Again, no one in the big ten is remotely worried about this. I get that becuase the Big12 went through it you want big ten schools (especially Iowa) to go through the same thing but it couldn’t be farther from reality
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Keep in mind the new college football playoff guidelines will not treat all teams that automatically qualify equally among the power five. They were deliberate in establishing that only the top four conference champions get a bye which is a significant hit to whichever P5 conference is the weakest in football. A Pac with WAOR would still be competitive, but it isn't likely that they often would be considered without them. There will always be one P5 champ placed at the level of an AAC/MAC champion that makes the cut. That will have ramifications to the perception of a league. The Big 12 needs to be mindful of this also, the arms race in football remains even if you aren't in the P2.
Last edited:
Separate question. In worst case scenario for Pac that 4C join b12…
Do you invite any of Ore/Wash/Cal/Stan without some gigantic GOR? Is the benefit of having any of them short term worth the continued impression of instability if some leave?
Fwiw I think big ten will want ore/Wash but is just waiting to create illusion they didn’t crush entire pac. Stanford and cal I have no idea about.
I agree with you.
If you had added Texas I might not.
It’s not that Texas could possibly destroy the Big Ten, it’s that there’s a likely point where the rest of the members may have regretted it. I’m not sure how or when they will ruffle SEC feathers but they’ll invent a new way if they have to.
Nebraska’s primary goal was to maintain unequal revenue sharing, they eventually were so passionate about this they joined a conference where NW and tOSU get the same pay day. Gonna be hard for any Big 12 fan to not be jaded with experiences like that.
And further, I think it's a mistake for people to lump Iowa in with Rutgers, Northwestern, Purdue, and Indiana. There is Ohio State and Michigan - maybe Penn State, maybe USC once they come on board - and then there is another tier including Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Nebraska, and Iowa pretty clearly belongs in that group IMO.
I don't think Iowa is in any real danger unless and until the top B1G and SEC schools split off and form their own conference.
One thing about this “breakaway”…it’d result in SEC schools playing in the cold a couple times a year. I think that alone might keep them happy w new status quo. Ditto for the big ten teams, do they really want top half of SEC on schedule in place of Purdue and Rutgers?
I'd say it's inevitable. This mindset isn't going to change.
It's just a matter of time before the breakaway happens and they beat the **** out of that golden goose before they finally kill it.
Like CCR said...
And when you ask 'em, "How much should we give?"
Hoo, they only answer, "More, more, more, more"
I don't think weather will be a factor with the types of dollars figures on the line. It's not even a tough selling point for recruits - "you want to play in the NFL, you're going to play in the cold."
And to your latter question, I've raised the issue numerous times that if you form a 30-team league of CFB bluebloods, some teams that usually win a ton of games are suddenly going to become losers. Will the extra cash make it worth it? And my answer to that is, when has anyone in college sports ever shown restraint and left money on the table for the greater good?
I would not be worried if I was MSU. MSU is enough in the middle or on the right side of the value line.
But reality is the profitability of these media deals for those companies is bad. It's a bubble. CFB fandom isn't growing, certainly not at the rate needed to swing these media deals into wildly profitable ventures.
The other reality is to this point the 800 lb gorilla has been reasonably competitive with the SEC giants. What happens if OSU goes another 3-4 years with the gap between them and the SEC growing. How about the slightly smaller gorilla in Michigan seeing it's pretty obvious they don't belong with the top of the SEC. They just aren't on the same level, and frankly they aren't close, and something drastic needs to change for them to compete for national titles.
You think if someone at Michigan thinks, if we had $30M more per year than the top of the SEC we might be able to outclass them with assistants, divert more donor money to NIL to compete on recruits, they wouldn't do it? Because it's not going to be difficult to get it done.
And this idea that unequal revenue causes problems is kind of a dumb thought because it has always been the ones making the money that are unhappy and leave. 100% of the problem was that UT and OU (and back in the day A&M and Neb) were getting more than equal money, but they had better options, so they took them. Michigan and OSU have no option to make more money in another league. Yet they could basically snap their fingers and make more with a reasonable proposal that gets enough teams a favorable cut that they'll get on board. WTF is Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois, NW, Rutgers, Maryland going to do if they are faced with a deal that gives them $40m/year? It's still the best option they have by MILES. WTF is Iowa going to do if faced with the option to get $60M? It's the best option they have by MILES.
The reality is Ohio State and Michigan could propose a media distribution that is unequal and is still literally every team's best option available to them by a significant margin. They haven't done it yet. But they also haven't had a significant period where they are clearly not competitive with the SEC. There also has been a massive diminishing returns prior to NIL, where donors can provide NIL instead of giving to the AD. It's not like this diversion of donations isn't something everybody understands. So it's not like the universities even need to do anything illegal. Donors know this is a path to improving the utility of their donations in terms of wins/losses.
Good thoughts but I'd take issue with one thing: "But reality is the profitability of these media deals for those companies is bad. It's a bubble."
We've thought that for 20 years, probably more, and nothing ever changes. I'll believe the bubble pops when I actually see it happen.
That’s false.
Whether it happens or not is one thing, but it’s getting discussed in regards to several potential acquisitions. It can be very hard to put that back in the box. Of course, it will be packaged as temporal
We’ll see what happens, but if a haul of certain schools is needed to get you ND, unequal revenue sharing has some support. That’s just one example.
It’s this way with everything in the United States now. People think big bubbles pop more easily than small bubbles. The reality is a lot of the time small bubbles just get bigger and big bubbles just get even bigger and never pop. The entertainment “bubble” has been around for a really long time, like forever.
I’ve always thought “bubble” was a bad way of describing economic situations. They are more like balloons, something more substantial than a light breeze has to come along to pop them or they deflate slowly over time.
I don't see unequal revenue sharing passing the Big 10. But you are correct that the top teams will not subsidize the lower teams in the SEC and Big10 forever. But I see a new division forming with blowing up the existing conferences before I see unequal revenue sharing. When people talk about the P2 breaking away, I just don't buy it. They aren't taking Rutgers and Vanderbilt with them when they break away. I don't care how much less they're willing to take.
This cycle was the first time that TV paid extravagantly to separate conferences and brands that they valued higher. It is pretty foolish not to consider the motivations for that and where that leads. If I were MSU I'd be inclined to dismiss it too. But it doesn't end with this round either.
Could agree with this argument it Utah wasn't an elite FB program. If the Big 12 is going to close the media rights gap with Big10 & SEC in 2030- we need football teams that are capable of getting CFP bids.
To say Utah adds little value to Big12 since we already have BYU is like saying Iowa OR ISU represent the entirety of Iowa. We all know that in the Cyclone State fan overlap is pretty minimal.
Bubble is probably the wrong term. We see these contracts still getting bigger, but the growth rate overall is significantly slowed. Maybe Fox and ESPN can figure out new ways to monetize CFB broadcasts that they haven't yet. But short of that, every factor is pushing hard against continued growth of media deals.
The margins keep getting worse. CFB isn't growing in popularity, at least not remotely close to the rate of growth in media value. We're just getting to the point where the demographic that's part of a massive participation drop in youth football are starting to be household media purchasers. We are seeing a traditional power conference struggling to get a media deal and major media players walk away. Media and entertainment options keep growing.
The industry underwent massive growth where every conference started making tons more money. Now we're seeing that shift to where market share is the driving factor. Right now we're seeing the market share game being played out at the conference level. It's inevitable that it starts to play out at the intra-conference/school level.
Best case scenario for the industry is that it understands that it's entering into a slow-growth phase and operates as such. But it's pretty tough for schools to cash in on the industry wave for years, see that slow down, and know you could snap your fingers and take market share without doing it.
The RSNs are starting to file BK. MLB might need to produce their own broadcasts.
Not sure if there's popping since the RSN model is so heavily reliant on cable, but it could be the canary in the coalmine
ISU and the Vegas Golden Knights will have pretty similar TV revenue. Is that the right balance? Wrong?
Not sure but the times are a changin'
Unequal revenue sharing with phased increases for new members to the B1G is nothing new. I'd be interested in where you're seeing the notion of permanent unequal distribution discussed and who is in support. If you think USC is going to join the B1G and try treating it the same way they treated the PAC, I think you're kidding yourself.
Last edited:
That argument kind of holds true if Iowa has a top 25 football program.
Iowa has been very fortunate to have 2 football coaches over a 44 year period. And over that period, they haven't had many consecutive seasons of .500 or worse football.
Personally, Iowa is a tier below MSU, Wisky & Neb on a national perception scale. Iowa is in a tier with Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota and Maryland.