ISU typically doesn't compete much with SEC schools. Mizzou might be the exception. But I hope we are currently competing extensively with Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Illinois and Purdue for recruits. Not only in their home state areas, but also in recruiting hotbeds like Texas and Florida.But how does that change ISU’s current position? This is kinda my point where you’re just saying the quiet part out loud but ISU isn’t competing with the SEC for players and you never really have been (neither has sparty for the record, Michigan is different).
Vanderbilt is 12 spots higher on the 247 recruiting rankings than ISU and they are the lowest ranked SEC team. This is before huge media deals or paying players in this future your thinking of. So what changes in your scenario that hasn’t always been the same? It’s just shining a brighter light on the lack of parity that has always existed in cfb
In the future, if the Big10 & SEC control a much bigger share of TV money. Then second tier Big10/SEC teams will have have significantly increased their advantage over Big12 and ACC schools. Sure today, Big10 and SEC schools make more money off their conference TV deals. But with the 4 team playoff, all P5 schools get the same share of the $500M rights money, around $7M annually.
But what happens with the 12 or 16 team playoff where TV rights money is between $1.5B-$2.0B and the Big10 & SEC demand 75% of that money? That incremental CFP money becomes a big advantage for 2nd tier Big10/SEC schools in recruiting. Whether the environment is NIL Collectives or CBA. If a 3 star kid can make $300K going to Iowa/Minnesota/Mizzou or $50k going to Iowa State, where do you think he goes?