Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[Jkclone15]

At the end of the day, the facts are pretty clear...

• The B1G and SEC hold ALL the leverage.
• Other conferences are grasping at straws to create alternative paths forward.
• Those other conferences have NO leverage to get B1G or SEC to the table.
• Media companies - those that drive most of this - have absolutely every reason to prevent those alternative paths.
• Viewership is INCREASING despite all the turmoil and fan threats of tuning out.
• NIL is here to stay and donors are clear that they don't plan on changing directions or giving less.
• As contracts continue to come up for renewal, B1G and SEC will continue to create further tiers of pay that only continue to expand the already huge financial distribution margins.
• As players become employees, the financial income differences are only going to hit harder to the second tier.
• Non BB and FB programs are going to be hurt massively with employment because they don't contribute to the bottom line and will only further take from it.

Now, I hate every single bullet above, but the sooner everybody understands it's the reality, the sooner the mindset can change to ensuring that 2nd tier is in the best position possible. I don't fault them for trying to throw pasta at the wall, but the B1G and SEC aren't even in the restaurant to care.

The ACC, Big 12, Pac12 whatever, and some other possible conferences need to create their own steering group to ensure they are in lock-step at every turn. This is the time for an actual, meaningful, and legally binding alliance of the tier 2 conferences.

I think the viewership increasing despite threats to tune out is really interesting. Would you say the increased engagement is tied the chaos, or coincidental? Because

It's from Depressed Ginger, so you know it is a POS take.



View attachment 127085

I'm really confused how they consider Utah the most valuable school in the B12 and BYU the least. I guess AAU affiliation? Otherwise they're two large schools from the same state with similar history.

 

[Nolaeer]

The fact that "depressed ginger" has Stanford ranked above FSU in realignment value tells me all i need to know about his list.

 

[MountainManHawk]

The fact that "depressed ginger" has Stanford ranked above FSU in realignment value tells me all i need to know about his list.

The other one that stands out is North Carolina, because all we hear is about how UNC is the most desirable school out there other than Notre Dame and he doesn’t have them ranked well at all. It does make me wonder what variable his model is missing that makes the TV execs crave UNC so much more than his model says they should.

With Stanford I think I get it, their admissions requirements and lack of administrative devotion to football bring down their value although they rank super high on all of the other metrics.

With North Carolina it’s a little less clear to me. I know it’s a large fast growing state but I could say the same thing about Arizona and neither the SEC nor B1G seem to care about getting into Arizona. Arizona isn’t good in football but neither is UNC.

 

[2speedy1]

I think the viewership increasing despite threats to tune out is really interesting. Would you say the increased engagement is tied the chaos, or coincidental? Because

I'm really confused how they consider Utah the most valuable school in the B12 and BYU the least. I guess AAU affiliation? Otherwise they're two large schools from the same state with similar history.

Because its Tony Altimore.

He's an absolute clown.

Nothing he claims as facts is ever actual facts.

Just like his made up data points.

 

[ljm4cy]

It's from Depressed Ginger, so you know it is a POS take.



View attachment 127085

Tony Altimore was the source of graphs and scoring. Depressed Ginger was commenting on Altimore's "research." He questioned Altimore's evaluation of Stanford and Cal, so I have to give him a little credit. Overall, however, it was pretty lame.

 

[BCClone]

The other one that stands out is North Carolina, because all we hear is about how UNC is the most desirable school out there other than Notre Dame and he doesn’t have them ranked well at all. It does make me wonder what variable his model is missing that makes the TV execs crave UNC so much more than his model says they should.

With Stanford I think I get it, their admissions requirements and lack of administrative devotion to football bring down their value although they rank super high on all of the other metrics.

With North Carolina it’s a little less clear to me. I know it’s a large fast growing state but I could say the same thing about Arizona and neither the SEC nor B1G seem to care about getting into Arizona. Arizona isn’t good in football but neither is UNC.

Arizona folks don't care about sports as much as NC folks do. NC academics are considered better also. Those two things elevate NC over the AZ schools.

 

[isucy86]

At the end of the day, the facts are pretty clear...

• The B1G and SEC hold ALL the leverage.
• Other conferences are grasping at straws to create alternative paths forward.
• Those other conferences have NO leverage to get B1G or SEC to the table.
• Media companies - those that drive most of this - have absolutely every reason to prevent those alternative paths.
• Viewership is INCREASING despite all the turmoil and fan threats of tuning out.
• NIL is here to stay and donors are clear that they don't plan on changing directions or giving less.
• As contracts continue to come up for renewal, B1G and SEC will continue to create further tiers of pay that only continue to expand the already huge financial distribution margins.
• As players become employees, the financial income differences are only going to hit harder to the second tier.
• Non BB and FB programs are going to be hurt massively with employment because they don't contribute to the bottom line and will only further take from it.

Now, I hate every single bullet above, but the sooner everybody understands it's the reality, the sooner the mindset can change to ensuring that 2nd tier is in the best position possible. I don't fault them for trying to throw pasta at the wall, but the B1G and SEC aren't even in the restaurant to care.

The ACC, Big 12, Pac12 whatever, and some other possible conferences need to create their own steering group to ensure they are in lock-step at every turn. This is the time for an actual, meaningful, and legally binding alliance of the tier 2 conferences.

I agree that the Big10/SEC and Networks have a vested interest in pushing the bullet points above.

But the one point I would contest is related to viewership. Sure it has been increasing with all the chaos. But we are maybe 25% through the chaos and conference realignment is not new chaos. The key is when CFB is 80% through the chaos, is viewership still growing?

1. Will fans of Big12 & ACC schools have same engagement with the entire CFB ecosystem if their programs are relegated to second-class status when it comes to the playoff berths. And TV coverage. Same can be said of G5 program fans.
2. Will regular season viewership thrive when CFB plays a 14 or 16 team playoff. Do more playoff teams lessen interest in Sept/Oct games.
3. Is a 14 or 16 team playoff even good for the sport. It is structured to have the Championship game in late January and we already see blow outs with a 4 team CFP.
4. How do fans react to student-athletes becoming employees of the universities.
5. How do the athlete-employees react to their new found wealth and freedoms.
6. Demographics is changing, are younger generations as engaged with intercollegiate sports during and after their college experience.

The changes that are about to take place are huge and will drastically change college sports. What we have seen so far is just a reshuffling of deck chairs.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I agree that the Big10/SEC and Networks have a vested interest in pushing the bullet points above.

But the one point I would contest is related to viewership. Sure it has been increasing with all the chaos. But we are maybe 25% through the chaos and conference realignment is not new chaos. The key is when CFB is 80% through the chaos, is viewership still growing?

1. Will fans of Big12 & ACC schools have same engagement with the entire CFB ecosystem if their programs are relegated to second-class status when it comes to the playoff berths. And TV coverage. Same can be said of G5 program fans.
2. Will regular season viewership thrive when CFB plays a 14 or 16 team playoff. Do more playoff teams lessen interest in Sept/Oct games.
3. Is a 14 or 16 team playoff even good for the sport. It is structured to have the Championship game in late January and we already see blow outs with a 4 team CFP.
4. How do fans react to student-athletes becoming employees of the universities.
5. How do the athlete-employees react to their new found wealth and freedoms.
6. Demographics is changing, are younger generations as engaged with intercollegiate sports during and after their college experience.

The changes that are about to take place are huge and will drastically change college sports. What we have seen so far is just a reshuffling of deck chairs.

1. Yes because you actually have more access then ever before
2. Yes, that’s why the bye’s for the big ten and SEC were negotiated
3. Little more parity among the top with all the changes and no more saban so most likely fewer blowouts except for the G5 sacrifice
4. That’s gonna be fought tooth and nail but isn’t going to effect fan interest anymore then NIL has.
5. They already are gods on campus and have been getting paid for awhile, no change.

6. Separating this one because this is the biggest concern, younger generations don’t seem to care about live sports as much but we have yet to see a ratings issue so far so it’s possible college sports at the big programs are insulated from this but this is the real billion dollar question.

 

[jctisu]

1. Yes because you actually have more access then ever before
2. Yes, that’s why the bye’s for the big ten and SEC were negotiated
3. Little more parity among the top with all the changes and no more saban so most likely fewer blowouts except for the G5 sacrifice
4. That’s gonna be fought tooth and nail but isn’t going to effect fan interest anymore then NIL has.
5. They already are gods on campus and have been getting paid for awhile, no change.

6. Separating this one because this is the biggest concern, younger generations don’t seem to care about live sports as much but we have yet to see a ratings issue so far so it’s possible college sports at the big programs are insulated from this but this is the real billion dollar question.

Point 6 for yours is the most fascinating to me. As you said the ratings have just been going up across many sports. However, we hear all of the time how the youth is not an engaged with live sports outside of really big, national and trendy stories. So it’s likely going to be hard to tell for another decade really as older generations die off to see what will really occur. It’s very fascinating though.

 

[KnappShack]

1. Yes because you actually have more access then ever before
2. Yes, that’s why the bye’s for the big ten and SEC were negotiated
3. Little more parity among the top with all the changes and no more saban so most likely fewer blowouts except for the G5 sacrifice
4. That’s gonna be fought tooth and nail but isn’t going to effect fan interest anymore then NIL has.
5. They already are gods on campus and have been getting paid for awhile, no change.

6. Separating this one because this is the biggest concern, younger generations don’t seem to care about live sports as much but we have yet to see a ratings issue so far so it’s possible college sports at the big programs are insulated from this but this is the real billion dollar question.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

I agree that the Big10/SEC and Networks have a vested interest in pushing the bullet points above.

But the one point I would contest is related to viewership. Sure it has been increasing with all the chaos. But we are maybe 25% through the chaos and conference realignment is not new chaos. The key is when CFB is 80% through the chaos, is viewership still growing?

1. Will fans of Big12 & ACC schools have same engagement with the entire CFB ecosystem if their programs are relegated to second-class status when it comes to the playoff berths. And TV coverage. Same can be said of G5 program fans.
2. Will regular season viewership thrive when CFB plays a 14 or 16 team playoff. Do more playoff teams lessen interest in Sept/Oct games.
3. Is a 14 or 16 team playoff even good for the sport. It is structured to have the Championship game in late January and we already see blow outs with a 4 team CFP.
4. How do fans react to student-athletes becoming employees of the universities.
5. How do the athlete-employees react to their new found wealth and freedoms.
6. Demographics is changing, are younger generations as engaged with intercollegiate sports during and after their college experience.

The changes that are about to take place are huge and will drastically change college sports. What we have seen so far is just a reshuffling of deck chairs.

One point here, an argument can be made that college football viewership is not actually increasing, or at least not increasing at the same rate as other sports. I had an analysis on this a while back, I’ll try to find it.

If you go look at the trending ratings of the CFB championship game, it’s actually been decreasing. The obvious question, is it due to more people watching via streaming? Yes that probably is impacting it.

But if you look at other sports, notably men’s and definitely women’s basketball this season, they are seeing increasing/all-time ratings and they face the same streaming impacts as CFB.

 

[BCClone]

One point here, an argument can be made that college football viewership is not actually increasing, or at least not increasing at the same rate as other sports. I had an analysis on this a while back, I’ll try to find it.

If you go look at the trending ratings of the CFB championship game, it’s actually been decreasing. The obvious question, is it due to more people watching via streaming? Yes that probably is impacting it.

But if you look at other sports, notably men’s and definitely women’s basketball this season, they are seeing increasing/all-time ratings and they face the same streaming impacts as CFB.

College football has always had huge numbers. MBB has been big but far from football. WBB is getting on major networks for the first time in awhile so of course it will have the largest increases.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

College football has always had huge numbers. MBB has been big but far from football. WBB is getting on major networks for the first time in awhile so of course it will have the largest increases.

I’m still looking for my old post. No question, CFB has more people watching it than these other sports. The question is the trajectory. Are more people watching it now more than ever? Definitely not. Look at the last 5 years’ championship game ratings compared to historical ratings.

Meanwhile, obviously women’s basketball is seeing all-time highs. This year’s first round in Men’s Basketball was the most watched ever. The Super Bowl this year was the most-watched single-network telecast ever.

Other sports are experiencing all-time highs, whereas cfb is not.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

One point here, an argument can be made that college football viewership is not actually increasing, or at least not increasing at the same rate as other sports. I had an analysis on this a while back, I’ll try to find it.

If you go look at the trending ratings of the CFB championship game, it’s actually been decreasing. The obvious question, is it due to more people watching via streaming? Yes that probably is impacting it.

But if you look at other sports, notably men’s and definitely women’s basketball this season, they are seeing increasing/all-time ratings and they face the same streaming impacts as CFB.

If you take out the awful TCU game it really hasn’t, the championship this year broke 25million viewers. Two new teams and no SEC is a big help.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

If you take out the awful TCU game it really hasn’t, the championship this year broke 25million viewers. Two new teams and no SEC is a big help.

Yep. That’s the highest rating since 2020.

It also would be the sixth-lowest rated championship game from 1993-2020

 

[isucy86]

1. Yes because you actually have more access then ever before
2. Yes, that’s why the bye’s for the big ten and SEC were negotiated
3. Little more parity among the top with all the changes and no more saban so most likely fewer blowouts except for the G5 sacrifice
4. That’s gonna be fought tooth and nail but isn’t going to effect fan interest anymore then NIL has.
5. They already are gods on campus and have been getting paid for awhile, no change.

6. Separating this one because this is the biggest concern, younger generations don’t seem to care about live sports as much but we have yet to see a ratings issue so far so it’s possible college sports at the big programs are insulated from this but this is the real billion dollar question.

I wouldn't agree with many of your points.

1. Not sure the Big12 can have more access than it has the last 5 years. Games are on FOX, ABC, ESPN/ESPN+. Other than games on LHN, I can currently watch 100% of the other Big12 teams games. If you are talking about Big10's TV deal where they now have games on OTA networks NBC, CBS and FOX- that only benefits the Big10. Will the sports platform being created by ESPN, FOX and Warner Bros. be a positive for fans? It will make navigation easier, but if the price tag is $40-$50/month is that more access?

2. Playoff bye's are a good thing. But will they still exist in a 16 team playoff. And seems like they will go to Conference Game Champs. With a 14 or 16 team playoff we will likely see 3 loss teams get a playoff bid. And I think the Big10 and SEC would push to have 4 loss teams that deserve a CFP bid. Especially if the name on the front of their jersey is Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Alabama, Texas, etc. But even if 3 losses gets a CFP bid, that's a lot more "loss forgiveness" from only 1 loss in the current playoff format.

3. You say there will be more parity, but alll along you have argued blue bloods have and always will be perennial powers. Also the Big10/SEC demand for a bigger chunk of the money, solidifies their ability to hire the best coaches and pay the most for the best players. If parity was the goal of Big10/SEC, then we wouldn't be seeing realignment. AND P4 schools would negotiate a cohesive TV rights deal together like the NFL.

4. NIL is basically 2 years in. We haven't seen the long-term impact on donations. And I'm not talking about donations from the guys who are playing GM with their riches. I am talking about grass roots donors. If I'm working 50+ hours a week, making $100k, have 2 kids and currently giving $2500 to my school each year. Do I have the same propensity to give $2,500 when the star player is making $500k? And as you mention, employee status for student-athletes will be fought tooth and nail. So obviously, this is a hot issue for university administrators. But it will also be for some fans.

5. Athletes might have been Gods. But having the money out in the open will be a new dynamic. It can be issues in an NFL, NBA or MLB locker room and those are mature men. That's a lot to ask of 18-22 year olds.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

I wouldn't agree with many of your points.

1. Not sure the Big12 can have more access than it has the last 5 years. Games are on FOX, ABC, ESPN/ESPN+. Other than games on LHN, I can currently watch 100% of the other Big12 teams games. If you are talking about Big10's TV deal where they now have games on OTA networks NBC, CBS and FOX- that only benefits the Big10. Will the sports platform being created by ESPN, FOX and Warner Bros. be a positive for fans? It will make navigation easier, but if the price tag is $40-$50/month is that more access?

2. Playoff bye's are a good thing. But will they still exist in a 16 team playoff. And seems like they will go to Conference Game Champs. With a 14 or 16 team playoff we will likely see 3 loss teams get a playoff bid. And I think the Big10 and SEC would push to have 4 loss teams that deserve a CFP bid. Especially if the name on the front of their jersey is Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Alabama, Texas, etc. But even if 3 losses gets a CFP bid, that's a lot more "loss forgiveness" from only 1 loss in the current playoff format.

3. You say there will be more parity, but alll along you have argued blue bloods have and always will be perennial powers. Also the Big10/SEC demand for a bigger chunk of the money, solidifies their ability to hire the best coaches and pay the most for the best players. If parity was the goal of Big10/SEC, then we wouldn't be seeing realignment. AND P4 schools would negotiate a cohesive TV rights deal together like the NFL.

4. NIL is basically 2 years in. We haven't seen the long-term impact on donations. And I'm not talking about donations from the guys who are playing GM with their riches. I am talking about grass roots donors. If I'm working 50+ hours a week, making $100k, have 2 kids and currently giving $2500 to my school each year. Do I have the same propensity to give $2,500 when the star player is making $500k? And as you mention, employee status for student-athletes will be fought tooth and nail. So obviously, this is a hot issue for university administrators. But it will also be for some fans.

5. Athletes might have been Gods. But having the money out in the open will be a new dynamic. It can be issues in an NFL, NBA or MLB locker room and those are mature men. That's a lot to ask of 18-22 year olds.

I said parity for the top. Not parity in general.

Btw you couldn’t be more off with number 1. There will soon be 2 Big12 teams and 2 ACC teams in every round of playoffs. Neither has ever happened and often the Big12 was completely left out. With OUT gone the Big12 will be sending new schools almost every season. If that doesn’t get people to pay attention to the regular season when before there was a next to zero chance of getting in I don’t know what will.

You also realize your point in number 4 completely invalidates itself right? If the kid is making 500k you don’t need to donate to NIL. Also this board is just so off with how little of a deal NIL is becoming most of the time.

 

[isucy86]

I said parity for the top. Not parity in general.

Btw you couldn’t be more off with number 1. There will soon be 2 Big12 teams and 2 ACC teams in every round of playoffs. Neither has ever happened and often the Big12 was completely left out. With OUT gone the Big12 will be sending new schools almost every season. If that doesn’t get people to pay attention to the regular season when before there was a next to zero chance of getting in I don’t know what will.

You also realize your point in number 4 completely invalidates itself right? If the kid is making 500k you don’t need to donate to NIL. Also this board is just so off with how little of a deal NIL is becoming most of the time.

Wait a minute. We are done with the 4 team playoff. So under a 14 team playoff the Big12 had teams ranked in the Top 14 according to the following distribution over the last 10 years:

0 team - 0 Times
1 team - 2 times
2 teams - 6 times
3 teams - 2 times

The Big12 doesn't need the Big10 or SEC's handouts. Those guaranteed 2 spots actually create a concrete ceiling for the number of Big12 teams that can make the 14 team playoff.

I am sure you are ready to say, the Big12 shouldn't include OU or Texas. But when they finished in the Top 14 they were in the Big12 and their wins were against other Big12 teams. And if OU/UT weren't in the Big12, another Big12 team would have stepped up to finish in Top 14.

And you can't use revisionist history to include USC, Oregon or Washington within the Big10 any more than the Big12 can add Utah, BYU or UCF.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Wait a minute. We are done with the 4 team playoff. So under a 14 team playoff the Big12 had teams ranked in the Top 14 according to the following distribution over the last 10 years:

0 team - 0 Times
1 team - 2 times
2 teams - 6 times
3 teams - 2 times

The Big12 doesn't need the Big10 or SEC's handouts. Those guaranteed 2 spots actually create a concrete ceiling for the number of Big12 teams that can make the 14 team playoff.

I am sure you are ready to say, the Big12 shouldn't include OU or Texas. But when they finished in the Top 14 they were in the Big12 and their wins were against other Big12 teams. And if OU/UT weren't in the Big12, another Big12 team would have stepped up to finish in Top 14.

And you can't use revisionist history to include USC, Oregon or Washington within the Big10 any more than the Big12 can add Utah, BYU or UCF.

Those years we didn’t have a 14 team playoff and more importantly the Big12 doesn’t have OUT going forward. Only teams from the conference that have been to a playoff have been TCU and weirdly Cinci.

That means it’s a brand new era for the conference, all you have to do is finish top 2 in the conference and your in. Doesn’t matter media perception or preseason rankings. Finish top 2 and you’re in. With the parity in the conference there will be 6/7 teams each year who think they have a legit shot of making the playoff. That has never happened before and will increase or maintain engagement.

 

[isucy86]

Those years we didn’t have a 14 team playoff and more importantly the Big12 doesn’t have OUT going forward. Only teams from the conference that have been to a playoff have been TCU and weirdly Cinci.

That means it’s a brand new era for the conference, all you have to do is finish top 2 in the conference and your in. Doesn’t matter media perception or preseason rankings. Finish top 2 and you’re in. With the parity in the conference there will be 6/7 teams each year who think they have a legit shot of making the playoff. That has never happened before and will increase or maintain engagement.

We didn't have a 14 team playoff. But the Committee did publish a Top25 ranking over the last decade. So that would be a pretty good way to show what teams would have made a 14 team playoff. Unless your admitting the Committee would have given preference to Big10/SEC teams that fell outside the Top 14 over those years.

The Big12 doesn't have OU & UT go forward. OU is a loss. Mainly because of their tradition as a Big8/Big12 program. But it's blue blood bias and/or bad math to think that the Big12 won't have 0 or 1 loss teams most years go forward. Regarding the Longhorns, they would have only made a 14 team playoff a couple times over the decade. Less than many other current/future Big12 teams.

With only 10 teams, the Big12 had 20 teams finish the regular season(week 15) in the Top 14 over the last decade. Averaging 2 teams a year or 20% of the Big12 Conference. Go forward the Big12 will be a 16 team conference and will be capped at 2 teams! Sorry if I'm not bowing down to the generousity of the Big10 & SEC.