Conference Realignment

[wma500]

ND can kiss my O & B arse.................they really really REALLY can...................................

Independence isn’t for everyone

 

[Battle89]

Everyone who keeps saying "what's the point" already knows what the point is... actually, there's two.

First, money.
Second, power.

In no particular order.

Why do businesses buy other businesses, but keep the product basically untouched or renamed? In the same way, the Big Ten will likely absorb a couple more PAC-X schools and form a division of just former PAC-10/12/14 schools. Except now... the Big Ten gets the money and the control. The same will be true of the eventual collapse of the ACC.

On top of that, think about teams in a conference like owning shares in a business. When one person/group owns a majority share, they get a lot more sway in how things are done.

The Big Ten and SEC (and weirdly enough the Big 12 now...) are on their way towards fighting for majority shares. When there's only two or three real conferences left, the NCAA will eventually lose all power as individual conferences will control more. There will be a day, likely in our lifetime, that the Big Ten and SEC specifically will finally decide they can "do it better" than the NCAA, and withdraw. And when they do, the NCAA will be powerless to stop them, and powerless when they leave.

We aren't watching the collapse of college football (seriously... people need to step back from the ledge). We're witnessing the collapse of the NCAA. I for one welcome our super-conference overlords.

Reminds me of the beer wars in the early 2000s. (1) InBev buys A-B, SAB buys Miller, Molson buys Coors. (2) SABMIller buys (JV) MolsonCoors. (3) A-B InBev buys SABMillerCoors.

(4) DoJ makes A-B InBev divest Miller and Coors brands, which end up back with Molson. Is this Washington St and Oregon St? Future Rutgers and Illinois in the nightmare scenario?

I'm just hoping this huge conference means I see the crappy Big Ten refs less...

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

He's made millions, he's fine.

yea , it’s not about that . i’m sure he’s not at a street corner with a cup in hand

it’s the feeling you failed

 

[RabidDawgClassic]

Analysis: I can promise you I will never make the drive to Illinois, and even a flight to watch the Fighting Illini may not be too appealing.

Well, he's correct, because the BB freight train will will kick their a$$es by then.

EDIT: HT to @MustangWally ... yeah, complete rube:
University of Indiana?
University of Purdue?
University of Rutgers?

To be fair, he's not wrong. That last lap from Chicago to Willard Airport is generally an exhaustion tipping point.

 

[TheChief4Life]

Reminds me of the beer wars in the early 2000s. (1) InBev buys A-B, SAB buys Miller, Molson buys Coors. (2) SABMIller buys (JV) MolsonCoors. (3) A-B InBev buys SABMillerCoors.

(4) DoJ makes A-B InBev divest Miller and Coors brands, which end up back with Molson. Is this Washington St and Oregon St? Future Rutgers and Illinois in the nightmare scenario?

I'm just hoping this huge conference means I see the crappy Big Ten refs less...

Illinois aint going anywhere... everyone needs to drop that whole narrative.

 

[Battle89]

Illinois ain't going anywhere... everyone needs to drop that whole narrative.

I tend to agree, hence the 'nightmare' scenario. The combination of the historical membership plus the stronger teams needing weaker teams to achieve those 10-2 and 11-1 records probably makes us safe.

But to say it's a 100% lock? Can't do that. Just watched the Pac-12 implode in a week (or over a few months if you go back to the USC / UCLA defections). If the powers that be ($$$$) someday determine that some super-league of the top 10 or 12 teams makes financial sense, then it will happen.

 

[ChiefGritty]

I mean the guy that genuinely deserves a lot of credit is Brett Yormark.

Remember the timeline here, the Big XII media deal ended in 2025, a year after the Pac 12, but when the USC and UCLA thing happened, Yormark (brand new in the job, like his first month) exercised an exclusive window to negotiate with ESPN and Fox and rushed through a deal that was a very modest increase on their prior deal, but miles behind the B1G/SEC juggernauts and not even on par with the ACC, forgoing taking the rights to the open market.

They also got into the larger ESPN part of the deal that any new members from existing Power Five leagues could be added at a pro-rata amount (how the smaller Fox deal will handle these new Big 12 schools remains unknown).

And in terms of timing they jumped ahead of the Pac 12.

