They are going to be truely hated so fast by the SEC. After I stop being so pissed about how it went down, it will be funny to watch from afar.
Kansas to Big 10?
- Thread starter Naddafinga
- Start date
That is indeed what college football needs, but is it what it will get? If the choices are 1) a unified, forward-thinking, regional-based approach to make CFB better, with institutions giving and taking to share the financial benefits or 2) conferences and schools reacting to events with a “what’s in it for me” attitude and panicking into a keep-up-with-the-SEC model to try to grab as much immediate cash as they can without a plan for the future … well, I know where I’d put my money.
We either need a true governing body or limit the playoffs to auto-bids by conference champs. It would disincentive continual conference growth and would disincentivize stacking conferences with top teams just for $$$.
12 team playoff. Merge the Big 12 and Pac so there’s four power conferences. Conference winner for those four gets a bye. Remaining 8 teams will be chosen by top ranked of P4 Conference championship game losers, G5 champions and independents.
Yes..Meant got in to BIG...worded that wrong. Neb knew it was coming.
Any way..Yea i worded that poorly.
You are correct on the Ag extension research and AAU. ISU is kinda lucky in the NADA LAB is located in Ames and part of ISU as is Dep. of Energy Lab which isnt small.
But ISU 15 years ago or so shifted alot of their research $$ to grow areas that are more aligned with AAU.
That way you’d get more representation with no more than two teams from a conference, which would slow the conference moves. But, unless a terrible team won their division, the P4 teams would all practically be guaranteed two teams.
Yes, it’s still not a guarantee that the best teams get in, but that’s the case in the nfl too. Sometimes a 10 win team will get left out because a 8-8 team won a ****** division. It happens. Winning your division shouldn’t be too tall of an ask you get into a 12 team playoff of 120 teams.
I think these are all true. My problem is the types of things you are describing impact a tiny fraction of students, yet they drive rankings. Thus employers have a very different view of schools. I have been involved in research for years with a couple massive companies. They had recruited ivies almost exclusively plus a handful of others but due to location and field struggled to recruit. They expanded to a few other schools, including ISU, and now for the last few years have recruited hard at ISU, and this is in Chem Eng and Mech Eng., which are considered good but certainly not elite programs.
My experience is that the grad school isn’t nearly as important as major professor. Most research areas are so specific that individual faculty even at less prestigious schools can be the most sought after major professor. Now, you do see a good number of faculty getting hired away to more prestigious schools when they have an established program, so that definitely can boost programs at those places.
This is correct. It’s not so much about “keeping up” with the SEC in terms of a traditional conference setting. That simply won’t happen. There’s not a realistic expansion plan that’s going to match Alabama, Georgia, OU, LSU, Florida, and Texas.
I don’t think the Big 10 Presidents are going to risk killing the golden goose to get in as race with the SEC. The reality is with as large as the money has been for so many years, the marginal utility of additional dollars to schools and success is very small.
I don’t know what plans do this best, but if the Big 10 can preserve similar dollars per team that they have now while preserving a broadly popular CFB, then their top teams will have no problem competing, especially if there are ample opportunities for players to cash in on NIL from outside sources.
With the amount of revenue available and recent legal rulings that have neutered the NCAA, the possibility of a strong broad based governing body is probably over.
The P3 or P4 may create their own governing body. And develop structure of future Playoff. The big question does it include 66ish teams or 36ish teams? It might take 10-15 years for this to evolve. But GREED will win out.
In the next 5 years, the G5+ schools will be forced to create a separate football division and create their own playoff to develop brand and maximize revenue. It has worked OK for CFP division and programs like North Dakota State and James Madison.
When the NCAA lost in court it was the beginning of the end of that organization. It’s just a matter of time. I think the SEC knows this and will not stop at OU/UT. I think eventually there will be 2 dominant conferences and they will have their own governing body and most of the TV money. They will have their own sports National championships and will invite schools from other conferences similar to what the NCAA has done, but they won’t be funding all the stuff the NCAA does. Most of the Basketball tournament that is worth millions will be divided between those two conferences. Eventually the SEC and Big 10 will be so far ahead of the other conferences that it won’t be competitive. Who knows the number these two conferences will stop at. Just have to hope it’s enough schools that ISU/KU get in. It’s not good for the future of college sports. It will have more of a semi-pro feel to it.
