Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[Die4Cy]

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.

Well I guess we don't know. What we've heard is that they would get a cut rate for the entire period of the new deal. But this deal is shorter than the previous one. It could mean the same trend as previously, but it might not. I guess in my mind the current media deal is not that relevant. What's the deal after that look like?

USCLA and OuT happened because they understand there is not infinite media money and TV slots, and they want their "value." But when your conference keeps expanding for brands, the same factors apply to everyone else they share the pot of money with. USC won't be playing OSU on the BTN. That's where Iowa will be playing Indiana and Purdue though. Everyone understands already these teams have very different values, I'm just saying it's likely the time will come that something happens where you'll be paid like it, because if you believe in scarcity of resources, it has to.

 

[isucy86]

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.

It's almost comical to look at the media rights valuations when the BTN was formed a dozen or so years ago.

I feel the market has changed if we see the demise of the Pac12. It's an indicator that ESPN, etc are capping their investment in college athletics.

I also look at demographics. Not sure people under 25 have the same broad interest in sport viewership. Those who are sport fans follow their teams, but beyond that their interest is limited. There are other time diversions these days like gaming.

 

[Gunnerclone]

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.

Utah is an elite fb program like KSU is an elite fb program in that they aren’t elite at all. Did they have some elite TEAMS over the years? Arguably.

 

[Gonzo]

Well I guess we don't know. What we've heard is that they would get a cut rate for the entire period of the new deal. But this deal is shorter than the previous one. It could mean the same trend as previously, but it might not. I guess I'm my mind the current media deal is not that relevant. What's the deal after that look like?

USCLA and OuT happened because they understand there is not infinite media money and TV slots, and they want their "value." But when your conference keeps expanding for brands, the same factors apply to everyone else they share the put on money with. USC won't be playing OSU on the BTN. That's where Iowa will be playing Indiana and Purdue though. Everyone admits these teams have very different values, I'm just saying it's likely the time will come that something happens where you'll be paid like it, because if you believe in scarcity of resources, it has to.

I don't see the B1G going to unequal revenue distribution from its media deal at any point. You don't get to be the most stable and most wealthy conference in the country by changing the very model that got you there. The only unequal sharing that I could maybe see happening would be with the new CFP distributions. I still don't know how likely it is, but the B1G could create a revenue distribution model where everybody still gets a chunk but there's added rewards for whichever teams earn those CFP berths for that given year.

 

[AuH2O]

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.

Let’s say you have an average of $80m/team in the Big 10.

OSU, UM and USC get $120
PSU gets $100
UW and MSU get $90
Iowa, Neb and UCLA get $85
MN, IL, Rut, MD, Purdue, NW, Indiana get $57m

Specific numbers aside, its a simple illustration how to find a situation where a majority are better off than they are under equal revenue sharing, and those that aren’t don’t have an alternative where it’s even close.

OSU, Michigan and to a lesser extent USC and PSU are driving all the revenue and they know it. Plug in or out any other current P5 teams and the differences for per team revenue are in the margins. But some of those others might need to have their vote bought.

 

[SCNCY]

I don't see the B1G going to unequal revenue distribution from its media deal at any point. You don't get to be the most stable and most wealthy conference in the country by changing the very model that got you there. The only unequal sharing that I could maybe see happening would be with the new CFP distributions. I still don't know how likely it is, but the B1G could create a revenue distribution model where everybody still gets a chunk but there's added rewards for whichever teams earn those CFP berths for that given year.

I think the talk of unequal revenue won't start until TV contracts start to become more stagnant in their increases. Once that pay increase starts to diminish, then I could see the bigger schools asking for more in order to fund their programs.

 

[cyfan92]

The biggest cons of these super conferences is 3/4 super powers, some nice teams, and willing wiping boys.

The BEST thing going for the Big 12 is outside of KU Basketball, there are no super powers and no obvious wiping boys. Outsiders will see no football power, but any given year, 1/2-2/3 of the football programs can win a league title.

 

[Die4Cy]

This has become a circular discussion because our Big Ten brothers, having never experienced financial pressures on their conference, choose to believe that it can't happen, despite all the evidence in the world that is been going on for quite a while around college football.

There will be a practical point where an ISU or TCU game drawing 2.2 million viewers will be worth X amount to a tv partner and someone like Maryland will be paid 2X for regularly drawing a third of that and it is silly to pretend the media partner will be content to roll with that for eternity. That's where it will happen.

 

[isucy86]

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.

IMHO we are going to see it after the 12 team playoff goes out to bid. Conferences could split their CFP monies along the lines:

1. 80% split evenly among teams.
2. 20% distributed to teams that earn playoff bids.

That favors schools like OSU, Michigan and USC. But all other Big 10 schools can earn the bonus if they put a team in the playoffs.

Depending how NIL evolves or athlete employee status could be the levers to push for uneven distribution. Wasn't it last summer that Ryan Day went on record with OSU alumni they would need a $15M NIL fund to "stay competitive".

 

[KnappShack]

Let’s say you have an average of $80m/team in the Big 10.

OSU, UM and USC get $120
PSU gets $100
UW and MSU get $90
Iowa, Neb and UCLA get $85
MN, IL, Rut, MD, Purdue, NW, Indiana get $57m

Specific numbers aside, its a simple illustration how to find a situation where a majority are better off than they are under equal revenue sharing, and those that aren’t don’t have an alternative where it’s even close.

OSU, Michigan and to a lesser extent USC and PSU are driving all the revenue and they know it. Plug in or out any other current P5 teams and the differences for per team revenue are in the margins. But some of those others might need to have their vote bought.

And TV loves the rivalry games. A well funded group of rivals meeting year end will drive ratings and payoffs.

MN, IL, Rutgers are just cannon fodder now. So why pay them the same as OSU, Michigan, PSU, and USC?

Tell me this unequal payoff stuff won't happen

 

[Gunnerclone]

Let’s say you have an average of $80m/team in the Big 10.

OSU, UM and USC get $120
PSU gets $100
UW and MSU get $90
Iowa, Neb and UCLA get $85
MN, IL, Rut, MD, Purdue, NW, Indiana get $57m

Specific numbers aside, its a simple illustration how to find a situation where a majority are better off than they are under equal revenue sharing, and those that aren’t don’t have an alternative where it’s even close.

OSU, Michigan and to a lesser extent USC and PSU are driving all the revenue and they know it. Plug in or out any other current P5 teams and the differences for per team revenue are in the margins. But some of those others might need to have their vote bought.

I could definitely see unequal revenue sharing when it comes to playoff money. tOSU and Michigan are going to get sick of making the playoffs every year and having to give most of that away.

 

[Clonedogg]

The biggest cons of these super conferences is 3/4 super powers, some nice teams, and willing wiping boys.

The BEST thing going for the Big 12 is outside of KU Basketball, there are no super powers and no obvious wiping boys. Outsiders will see no football power, but any given year, 1/2-2/3 of the football programs can win a league title.

wiping or whipping? Similar, I guess, but very different imagery.

 

[cyfan92]

I could definitely see unequal revenue sharing when it comes to playoff money. tOSU and Michigan are going to get sick of making the playoffs every year and having to give most of that away.

European soccer does the playoffs right. Let the giants go play each other in the Champions League. The mid-tiers like ISU and Iowa have their own playoffs

 

[Clonehomer]

Let’s say you have an average of $80m/team in the Big 10.

OSU, UM and USC get $120
PSU gets $100
UW and MSU get $90
Iowa, Neb and UCLA get $85
MN, IL, Rut, MD, Purdue, NW, Indiana get $57m

Specific numbers aside, its a simple illustration how to find a situation where a majority are better off than they are under equal revenue sharing, and those that aren’t don’t have an alternative where it’s even close.

OSU, Michigan and to a lesser extent USC and PSU are driving all the revenue and they know it. Plug in or out any other current P5 teams and the differences for per team revenue are in the margins. But some of those others might need to have their vote bought.

What happens when ESPN goes to those top teams and says they'll give them $120m to play Illinois or $200m to play Alabama?

 

[HFCS]

It's almost comical to look at the media rights valuations when the BTN was formed a dozen or so years ago.

I feel the market has changed if we see the demise of the Pac12. It's an indicator that ESPN, etc are capping their investment in college athletics.

I also look at demographics. Not sure people under 25 have the same broad interest in sport viewership. Those who are sport fans follow their teams, but beyond that their interest is limited. There are other time diversions these days like gaming.

I've lived in LA for 9 years. In that time I have had college basketball talk with one person, a neighbor who is a hardcore Arizona booster and works in sports media. One person (unless you count my best friend who lives here and is also a native Iowan and ISU grad).

I made a business trip to Memphis last week. 4 out of 5 Uber drivers struck up a conversation with me about college basketball. All four of the people I worked with struck up conversations about basketball. Many of them knew details of ISU, Iowa, Caitlyn Clark, they remembered "you kicked our butt last year" about our Memphis game, then knew of player transfers back and forth between ISU and Memphis.

It's not just age, but region. I wouldn't balk if you told me someone is 100x more likely to actually watch college basketball in Memphis compared to Los Angeles. It might be 200x or 400x.

 

[Acylum]

I could definitely see unequal revenue sharing when it comes to playoff money. tOSU and Michigan are going to get sick of making the playoffs every year and having to give most of that away.

You don’t think OSU and UM will happily give away 95% of the CFP dollars after realignment is done?

 

[awd4cy]

Add the Arizona schools and stop there. In 10 years we can then add Pitt, Louisville, and Virginia Tech.

 

[KnappShack]

I've lived in LA for 9 years. In that time I have had college basketball talk with one person, a neighbor who is a hardcore Arizona booster and works in sports media. One person (unless you count my best friend who lives here and is also a native Iowan and ISU grad).

I made a business trip to Memphis last week. 4 out of 5 Uber drivers struck up a conversation with me about college basketball. All four of the people I worked with struck up conversations about basketball. Many of them knew details of ISU, Iowa, Caitlyn Clark, they remembered "you kicked our butt last year" about our Memphis game, then knew of player transfers back and forth between ISU and Memphis.

It's not just age, but region. I wouldn't balk if you told me someone is 100x more likely to actually watch college basketball in Memphis compared to Los Angeles. It might be 200x or 400x.

Why watch college when the Lakers are on?

Hell...why watch the Clippers when the Lakers are on?

 

[cyfanatic]

Why watch college when the Lakers are on?

Hell...why watch the Clippers when the Lakers are on?

The Clippers/Lakers comment is so true! Love it! That said...I hate the Lakers!

 

[AuH2O]

I could definitely see unequal revenue sharing when it comes to playoff money. tOSU and Michigan are going to get sick of making the playoffs every year and having to give most of that away.

And that might be enough. I just think a lot of these teams in the middle of the conference see $80m/team and think since they are in the middle they must be worth $80m/year. I don't think people fully grasp how much Ohio State, and to a lesser extent Michigan are the revenue in the conference.

Imagine the Big 10 gets to the end of the next contract and Ohio State, Michigan, PSU got together and said they are leaving the Big 10 and joining Notre Dame to start a new conference. Then they start opening it up for bids for the other 8-12 members. Be smart about scheduling and you'll have 2-4 games with those four teams alone that will draw huge numbers.

"Oh, Nebraska. You think you're worth $100M per year? Go F yourself and take your fake sellouts and balloon littering with you, because we can just plug Oklahoma State in for $35M."

"Iowa, you want $90M per year? Nobody outside of your dumpy ass little state really gives a **** about you or Iowa State, who, by the way just called and said they're good to go for $25M a year. So go back home and think really hard about how badly you want in and come back with a better figure."