Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

And that was my point that if 2 teams agree to a permanent one, what keeps the big guys from telling the lower values schools, hey you are worth less than those two so you should be happy with their amount. Slowly setting up tiers.

The only reason its worked in the past is the continued escalation of media values.

They agree to a reduced share for a few years, and then when they do the new contract the average number for an equal split is such a jump that no one is losing money vs the status quo when they go back to equal shares.

It isnt certain that will keep happening though. The networks have been losing their asses on some of these deals. If and when that doesnt happen, moving a new member to an equal share may mean pay cuts for everyone else (or pay cuts for the have-nots while the Ohio States of the world demand their value)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Die4Cy
How great would it be if the Big 10 goes to unequal sharing and the gap between Iowa and Iowa State becomes immaterial
It will be interesting to watch. The Big 10 and SEC are clearly doing fine and I think something like that is a ways away, but no one should be surprised if schools like Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia, ect get tired of getting the same amount as Vanderbilt and Northwestern.
 
No way the B1G goes to permanent unequal distributions, just makes zero sense. That model has obviously been horrible for conferences that did it, and the B1G is the richest and most stable conference in the country by not doing it.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. If 8 of the top earning Big 10s schools threatened to break off of the other 8, you would see unequal revenue sharing come to the Big 10 very quickly.
 
Except the B1G isn't desperate.

The ACC wasn't desperate 8 years ago.

The PAC wasn't desperate 5 years ago either. Given the alternative, I'm sure the other Pac-12 schools would give more money to UCLA and USC to order to keep them from leaving.
 
No way the B1G goes to permanent unequal distributions, just makes zero sense. That model has obviously been horrible for conferences that did it, and the B1G is the richest and most stable conference in the country by not doing it.
Who was it bad for? Not the 800# gorillas of the conference. Do you think OSU and Michigan would have to worry about conference instability? What teams would threaten to leave if they got smaller shares? Hell the Hateful 8 were offering even more of a disparity to get OU and UT to stay. If I was at the bottom of the pecking order in the b1g I’d be a little nervous about the SEC continuing to kick everybody’s ass in the CFP.
 
The ACC wasn't desperate 8 years ago.

The PAC wasn't desperate 5 years ago either. Given the alternative, I'm sure the other Pac-12 schools would give more money to UCLA and USC to order to keep them from leaving.
If you're saying there's a chance in 10 years that the B1G might become desperate, I wouldn't put $$ on it but anything is possible.

But I'll play along. Let's say the top 8 schools threaten to walk if they don't start getting paid more than the bottom 8, and they get turned down. Then what happens? Those top 8 schools break off and form an 8 team conference? Then what happens? There obviously can't be an 8-school conference where all 8 schools are at the top, so then do the top 4 schools threaten to break off if they don't get paid more than the bottom 4? Then what happens? The top 2 threaten to break off if they don't get paid more than the bottom 2?

It's the same reason all the talk about the top SEC/B1G/PAC/ACC bluebloods forming an elite 16- or 20-team "Superconference" is nonsense. No matter how many schools you put into a conference, eventually there will be a top and a bottom. So what happens in that Superconference when all of a sudden Clemson and Michigan and LSU and USC are consistently finishing at the bottom and no longer elite? Wouldn't Bama and tOSU and Georgia demand to be paid more?

Conferences need cannon fodder. No one has a crystal ball but I have a hard time seeing the B1G changing course on a model that has made it the most stable and richest conference in college sports. That's something the PAC and ACC never had.
 
So the interesting question is how much of a lower payout UW and UO would take and for how long? Would they take 35-40mil per year in the big ten for the remainder of the contract just for the security? Would they take a cut for longer?
If the Big10's new deal is for around $70-$75M annually, I gotta believe OR/UW would join for $40M. Especially, if CFB playoff teams earn a bonus. And I doubt the Big10 would have any expectation it would be permanent. Because, I think 2030 could even be crazier.

IMO OR/WA are just waiting to get a formal new contract proposal, so they can use that as excuse to leave Pac12.

I have a tough time believing Big10's media partners aren't willing to add $80M-$100M to their existing deal to have USC, UCLA, OR and WA in Big10.
 
Who was it bad for? Not the 800# gorillas of the conference. Do you think OSU and Michigan would have to worry about conference instability? What teams would threaten to leave if they got smaller shares? Hell the Hateful 8 were offering even more of a disparity to get OU and UT to stay. If I was at the bottom of the pecking order in the b1g I’d be a little nervous about the SEC continuing to kick everybody’s ass in the CFP.
That’s a rock and hard place for the lower big ten teams. Say you have 8 bigs and 8 smalls for easy math. Average payout of 80MM. If the top half said we are taking 100 and you get 60, what would the bottom half do? They would get less if they went anywhere else and would not be as close (outside of the LAschools) to the other teams.
 
That’s a rock and hard place for the lower big ten teams. Say you have 8 bigs and 8 smalls for easy math. Average payout of 80MM. If the top half said we are taking 100 and you get 60, what would the bottom half do? They would get less if they went anywhere else and would not be as close (outside of the LAschools) to the other teams.
The 8 smalls say no and then nothing changes. It also wouldn’t happen.
 
