Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

Seems like the Big Ten is going to accomplish that with their model.
You would think so but I'm not sure it will work for Iowa when they have 3 protected rivalries. They really should stop pretending Iowa and Nebraska are rivals.

Nebraska seems to see Wisconsin as their natural rival when Rutgers seems to be more so at their current level.
 
Anybody suspect that ISU would be ranked #2 in revenue in the new B12? Right behind KU.

 
You would think so but I'm not sure it will work for Iowa when they have 3 protected rivalries. They really should stop pretending Iowa and Nebraska are rivals.

Nebraska seems to see Wisconsin as their natural rival when Rutgers seems to be more so at their current level.
There’s a chance a 16 team Big12 goes with three protected rivals, and not everyone is going to have 3 actual rivals to choose. So they will be forced to make new ones.
 
What a scam. Most profitable non profits. :)
Well, technically revenue =/= profits.

But if your point is that these "non profits" are maybe not quite the same animals as the American Lung Association or St. Judes Childrens Hospitals... that's a bullseye.
 
There’s a chance a 16 team Big12 goes with three protected rivals, and not everyone is going to have 3 actual rivals to choose. So they will be forced to make new ones.
I think you could do something like 1 protected rival and 2 "travel partners", where you play those 3 teams each year.
I know a lot aren't but I'm a big fan of the pods with these big conferences.
Group teams geographically so they at least have 3 games a year that are relatively close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CascadeClone
Well, technically revenue =/= profits.

But if your point is that these "non profits" are maybe not quite the same animals as the American Lung Association or St. Judes Childrens Hospitals... that's a bullseye.

The headline of the USA Today link was great though "most profitable".
 
Here is the total breakdown.

This is a great article to review and adds some additional details:

  • The "Total Allocated" bracket is "The sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support and state money allocated to the athletics department, minus certain funds the department transferred back to the school."
  • The "Percent Allocated" bracket is "Percent of revenues from allocated sources"


The Big 12 did very well, specifically Kansas State which didn't need any financial support from the university ($0). Kansas and ISU were at 1.28% ($1.5 million) and 1.66% ($1.8 million), respectively.

Texas Tech at 5.29% ($5.8 million), West Virginia at 8.45% ($8.8 million), and Oklahoma State at a surprising 12.46% ($13 million)

The incoming Big 12 programs should be excited at their financial future: 62.05% of Houston's revenues came from allocated sources ($48 million). UCF is at 54.69% ($48 million) and Cinci is at 32.29% ($26 million). I could see UCF and Houston surge into the top 40 once they start making Big 12 money and ease their financial burden on the university.
 
Anybody suspect that ISU would be ranked #2 in revenue in the new B12? Right behind KU.

I pay no attention to these as the fine print speaks volumes to what they really mean, and even then they usually don't represent that either.

Remember a similar "study" a few weeks ago that showed us wildly ahead of Ohio State and others for "market value" or whatever, largely based on "revenue"?

Revenue can take many forms and be masked and/or routed through various channels to avoid counting as pure revenue on AD financials. Not saying Iowa State isn't healthy, but consume alongside a truckload of Morton Sea Salt.
 
Exactly. I really appreciate Pollard recognizing during the first realignment apocalypse that ISU would have been in MWC due to the lack of investment in the facilities and coaches and with the last 10 years proactively invested to raise the profile and lower the potential of regulation of ISU when the next major realignment occurs.

While I absolutely believe the facilities upgrades have been necessary for the program, i'm not sure they're all that relevant to conference realignment. ISU's danger comes down to the fact that it exists in a smaller state and its best geographic alternative conference already has a member in the state with much more football success. We could upgrade everything to top notch in the facilities department and it wouldn't change that.
 
I pay no attention to these as the fine print speaks volumes to what they really mean, and even then they usually don't represent that either.

Remember a similar "study" a few weeks ago that showed us wildly ahead of Ohio State and others for "market value" or whatever, largely based on "revenue"?

Revenue can take many forms and be masked and/or routed through various channels to avoid counting as pure revenue on AD financials. Not saying Iowa State isn't healthy, but consume alongside a truckload of Morton Sea Salt.
As someone with an MBA (ie know a little about a lot) - when it comes to financial statements and what they REALLY tell you -- it's all in the fine print. Could not agree more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeremy
You would think so but I'm not sure it will work for Iowa when they have 3 protected rivalries. They really should stop pretending Iowa and Nebraska are rivals.

Nebraska seems to see Wisconsin as their natural rival when Rutgers seems to be more so at their current level.
Iowa, even with the 3 protected rivals, plays every other Big Ten team in the first two years and they have the least flexibility.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: jcyclonee
Anybody suspect that ISU would be ranked #2 in revenue in the new B12? Right behind KU.

Up 21 million from 2019-2020 year...16 million for 2018-2019
 
  • Like
Reactions: Acylum
Anybody suspect that ISU would be ranked #2 in revenue in the new B12? Right behind KU.

Among the public institutions, sure. But I would imagine the 3 privates are all above us, especially BYU with the LDS behind them.
 
Anybody suspect that ISU would be ranked #2 in revenue in the new B12? Right behind KU.


Not sure what this would have looked like the past several years. But hopefully the trend we usually see around the country continues and that means we are an upper half team in football every year. I don't want to be the new Texas in the new Big 12.
 
circumstances.

P.S. this didn't happen last week but several weeks ago the ASU athletic director said ASU is staying in the P12. Not sure if they change their tune if UA and CU leave, but for now they seem set in staying even with a bad deal.
Well I'm convinced now, ASU to the Big 12 is a done deal.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Remo Gaggi
Just curious, you can only pick 1:
4 corners schools or
Pitt, Louisivlle, VT, and NC state
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron