaller system schools in multiple ways? Only difference seems to be that both are at the highest level of athletics, and the “branch” schools happens to be the more successful and (more relevantly) more popular program historically. That’s how it seems to me, but maybe I’m off.

Edited May 10 by 'stache

[TKthunder2 5059]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

It’s the same university system, doesn’t UT subsidize some of the smaller system schools in multiple ways? Only difference seems to be that both are at the highest level of athletics, and the “branch” schools happens to be the more successful and (more relevantly) more popular program historically. That’s how it seems to me, but maybe I’m off.

The endowment of the UT system pays for that. UT Austin does not, it has nothing to do with athletics.

[TKthunder2 5059]

Missouri State joining the FBS as team #136 and Conference USA as their 12th school.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40119561/missouri-state-heads-fbs-joining-conference-usa-2025

[thunderlounge 8416]

 

[Al_4_ISU 12631]

2 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Missouri State joining the FBS as team #136 and Conference USA as their 12th school.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/40119561/missouri-state-heads-fbs-joining-conference-usa-2025

That was a little sad in our house.  Mizz State was a long time member of the Missouri Valley, which also includes Northern Iowa.  My wife ran track for UNI and her conference meet a couple of years was at Missouri State.

[Steel Shank 9556]

Well there you have it.

[TKthunder2 5059]

Not fb related but since it’s tangentially related to possible Big 12 expansion candidate Gonzaga.

West Coast Conference adding Grand Canyon and Seattle University.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/wcc-to-add-grand-canyon-seattle-u-to-get-to-13-teams-in-2025-26-but-after-that-it-gets-complicated/