The 8 smalls say no and then nothing changes. It also wouldn’t happen.
The 8 bigs say they are leaving to form their own conference next time around or you sign on the dotted line. Let’s not mistake who has the leverage here.

The only reason for it not happening is because teams know it is unstable. and the big schools get so much money from donors and endowments that the TV money doesn’t really matter. It’s the difference between ridiculous facilities and ridiculous facilities with gold plated toilets.
 
If you're saying there's a chance in 10 years that the B1G might become desperate, I wouldn't put $$ on it but anything is possible.

But I'll play along. Let's say the top 8 schools threaten to walk if they don't start getting paid more than the bottom 8, and they get turned down. Then what happens? Those top 8 schools break off and form an 8 team conference? Then what happens? There obviously can't be an 8-school conference where all 8 schools are at the top, so then do the top 4 schools threaten to break off if they don't get paid more than the bottom 4? Then what happens? The top 2 threaten to break off if they don't get paid more than the bottom 2?

It's the same reason all the talk about the top SEC/B1G/PAC/ACC bluebloods forming an elite 16- or 20-team "Superconference" is nonsense. No matter how many schools you put into a conference, eventually there will be a top and a bottom. So what happens in that Superconference when all of a sudden Clemson and Michigan and LSU and USC are consistently finishing at the bottom and no longer elite? Wouldn't Bama and tOSU and Georgia demand to be paid more?

Conferences need cannon fodder. No one has a crystal ball but I have a hard time seeing the B1G changing course on a model that has made it the most stable and richest conference in college sports. That's something the PAC and ACC never had.
So you dont think the top teams in the B1G eventually could not threaten to leave for the SEC, and the top teams in the SEC couldnt threaten to leave for the B1G? Or Those top teams in those conferences couldnt threaten to leave each conference and create their own, with only the top teams in the SEC and B1G?

Saying that the OSUs, Michigans, Alabamas, Georgias, etc. dont have leverage is coming from someone that has had the luxury of riding those coat tails for so long. Sitting there saying it could never happen is precisely when you get surprised.

You are right that there has to be someone always at the bottom etc. But none of these people care or even think about that, they care about MONEY. Otherwise the SEC would be bringing in a Vandy for every OU they bring in, and that is not happening.
 
The 8 bigs say they are leaving to form their own conference next time around or you sign on the dotted line. Let’s not mistake who has the leverage here.

The only reason for it not happening is because teams know it is unstable. and the big schools get so much money from donors and endowments that the TV money doesn’t really matter. It’s the difference between ridiculous facilities and ridiculous facilities with gold plated toilets.
Yeah, Texas routinely has the biggest budget in the US. They have told donors they don’t have anything to put their name on for a 2-5MM donation anymore. They aren’t concerned about TV money as much as the others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlySpartan
So you dont think the top teams in the B1G eventually could not threaten to leave for the SEC, and the top teams in the SEC couldnt threaten to leave for the B1G? Or Those top teams in those conferences couldnt threaten to leave each conference and create their own, with only the top teams in the SEC and B1G?

Saying that the OSUs, Michigans, Alabamas, Georgias, etc. dont have leverage is coming from someone that has had the luxury of riding those coat tails for so long. Sitting there saying it could never happen is precisely when you get surprised.

You are right that there has to be someone always at the bottom etc. But none of these people care or even think about that, they care about MONEY. Otherwise the SEC would be bringing in a Vandy for every OU they bring in, and that is not happening.
The SEC doesn't have to bring in a Vandy because it knows that for every OU it brings in, someone in the conference will become a Vandy. There are just as many L's to go around as there are W's.

I'm not saying that the tOSU's and Michigans and Bamas and Georgias threatening to leave if they don't get paid more could never happen. I'm saying I don't think it will, because they'd be running the risk of slitting their own throats. All we really know is that if it does happen in the B1G, it won't be until 2031 at the earliest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlySpartan
Yeah, perhaps there isn't much waiting for the B1G offer and that sets things in motion. I'm just not convinced the B1G is all that interested in OU and UW, if they were I feel like it would have happened at the same time as USC and UCLA.
The counter is to first grab the team you really want and destabilize and devalue the league. Then you get UW and Oregon at a deep discount.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cloneon
The 8 bigs say they are leaving to form their own conference next time around or you sign on the dotted line. Let’s not mistake who has the leverage here.

The only reason for it not happening is because teams know it is unstable. and the big schools get so much money from donors and endowments that the TV money doesn’t really matter. It’s the difference between ridiculous facilities and ridiculous facilities with gold plated toilets.
Cool so they go and form their own conference. Then one of those top schools is on the bottom and their fans lose their mind. You really underestimate how much some of these blue blood schools need to be on top. That doesn’t happen in a conference of peers and top athletic programs have had so much money for so long they don’t want to risk being at the bottom for a couple million more.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron