Realignment talk not going away

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

11 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

 

I can't tell if NIL is a part of Title IX or not.  The journalists are discussing NIL as though it was a part of the athletic budget.  

 

But otherwise T9 is not an insurmountable problem.  The schools figure out what % they have to pay to the gender racket and cough it up.

Any journalist who talks about NIL as part of athletic budget is either dumb or uninformed.  It's not, anywhere, at least in the letter of current NIL law, and I think we'd hear about it here pretty quick if universities started funding NIL payments to players directly out of AD budgets.  It's all 3rd party transactions and multiple 3rd parties coming together as collectives.

Title IX is a big problem for schools outside of the B1G and SEC.  If the House settlement involves them paying out rev shares to football, they're going to get hit with Title IX lawsuits for inequity if they don't balance that with money on the women's side.  So $20MM becomes $40MM quick, and the ISUs, KSUs, and OkState's of the world can't afford that.

That's why I think the rev shares will get paid out equally to any scholarship athlete to solve for Title IX, and the outside 3rd party NIL will be that differentiator.

Now where things get really interesting is if the House settlement or near future NLRB or Federal action turns these students into employees.  Then Title VII applies, which in this case is mostly about non-discrimination not equality.  People in Sales/revenue generating roles generally make more than operational/administrative roles all day long.  So in that case if Title VII is governing, the schools could bring NIL under their umbrella and raise and pay out money directly to employee-athletes at different rates legally.

But which statute wins when they're both student AND employee?  Title IX or VII?  The law dogs will sort that one out...

[Hurtlocker 2212]

Yeah Title IX has two solutions, it's not insurmountable:

1. Sponsor all sporting opportunities
2. Sponsor equal sporting opportunities

Sponsoring all doesn't necessarily mean it has to be even.   If you sponsor all womens and all mens sports, you're considered giving equal representation.   This is what most Pac schools did, hence why they ran in the red.   

If you can't sponsor all, then you have to have the same number and since football has so many, men's sports get cut and womens sports get added.   

The money being discussed doesn't really change this dynamic.   Either you choose to fund all sports or you don't.   NIL doesn't fund sports.   NIL isn't even.   NIL is overused at this point and has gravitated away from actually being NIL, but at some point will need to get back to NIL, since that's what started this all.   NIL in the universities just means it will not be in outside collectives, it will be in university housed agencies that report and file and audit.

However, as long as sports are tied to universities, you can't shed Title IX.   Ohio State and Texas make far more off research grants than they do off athletics.      So this concept of football breaking away won't happen, unless it breaks away with an equal amount of something female.   A far more likely break away is that the College Football Playoff breaks away with the top 48-64 schools and forms its own rules, regulations, shared media contracts, lobbying and, since they will have all the money, enforcement.    The NCAA will then handle everyone left.   At first I didn't think this had very good odds, but now that the NCAA tried to stick most of the settlement on the schools with the least amount of money, I'd be shocked if this didn't end up being how it settles out, where the vast majority of schools eject to clubs and leave the P4 with the check.

 

[notre dame joe 187]

19 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

The solution, in my crazy proposal, is to split the 2 big revenue sports (football & mens basketball) out from the NCAA and out from direct oversight by the universities. You would then create a sports franchise (minor league) that will be located in the home city of these universities, the university would license the school name/mascot/colors etc and also rent facilities for the teams to use for training, practice, residence, and stadiums for competition.  There could be agreements to allow players to attend the school, and I am sure there are alumni groups that would love to fund this set up and have an ownership stake in said affiliated sports franchise. 
I've thought this for a few years, as a way to deal with Title IX issues, but really with the changes brought by NIL we are miles closer to this model being actually viable..

FWIW - this model would only apply to the top divisions of football and hoops at the college level; DII and lower would still be able to maintain being under the Athletic Dept. In all honesty, playoff eligible football and top level mens hoops programs have become defacto minor league sports with NIL money for "salaries"

Lots of bugs and details to something like this, but it isn't as far from what is actually happening as it was only 2 years ago.

That model is my idea for an alumni league.  Think how many people would go to an Austin Horns game on summer nights, featuring players who just didn't make the draft or are angling for a practice squad spot. 

 

It might get tricky with unlimited transfers where someone attended 5 schools and has no degree.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

 

 

[TKthunder2 4992]

3 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

 

 

The smaller schools benefit disproportionately from their association with the P4. They make more money because Texas, Michigan, LSU, USC, and Florida St play against them in the post season than they would on their own. This is an agreement that benefits the P4 and encourages them to stay in the current system of the NCAA. If the P4 are going to pay the lion’s share of this settlement then the next logical step is to only pay the nonP4 schools only what they deserve. I applaud their willingness to push back but they better be careful here or they’ll relegate themselves.

