Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
Theoretically, yes. But if a guy can walkon and get paid to be bench depth at Kentucky. Wouldn't he be better off to get paid to play at Mizzouri? In the end, playing time has more upside toward the goal of being an NBA or NFL player.
So you clearly didn’t read my post. I said the only way a walk on is getting paid is if they are getting the same cut that the other players are from NIL. That’s exactly what tech is doing. All the football players are getting paid. No one is specifically putting money in to pay “awesome” 4/3 three star players because they are on a scholarship cap. Also those players would never be walk ons in the first place for a dozen different reasons.
Trust me I’m paying attention I started a thread talking about how ISU should start a collective a year+ before it happened and got negged to oblivion. No team is having too guys come on as walk ons to save scholarships the top players would be insulted if you tried.
Again if you’re good you’re not taking some handshake deal to walk on anywhere, that’s just not the way it works. If you’re good enough to contribute to a quality team you’re getting a scholarship. That’s part of the whole recruitment process in the first place!
I was simply replying to an earlier post that proposed this. It does seem far-fetched to me.
I've been thinking a version of this for quite a while.
I'm fine with the move because I think it makes it even more likely the Big 12 can snatch the 2-6 teams that will be great available fits sometime soon. (not Stanford and Cal)
Then we could add Hawaii and Syracuse and purchase our own airliners so they can travel seemingly halfway around the world. Ha Ha.
Why any byes? Make everyone earn the title, don't give the "favorites" an extra rest period, while everyone else faces injury risks and exhaustion.
Agree. Sorry for not being clear. Going to Mizzou would include being on scholarship.
With NIL and most schools growing their collective pool of money, I feel that helps non blue blood schools and will contribute to parity.
If I'm a kid, why not seek out immediate playing time if the school gives me a scholarship and a nice amount of NIL money. If a kid's game develops and playing for National title is important, can always use the immediate transfer rule to jump to blue blood.
A player getting a full ride via their NIL.
Because it gives the regular season even more meaning. If you do 8 those top couple of teams heading into the final week and conference championships could basically rest starters and get in. But you aren’t doing that if it may cost you a bye. You can’t do 6 without byes. It doesn’t work. It’s no different than the way the NFL used to do the NFC and AFC playoffs before they went to seven teams getting in.
You have to have home field in a 6-team format to make it worth while. 8 teams to me is too many as we already have blowouts everywhere in the 4-team model. 6 gets you all of the power conference champs and some at-larges.
Could be a great conference championship weekend if you are basically having play in games but also who gets the two byes and home field.
The lower ACC schools just want more bodies so that the conference survives when the top schools leave. The top ACC schools are only considering this because they can feed off of Cal, Stan, and SMU's desperation and use them as pawns to grab most of the extra payout the conference would receive. Here is the start/restart of unequal revenue sharing, and only a sign of things to come as we move forward. I do love, however, that the new Big 12/16 is fully comprised of non powerhouse teams and seems to be at a good middle ground across the board.
I mean, it depends on the math being done.
If theyre having to take small shares to go to the ACC, it may make just as much sense for them to take similar in the big 12
Im extremely doubtful of this happening though. Most likely just both sides doing some due diligence
Reading the comments on this, the 'rumor' (ESPN behind this) is interesting. Are they trying to prevent the ACC to more easily dissect them when the time comes? Are they positioning themselves to dissect the B12 in coo hoots with Fox when the B12 contract comes due? Is Iger trying to build a portfolio that Apple would have greater interest in?
Last edited:
It's going to boil down to the former PAC schools getting an aggregate number equal to the ESPN range.
They didn't read the market and killed their conference for absolutely nothing.
While I agree with this, I think the real moves are many steps down the road.
Well I think thats pretty obvious. This is far from over and will make less sense as we go on.
I’m not convinced the Networks are working 3-4 steps ahead, mostly because having a conference’s media deal now doesn’t mean they’ll have that conferences next media deal. Yes, the SEC and B10 are very cozy with their networks, but that doesn’t mean anything for the next round.
But as a thought experiment, let’s just say ESPN and/or Fox wanted to move some pierces around for the next round of realignment. Clearly, the B10 and SEC are a #1/#2 conference set. Would it be preferable to have a #3/#4 set of roughly equivalent conferences or a sole #3 conference with everyone else being another step down?
I’d argue a 3/4 set would be advantageous for a variety of reasons, and I mega-sized #3 conference might be too unwieldy and disproportionate to their #3 conference.
I think where the networks are willing to put their money for these PAC schools might give an indication of where they’d like things to go. If the add to the B12, the ACC is probably ****** long term. Like truly and terribly. The SEC and B10 are going big when those schools are available - like maybe more than 6. If they add the PAC to the ACC, it might indicate they’re looking to keep 4 conferences and further B10/SEC expansion would be on the small side.