This was not some amazing coup of a deal, not a work of stunning negotiating genius. It was an acceptance of the Big XII's lower-tier status. And it was a life raft amid stormy seas. Turns out it was the last one.

I still can't believe there was just NOTHING out there for the Pac 12 on linear TV. I want to hear more about what those negotiations looked like, and with the knives out for Klivakoff I'm certain we will.

 

[altgeld88]

yea , it’s not about that . i’m sure he’s not at a street corner with a cup in hand

it’s the feeling you failed

This^^^ and the loss of power. Money only goes so far when you're 56, see your kingdom crumble beneath you, and are suddenly superfluous. Too old to score another comparable gig (in a shrinking market, no less) and too young to retire if you're someone with a yen for "enterprise control."

Am sure that Tony Pettiti will hire him as a "consultant." And let him know every day who's running the show.

 

[BRucks]

Illinois aint going anywhere... everyone needs to drop that whole narrative.

Never say never. It was probably 50/50 back in '81 after Dave Wilson penalties.

 

[ChiefGritty]

The new Big 12 would be better off, so much less annoying, and an even more loaded basketball league if they'd invited Memphis instead of UCF like I told them to.

 

[Illini92and96]

I tend to agree, hence the 'nightmare' scenario. The combination of the historical membership plus the stronger teams needing weaker teams to achieve those 10-2 and 11-1 records probably makes us safe.

But to say it's a 100% lock? Can't do that. Just watched the Pac-12 implode in a week (or over a few months if you go back to the USC / UCLA defections). If the powers that be ($$$$) someday determine that some super-league of the top 10 or 12 teams makes financial sense, then it will happen.

Prime example is in Europe, where recently the top soccer clubs in Spain, Italy, the Uk, etc. wanted to form a super league to maximize the $ coming their way. Fans revolted and they changed their mind, but the desire (and greed) by the teams was there. Instead of the top clubs from each country it would be the top teams from each conference. Although it would likely just be the top of the big and sec.

 

[ChiefGritty]

Prime example is in Europe, where recently the top soccer clubs in Spain, Italy, the Uk, etc. wanted to form a super league to maximize the $ coming their way. Fans revolted

The difference between that and what's going on in college sports is so, so striking.

And you left out, it was the fans OF THE TEAMS BEING INVITED TO THE SUPER LEAGUE who were the ones literally rioting outside the stadiums.

They weren't just against leaving a dead system behind them to be crowned into the elite, they were willing to take to the streets to fight it.

Good for them, thank goodness for them, and there's a whoooole lot about the difference between Europe and America in that.

 

[Illini92and96]

The difference between that and what's going on in college sports is so, so striking.

And you left out, it was the fans OF THE TEAMS BEING INVITED TO THE SUPER LEAGUE who were the ones literally rioting outside the stadiums.

They weren't just against leaving a dead system behind them to be crowned into the elite, they were willing to take to the streets to fight it.

Good for them, thank goodness for them, and there's a whoooole lot about the difference between Europe and America in that.

Uh, ok. What’s exactly the same is the greed by the top teams. The difference is the fan base. I wish in the US the fans/$s had more say.

 

[TentakilRex]

The difference between that and what's going on in college sports is so, so striking.

And you left out, it was the fans OF THE TEAMS BEING INVITED TO THE SUPER LEAGUE who were the ones literally rioting outside the stadiums.

They weren't just against leaving a dead system behind them to be crowned into the elite, they were willing to take to the streets to fight it.

Good for them, thank goodness for them, and there's a whoooole lot about the difference between Europe and America in that.

Oddly the Super league popped in my head too this morning, but a different aspect of its failure got into my mind. The fan protests helped but the first nail coffin were Bayern Munich, Dortmund (first two clubs fan owned), and oddly PSG declining the initial invite to the Super League. To prevent a college Super League, you need a Bayern and a Dortmund who is going to be loyal to their ideals (and I already can smell the sanctimonious posts from Ann Arbor from here lol).

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

Never say never. It was probably 50/50 back in '81 after Dave Wilson penalties.

I was in school then

it might have been 50/50 among the student body to leave the league , but it was 100/0 among the powers that be to stay in .

the Big10 never ever threatened to kick us out back then

 

[GForce]

We've gone from five major conferences that align with a region of the country as commonly culturally understood to (at most) one.

I think regionalism is underrated across a lot of domains in our society.

Totally agree. Check out this writer/researcher Colin Woodard who maps 11 distinct regions in the US. Very compelling.
https://www.businessinsider.com/regional-differences-united-states-2018-1?op=1 (sorry it's a biz insider article)

Personally it's what makes conference competition within these regions so fun, and spicy. And also the post-season games of one regional/conf winner vs another, like the Rose Bowl (aw, how quaint), or the BigTen/ACC challenge in b-ball.

 

[ChiefGritty]

I wish in the US the fans/$s had more say.

clubs fan owned

It is not coincidental that different allocations of power lead to different outcomes.

Anyway, there's like a four-episode docuseries on AppleTV+ about the whole Super League mess. "Super League: The War For Football". Very entertaining, I recommend it if you're interested in the topic.

 

[BashCtIllini]

Prime example is in Europe, where recently the top soccer clubs in Spain, Italy, the Uk, etc. wanted to form a super league to maximize the $ coming their way. Fans revolted and they changed their mind, but the desire (and greed) by the teams was there. Instead of the top clubs from each country it would be the top teams from each conference. Although it would likely just be the top of the big and sec.

I don't think teams will get kicked out of the league, but I do think there will be an unequal share of the revenues. Let's just say the Big Ten adds Cal, Stanford, FSU, Miami, Notre Dame, and Clemson.

How long will it be before Michigan, Ohio State, USC, FSU, Clemson, Penn State, and maybe Oregon start demanding more of a share. The conference will definitely do it, the question is just how will the do it? Will it be based on average attendance, merchandise sales, tv ratings, a combo of them all. Forbes listing of college football program value would have Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Oregon, FSU, and USC at the top of the list. I think we know Illinois is going to be near the bottom. So I absolutely think there will be a day where a full share is $100 M or so per team, and the conference says the top 8 schools get a 100% share, middle third gets a 67% share, bottom third gets a 50% share. So is that going to piss teams off? Yes. Can they do anything about it? No.

What bothers me is it is all predicated on football. Michigan State would be in the middle third, and they would be very correct in saying, we're the top of the conference for basketball why should we take less than Clemson who is not good at basketball. Illinois could say we're certainly in the top 3rd for basketball why are we getting a bottom thirds share, same with teams like Indiana and Purdue.

My even bigger concern is some teams will just never be competitive. If you're never competitive, how long does it take until your fanbase is little more than the diehards? And sorry to say it, I think Illinois football, even with just these 18 teams will not be competitive. If they bring in 2-6 more strong teams, even less competitive. We can compete with anyone in basketball, but football, unless there is some big change, not so much.

 

[ChiefGritty]

My even bigger concern is some teams will just never be competitive. If you're never competitive, how long does it take until your fanbase is little more than the diehards?

We're still a long conceptual gulf away, but concepts like a salary cap and a draft are going to start working their way toward this space eventually.

Probably after a super league-ization when Illinois is long gone, though.

Good riddance.

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

oh geez
stop worrying about crap you have no control over like this stuff and the weather

my lord

 

[Shief]

Never mind wishing to kick their feathery behinds (and pride goeth before the fall and so on), this guy doesn't seem to have done much traveling.

Getting to Champaign means flying into O'Hare and getting a rental car because you'll nver be able to get a seat on a football weekend (or so I'd think). Perhaps an easier way to get to champaign via air would be to fly to Indianapolis, rent a car and make the relatively short drive.

Getting to State College for Penn State is a real headache. It's in the middle of nowhere--a pretty nowhere but still nowhere--and flying in will be a challenge. Flying to Harrisburg and driving up? First you have to get to Harrisburg. From Philly it's a sizeable drive, ditto Pittsburgh. I'll betcha most of those seats in Happy Valley are driving from Pennsylvania.

I am going to show my engineering/desire for efficient transportation here.

Why can't there be an easy train connection between O'Hare and downstate? I know that the L has a line that goes from the Amtrac station to O'Hare but I'm not going to do that. I will purposely pay another $200 round-trip to take a hopper from Willard/CU or CIRA/Bloomington to O'Hare an then onto my destination. If there was a good train service from O'Hare to Champaign, then USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington fans could easily come to games here.

 

[BretMyBeachHouse]

I don't think teams will get kicked out of the league, but I do think there will be an unequal share of the revenues. Let's just say the Big Ten adds Cal, Stanford, FSU, Miami, Notre Dame, and Clemson.

How long will it be before Michigan, Ohio State, USC, FSU, Clemson, Penn State, and maybe Oregon start demanding more of a share. The conference will definitely do it, the question is just how will the do it? Will it be based on average attendance, merchandise sales, tv ratings, a combo of them all. Forbes listing of college football program value would have Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Oregon, FSU, and USC at the top of the list. I think we know Illinois is going to be near the bottom. So I absolutely think there will be a day where a full share is $100 M or so per team, and the conference says the top 8 schools get a 100% share, middle third gets a 67% share, bottom third gets a 50% share. So is that going to piss teams off? Yes. Can they do anything about it? No.

What bothers me is it is all predicated on football. Michigan State would be in the middle third, and they would be very correct in saying, we're the top of the conference for basketball why should we take less than Clemson who is not good at basketball. Illinois could say we're certainly in the top 3rd for basketball why are we getting a bottom thirds share, same with teams like Indiana and Purdue.

My even bigger concern is some teams will just never be competitive. If you're never competitive, how long does it take until your fanbase is little more than the diehards? And sorry to say it, I think Illinois football, even with just these 18 teams will not be competitive. If they bring in 2-6 more strong teams, even less competitive. We can compete with anyone in basketball, but football, unless there is some big change, not so much.

I don't think this will happen. Everyone is making tons of money. The OSUs are making even more on their ticket sales, sponsorships, etc. I suppose something along the lines of tv appearances factoring into TV revenue. But they'd all be crazy to kill the golden goose.

Along those lines I anticipate notre dame becoming progressively less satisfied with their deals.

 

[BretMyBeachHouse]

I am going to show my engineering/desire for efficient transportation here.

Why can't there be an easy train connection between O'Hare and downstate? I know that the L has a line that goes from the Amtrac station to O'Hare but I'm not going to do that. I will purposely pay another $200 round-trip to take a hopper from Willard/CU or CIRA/Bloomington to O'Hare an then onto my destination. If there was a good train service from O'Hare to Champaign, then USC, UCLA, Oregon, and Washington fans could easily come to games here.

Lol.

Money. It's not complicated.

Good news is that autonomous cars are going to take the bite out of so.e of this misery in the next 20 years.

 

[SeattleSlim]

For, um, ducks.

As opposed to, um, hogs?

 

[MustangWally]

I don't think teams will get kicked out of the league, but I do think there will be an unequal share of the revenues. Let's just say the Big Ten adds Cal, Stanford, FSU, Miami, Notre Dame, and Clemson.

How long will it be before Michigan, Ohio State, USC, FSU, Clemson, Penn State, and maybe Oregon start demanding more of a share. The conference will definitely do it, the question is just how will the do it? Will it be based on average attendance, merchandise sales, tv ratings, a combo of them all. Forbes listing of college football program value would have Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Oregon, FSU, and USC at the top of the list. I think we know Illinois is going to be near the bottom. So I absolutely think there will be a day where a full share is $100 M or so per team, and the conference says the top 8 schools get a 100% share, middle third gets a 67% share, bottom third gets a 50% share. So is that going to piss teams off? Yes. Can they do anything about it? No.

What bothers me is it is all predicated on football. Michigan State would be in the middle third, and they would be very correct in saying, we're the top of the conference for basketball why should we take less than Clemson who is not good at basketball. Illinois could say we're certainly in the top 3rd for basketball why are we getting a bottom thirds share, same with teams like Indiana and Purdue.

My even bigger concern is some teams will just never be competitive. If you're never competitive, how long does it take until your fanbase is little more than the diehards? And sorry to say it, I think Illinois football, even with just these 18 teams will not be competitive. If they bring in 2-6 more strong teams, even less competitive. We can compete with anyone in basketball, but football, unless there is some big change, not so much.

Just curious . . . how many votes will be required to bring that about? I can't imagine anyone except the "top 8" voting for that.