Edited May 21 by TKthunder2

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

7 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

That model is my idea for an alumni league.  Think how many people would go to an Austin Horns game on summer nights, featuring players who just didn't make the draft or are angling for a practice squad spot. 

Tens of people would attend. The little league game down the street would have a larger attendance. 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

 

 

 

Edited May 21 by BurntOrange&White

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

 

 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3286]

Absolutely insane that the power football conferences are gonna get the G5 and other non football conferences to take an order of magnitude bigger hit to their payout to pay for all the shenanigans of the SEC, Big 10, ACC and Big 12…

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

This sport is like what would happen if you let the mafia run sports.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

This sport is like what would happen if you let the mafia run sports.

Is it wrong to think this is going to destroy a lot of scholarship opportunities for student athletes as a whole?

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

3 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Is it wrong to think this is going to destroy a lot of scholarship opportunities for student athletes as a whole?

It's going to devastate them.  My wife and I were talking about this yesterday.  She was a heptathlete at Northern Iowa and we both think that there's not even going to be a scholarship track program in the next 5 years.  Shit, I wouldn't be surprised to see schools like us and OK State cut wrestling.

[Park Gothic 5042]

4 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

The smaller schools benefit disproportionately from their association with the P4. They make more money because Texas, Michigan, LSU, USC, and Florida St play against them in the post season than they would on their own. This is an agreement that benefits the P4 and encourages them to stay in the current system of the NCAA. If the P4 are going to pay the lion’s share of this settlement then the next logical step is to only pay the nonP4 schools only what they deserve. I applaud their willingness to push back but they better be careful here or they’ll relegate themselves.

lol, right? 

If you run around yelling about how you should be treated differently, then don't be surprised when people treat you differently.  

[Hurtlocker 2212]

11 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

That model is my idea for an alumni league.  Think how many people would go to an Austin Horns game on summer nights, featuring players who just didn't make the draft or are angling for a practice squad spot. 

 

It might get tricky with unlimited transfers where someone attended 5 schools and has no degree.

That actually sounds like a good Dev league option for Spring Football and Summer Basketball.

[Sandman 3403]

3 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I wouldn't be surprised to see schools like us and OK State cut wrestling

I think niche sports will have to be funded by a major benefactor. OSU wrestling just got a big $$$ commitment from the guy that owns Paycom, he's a former wrestler and just wants to see the sport thrive. I bet there's a rich Clone out there that won't let ISU cut wrestling. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

54 minutes ago, Sandman said:

I think niche sports will have to be funded by a major benefactor. OSU wrestling just got a big $$$ commitment from the guy that owns Paycom, he's a former wrestler and just wants to see the sport thrive. I bet there's a rich Clone out there that won't let ISU cut wrestling. 

I think the two richest Cyclone wrestlers coach Iowa and Penn State

[Sandman 3403]

1 hour ago, Hurtlocker said:

I think the two richest Cyclone wrestlers coach Iowa and Penn State

Iowa's coach is Tom Brands, who wrestled at Iowa. Their former coach Dan Gable was an ISU guy, though.

[MAUFRAIS 6629]

I think niche sports will have to be funded by a major benefactor. OSU wrestling just got a big $$$ commitment from the guy that owns Paycom, he's a former wrestler and just wants to see the sport thrive. I bet there's a rich Clone out there that won't let ISU cut wrestling. 

Rack him

[closetohumping 17442]

4 hours ago, Sandman said:

I think niche sports will have to be funded by a major benefactor. OSU wrestling just got a big $$$ commitment from the guy that owns Paycom, he's a former wrestler and just wants to see the sport thrive. I bet there's a rich Clone out there that won't let ISU cut wrestling. 

The trick is to find more than....let's see, 1, in each school though.  The challenge, is, other than seeing their alma mater win, what do the rich guys get out of it?  They don't own the team like in the NFL.

[Funk Doctor Spock 12333]

I just want a men's soccer team, and a women's. Gymnastics program. No reason T9 can't approve those two since it would be evenly split. Texas could be very good at both, especially soccer. There are a fuck ton of good soccer players in the state. And the poon we would get to see for Gymnastics would be fucking over the top. 

[mdmost 43004]

Big 10 After Dark!!!!...err on Friday Nights!!!!!

 

[Texas Wahoo 3397]

34 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Big 10 After Dark!!!!...err on Friday Nights!!!!!

 

 

Late night Rutgers...

[John80 157]

The Big Ten didn't have to have this coast to coast monstrosity to survive. They're just really greedy so we have Rutgers playing at 11 at night. 

[TKthunder2 4992]

11 minutes ago, John80 said:

The Big Ten didn't have to have this coast to coast monstrosity to survive. They're just really greedy so we have Rutgers playing at 11 at night. 

Once Texas and Oklahoma were no longer candidates to join the PAC16 USC was out. There was nothing in this world that could have saved the PAC. Turning down the LHN was the most expensive decision Stanford ever made.

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

28 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Once Texas and Oklahoma were no longer candidates to join the PAC16 USC was out. There was nothing in this world that could have saved the PAC. Turning down the LHN was the most expensive decision Stanford ever made.

You say it like they give even half a fuck.

[John80 157]

My point is the Big Ten was doing well financially as a midwestern conference and they didn't have to become a national conference and add anyone. This is different from the Big 12 who had to add the best schools wherever they could to survive. USC's major problem has been USC and moving to conference on the other side of the country isn't going to fix that. I realize the SEC started this expansion stuff but we have at least stayed somewhat regional.

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

Idk where to put this so I’ll just put it in this thread 

[BurntOrange&White 39934]

 

Olympic sports are so cooked

 

[JMFP 1120]

I wonder if the four year eligibility rule will be challenged before long. 

[Vertigo 20290]

1 hour ago, JMFP said:

I wonder if the four year eligibility rule will be challenged before long. 

Dillon Gabriel v. NCAA - Gabriel on his 13th team and in his 19th year of eligibility. 

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

I wonder if the four year eligibility rule will be challenged before long. 

It will, and that will be the final blow to spring pro football

[TKthunder2 4992]

3 hours ago, JMFP said:

I wonder if the four year eligibility rule will be challenged before long. 

I think the NCAA has already been sued and won on this. But maybe there is a new way to attack it, so who knows.

[bullet 1597]

On 5/20/2024 at 5:31 AM, notre dame joe said:

 

I can't tell if NIL is a part of Title IX or not.  The journalists are discussing NIL as though it was a part of the athletic budget.  

 

But otherwise T9 is not an insurmountable problem.  The schools figure out what % they have to pay to the gender racket and cough it up.

If it is paid directly by the schools, then they have to figure out how Title IX impacts it.  If its paid by collectives by now, then it doesn't apply.

Many of the schools are talking about taking over the NIL, but I don't see how it would work without giving them Title IX headaches.

[bullet 1597]

On 5/21/2024 at 1:54 PM, Evil Bill Obrien said:

Absolutely insane that the power football conferences are gonna get the G5 and other non football conferences to take an order of magnitude bigger hit to their payout to pay for all the shenanigans of the SEC, Big 10, ACC and Big 12…

The smaller Div I schools kept the rules on amateurism and fought every attempt by those of the P5 who wanted to do more.  And the non-FBS schools (other than Big East) are getting way more than they contribute to the tourney.  The P5 could say, fine, we'll just have our own basketball invitational and leave you out.

[bullet 1597]

On 5/21/2024 at 2:00 PM, BurntOrange&White said:

Is it wrong to think this is going to destroy a lot of scholarship opportunities for student athletes as a whole?

Yes.  Basketball and football and some non-rev P4 athletes benefit and everyone else loses.

[TKthunder2 4992]

On 3/29/2024 at 11:48 PM, TKthunder2 said:

UTRGV is leaving the WAC for the Southland Conference.

Very confused on what SFA, ACU, and Tarleton, and UTA are still doing in the WAC with those random Utah schools.

SFA (now a UT system school) is leaving the WAC too now.

https://www.texasfootball.com/article/2024/05/24/confirmed-sfa-headed-back-to-the-southland-conference?ref=article_preview_title
 

If Abilene Christian, Tarleton St, and UT Arlington follow their lead the Southland would have 15 members: 12 football schools and 3 non-football schools.

Also of note (and only a year late) another UT system school is moving up to DII Lone Star Conference to join UT Permian Basin and UT Tyler.

https://news.utdallas.edu/campus-community/comet-sports-ncaa-division-2-2023/

UT System will have 6 in NCAA Division I including 3 FBS teams with flagship in the SEC, UTSA in the American, and UTEP in CUSA; 2 in the FCS with SFA and UTRGV in the Southland; 1 in D1 non football with UTA still in the WAC (for now); and 3 in DII Lone Star Conference (one of which plays football).

After a few years of building programs/facilities I could see UT Dallas (with its enrollment of 30k) moving to DI.

[msucolt45 4062]

The smaller revenue schools have to find a landing space, like the Southland Conference, in order to ride out the shifting landscape.

The SEC commissioner was once the head of the SLC, so I really think he’s going to help protect the little guys. Just MO.

Hook’em!!!

[Evil Bill Obrien 3286]

32 minutes ago, msucolt45 said:

The SEC commissioner was once the head of the SLC, so I really think he’s going to help protect the little guys. Just MO.

Oh wait you are serious aren't you? Here let me laugh even harder 

The only reason Greg Sankey would give a single shit about the Southland Conference is to make sure it's still there for the lesser SEC schools to get their cupcake win for bowl eligibility. 

Edited June 1 by Evil Bill Obrien

[TKthunder2 4992]

Not sure where to post this, but was looking at this graphic (side note, if somebody has an updated one please post it) and noticed something interesting…

The roughly top 30 or so programs also have the top stadiums by capacity in college football. Obviously success drive attendance and facilities but the correlation is consistent.

With one major exception of South Carolina (top 20 capacity stadium but hasn’t had the corresponding on field success) this holds true until you hit around 300 line and you have more modest stadiums for Oregon, Georgia Tech, Colorado, West Virginia, Stanford, and Arizona St that all have stadiums ranked in the 40-50 range for the P4.

[statsman 5471]

Attendance is one metric of program popularity, but it is imperfect. A better metric is “gate”- the dollars paid by fans to attend the game. TCU’s stadium holds 45k and Texas’ holds 105k (from memory). They both sell out against TT, but TCU doesn’t have half the popularity of Texas. The TCU tix against Tech cost half what Texas-TT tix cost, and that doesn’t even count the disparity in donations required to buy premium seats and suites. 
 
It’s simple economics and pricing elasticity. If Texas had a 150k stadium, it could price tickets to sell it out. There are games where TCU struggles to give tix away. 
 
Broadcast viewership is a better metric of program popularity, since the price to view is so low- the main cost is the surrendering of time to watch. Thats where you see the real differences. 
 
I really don’t know how the media marketers measure the financial standing of different programs’ viewers/fans. I suspect this factor explains why the B1G media payout is better than the SEC’s. 

[Hurtlocker 2212]

8 hours ago, statsman said:

...

14 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Not sure where to post this, but was looking at this graphic (side note, if somebody has an updated one please post it) and noticed something interesting…

The roughly top 30 or so programs also have the top stadiums by capacity in college football. Obviously success drive attendance and facilities but the correlation is consistent.

With one major exception of South Carolina (top 20 capacity stadium but hasn’t had the corresponding on field success) this holds true until you hit around 300 line and you have more modest stadiums for Oregon, Georgia Tech, Colorado, West Virginia, Stanford, and Arizona St that all have stadiums ranked in the 40-50 range for the P4.

...I really don’t know how the media marketers measure the financial standing of different programs’ viewers/fans. I suspect this factor explains why the B1G media payout is better than the SEC’s. 

That is an interesting and odd graph, quite a few teams have over a third of their total weeks in the top five, including UCF.   Clearly some of these teams benefit just from caring about football for longer or longer ago than others.    But I think it is pathway kind of thing:

1. Win games
2. Sell more seats
3. invest in more seats
4. See #1

To your point, the teams who won the most over time should have the biggest stadiums that are filled to capacity.   And I still think that paid attendance, at the school level, is a great indicator of fan support.   Total stadium size kind of caps your total market size and percent of capacity shows how well you're capturing your market.    In the above, you have UCLA, kind of right in the middle of the "Look at how awesome I am" in the AP results, playing in a stadium that is clearly not on campus and too big for their needs, only filling around 40k or around 40% of the Rose Bowl, in any given year.   To either wise is Tennessee and Clemson, whose stadiums are always rocking.  From a what can we learn, I'd say the ones with low capacity and losing (e.g. empty stadiums and bad records), kind of makes sense, likely will bounce back.   Hopefully...maybe....they better.    The ones losing and have high capacity, look out, they're going to be on fire if they start winning.   Everyone else you're kind of where you expect to be.    Win for long enough while being at capacity and you can either raise prices or increase seating.  Once you reach a certain threshold between 80-100k your prices just tend to go up as your seating market caps.  

All this being said, secondary market ticket prices are BS for the most part and are typically a dumb way to judge interest.  Not only does it not benefit the school, but it could fluctuate with weather or time of year or how well the season played out. In the example above, single game secondary market jumps rarely occur because the host school cares more, but because the host school fans realize they can cash in on the visiting fans.   Supply, meet demand.    If a fan can pay for a third of their season in one game, because someone is going to overspend for it, why not sell?   Everyone has a price.   It doesn't mean interest in that game, overall, is higher, it just means there is more interest in cashing out of that game.   Especially if it is easier to see a game in that town.   

When talking about realignment though, it is nearly all, to the second point, about broadcast viewership and marketing to those demographics, namely 18-34 males.   And most of that is viewership over time, they don't care about attendance they're marketing to who is watching.   The B1G is top draw with some pretty solid demographics, and they are top draw in the biggest DMAs.   They also get a bonus if the company owns the local TV stations in the markets around the games, e.g. Chicago, LA, NYC, Philly, DC.   Indiana and Northwestern are as craptastic as Mississippi State and Vandy, but Michigan/Ohio State in the regular season out drew the SEC championship game and every other game last year except Michigan's games against Washington and Alabama.  That's how the B1G tops the SEC.   Their brands are bigger in bigger markets and their media contract allows them to high light them in different broadcasters in different windows all day so they have three companies marketing them non-stop.    Its smart, and its going to be annoying to have to listen to.

[pyrohornIII 4815]

Not sure where to put this, so settled on here.  Is there another university program out there as reviled as UT?  Maybe ND?    Fucked up and left stuff outside the quote.  Too lazy to correct.  Apologies.

Quote

After Destroying Two Leagues & Triggering Conference Realignment, Texas Meets Its Match

By Rock Westfall,

1 day ago

By Rock Westfall

Last week, Texas athletic director Chris Del Conte lamented that college athletics lost its voice regarding the current emphasis on NIL , the transfer portal , and the loss of focus on education.

While Del Conte’s comments are fine on the surface, and he is not to blame for college football's current state, his employer is a major culprit dating back to the 1980s and the breakup of the Southwest Conference.

 

For as long as anyone can remember, Texas has always had its way when it came to dictating the way business was done in college football. Along the way, it destroyed the SWC and the Big 12 because of its selfish, overbearing ways. Furthermore, through its conduct, no other school in college football is more responsible for the continuous conference realignment of the past 15+ years. But if Texas thinks it will run roughshod over the SEC , it is in for a rude awakening.

The Capo of a Lawless, Renegade League

The University of Texas likes to think of itself as above the other members of any conference it has been in. It has a haughty attitude regarding academics and culture. In fact, it seriously considered joining the Pac-12 Conference in 2010 because of its supposed academic and cultural superiority. But despite its aloofness, Texas has a shady past.

The Texas football program made its fame in the now-defunct Southwest Conference. In the 1970s and 80s, the Southwest Conference was utterly lawless, in a less sophisticated sort of way compared to now.

Back then, it was alleged and assumed that all of the SWC schools were giving players cars, cash, girls, "tutors," and other inducements. SMU was the most famous transgressor, getting the NCAA Death Penalty in 1987. Eric Dickerson, who was an SMU star, took a gold Pontiac Trans Am gift from Texas A&M and kept it after signing with SMU. Dickerson said that when he left SMU for the NFL, he took a pay cut. He wasn’t kidding.

 

That outlaw culture forced the SWC to fold after the 1995 season. Texas, along with Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor, became refugees who found a home in what was previously known as the Big Eight Conference. After the merger, it became the Big 12.

A Hostile Takeover

Despite arriving as immigrants from a folded, outlaw, renegade conference, the new Texas schools, led by the University of Texas, made themselves right at home in the Big 12.

First, they demanded that Prop 48 partially qualifying students no longer be accepted. Such players were a major staple in the Nebraska dynasty led by Tom Osborne . Next, they demanded that the league office be moved from Kansas City to Dallas. The maneuvers continued until the old SWC teams quickly achieved a hostile takeover of the Big 12.

In reality, then-Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds emerged as the Absolute Dictator of the Big 12, although frontmen such as Dan Bebe posed as the commissioner (in name only).

One of the great mysteries in college football history is why the Big Eight schools surrendered so meekly. It was not their league that turned into ashes over lawlessness. It was a shameful, unconditional capitulation.

As the years progressed, Texas formed the Longhorn Network in partnership with ESPN . In turn, the Longhorns were hoarding much of the Big 12 money. Nebraska, Texas A&M, and Missouri deeply resented the situation and left the Big 12. Colorado did, too, although the move was based on its cultural snot. Ironically, Colorado has since returned to the Big 12 after the Pac-12 imploded in 2023.

Finally, in the summer of 2021, Texas convinced Oklahoma to join them in the announcement of a move to the SEC. After damaging the Big 12 beyond repair, Texas felt the league they ruined no longer had enough prestige or revenue. In a bit of karmic justice, the Longhorn Network was a flop that never caught on.

It Just Means More

The University of Texas is used to always having its way in everything. But in the SEC, their arrogance will not be tolerated. Texas is about to discover what it is like to be treated as an equal. It will be fascinating to see how Texas adapts to its new home. The past bullying of Texas won’t work in college football’s best league. Yet old habits are hard to break.

 

Enjoy your new home and circumstances, Bevo. You made the bed you are about to crap in.

 

Edited June 12 by pyrohornIII

[Darth Tron 1123]

4 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Not sure where to put this, so settled on here.  Is there another university program out there as reviled as UT?  Maybe ND?    Fucked up and left stuff outside the quote.  Too lazy to correct.  Apologies.

It Just Means More

The University of Texas is used to always having its way in everything. But in the SEC, their arrogance will not be tolerated. Texas is about to discover what it is like to be treated as an equal. It will be fascinating to see how Texas adapts to its new home. The past bullying of Texas won’t work in college football’s best league. Yet old habits are hard to break.

 

Enjoy your new home and circumstances, Bevo. You made the bed you are about to crap in.

 

[Thiefery 5003]

5 hours ago, pyrohornIII said:

Not sure where to put this, so settled on here.  Is there another university program out there as reviled as UT?  Maybe ND?    Fucked up and left stuff outside the quote.  Too lazy to correct.  Apologies.

It Just Means More

The University of Texas is used to always having its way in everything. But in the SEC, their arrogance will not be tolerated. Texas is about to discover what it is like to be treated as an equal. It will be fascinating to see how Texas adapts to its new home. The past bullying of Texas won’t work in college football’s best league. Yet old habits are hard to break.

 

Enjoy your new home and circumstances, Bevo. You made the bed you are about to crap in.

 

LOL BiG conference does it's new members dirty.. isn't MD, Nebraska, Rutgers still getting tax'd with loan shark percentages?? Add in Udub and Oregon to that list now too..  Only teams that don't have to do that are the LA schools because they actually brought in value

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

2 hours ago, Thiefery said:

LOL BiG conference does it's new members dirty.. isn't MD, Nebraska, Rutgers still getting tax'd with loan shark percentages?? 

Well. Some, maybe even most, would argue third rate programs like Maryland, Rutgers, and Nebraska should get taxed in perpetuity 

[thunderlounge 7858]

Fuck. Corn.

['stache 21817]

9 hours ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Well. Some, maybe even most, would argue third rate programs like Maryland, Rutgers, and Nebraska should get taxed in perpetuity 

It’ll happen next media contract. They’ll be told to take half and to be thankful for the opportunity.

Edited June 13 by 'stache

[Al_4_ISU 12464]

23 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It’ll happen next media contract. They’ll be told to take half and to be thankful for the opportunity.

Exactly.  The Big 10 won’t kick them out, but they’ll be making barely better money than the Big 12/ACC.

[Asu2215 247]

On 5/22/2024 at 7:37 PM, John80 said:

My point is the Big Ten was doing well financially as a midwestern conference and they didn't have to become a national conference and add anyone. This is different from the Big 12 who had to add the best schools wherever they could to survive. USC's major problem has been USC and moving to conference on the other side of the country isn't going to fix that. I realize the SEC started this expansion stuff but we have at least stayed somewhat regional.

USC wanted out because they wanted more money from a TV deal and better exposure (i.e. no Fridays and less late night games). Ironically, USC never really had money problems and here they are playing Rutgers late on a Friday night. They have trouble enough winning the shitty Pac, I don't know why they think they are going to do better now playing in a conference with OSU, Mich, etc. 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

1 hour ago, Asu2215 said:

USC wanted out because they wanted more money from a TV deal and better exposure (i.e. no Fridays and less late night games). Ironically, USC never really had money problems and here they are playing Rutgers late on a Friday night. They have trouble enough winning the shitty Pac, I don't know why they think they are going to do better now playing in a conference with OSU, Mich, etc. 

The Big 10 is full of truly terrible football programs. It shouldn't be very hard for USC to win 9 or 10 games and get into the playoff.