The 'number' of teams is the delicate balance of whether that semi pro idea works or not. And even then, you'll always have those that 'expect' to be better (but really aren't). I would love to see how pre-college ratings equate to NFL employment. And the 'distribution' among universities. Anyone have this?
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. You're assuming that OU will continue to be a perennial top-10 program competing against the SEC. There's a chance they could fall into Tennesseeland with that new level of competition. Texas is a national brand but hasn't been very competitive for a while.
If you're just talking national brands, then Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., USC, and Oregon wouldn't be that far off.
I think it’s more likely that OU falls into “Aggieland”, where A&M has remained for the most part relevant, but squarely stuck behind Alabama and LSU in the standings.
Texas, on the other hand, is in for a bad time in the SEC.
Texas will come in and suggest (demand) to be put in a new division of them, Vandy, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Kentucky, Tennessee, Auburn and South Carolina. Add in some out of conference games with Rice, Sam Houston State and UTEP and you're looking at a .500 year about half the time.
Not sure I’d want to use the likes of NDSU as good news. It’s basically a dynasty that draws about 18k and is difficult to find on TV.
Being relegated to a non-power league/division will absolutely devastate ISU athletics. Even an illusion that some day you could pull an ISU under MC is enough to keep fans engaged.
Texas will come in and suggest (demand) to be put in a new division of them, Vandy, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Kentucky, Tennessee, Auburn and South Carolina. Add in some out of conference games with Rice, Sam Houston State and UTEP and you're looking at a .500 year about half the time.
And the SEC will take one look at that demand and laugh in Texas’ face. That’s going to be the “fun” part of this - the inevitability of clashing egos.
Have there been any credible estimates of what the SEC and BIG will make in the next round of network payouts? I've seen estimates in the $60M - $80M per year range. Given that, the ACC and PAC are going to making half of what the BIG and SEC are. I just don't see USC/UCLA/Oregon...maybe Washington, staying put. The same goes for Notre Dame. Clemson and Florida State are locked in the ACC GOR until about 2034...not sure if that keeps them out, but the ACC quickly finds itself in the same position as the Big 12 if those 2 schools depart. There really is no good position for the Big 12, ACC, and PAC down the road...they certainly are not going to be making any more money than they do today.
If what you say is true, and it could be about only 2 dominant conferences we are at least 10 years away from that occurring. Also if the conferences go down this path they are not going to want to keep paying the weak links the same money as the blue bloods. I just cannot see a day where Vanderbilt is getting the same share as Alabama, Georgia and Texas. You could say the say thing about the Big 10 with Rutgers, Maryland and Illinois.
So if this does happen, it will be top 30 to 40 schools breaking away, not by conference, but individual teams or teams in groups. When that occurs it will be a free for all with each team, and a lot of schools will be in danger of not making the cut.
Wasn't using the example as pertaining to ISU, but existing G5 Conferences. IMO when the G5 are shut out of 8 or 12 team playoff, their best option to generate media revenue is create own playoff
I am optimistic that ISU's future is in P3 or P4.
A good question for the pac12 would be: what do we have to do in order to make b1g money ourselves?? How do we get to 100M per team, and how fast can we do it?
Figure that out and go do it. Seems to me like under larry scott they didnt even do this rudimentary level of strategic thinking and planning. Or if they did, they got all the wrong answers.
Idk much about the splits of the b1g revenue, like how much is fox, how much is btn distribution on cable, etc. But surely the pac12 can work that model and grow their revenue significantly. Hell just getting the pac network distribution un-****ed would probably bring in millions per team. That feels like low hanging fruit.
I guess my point is with any kind of competent leadership and strategic plan, pac12 should be able to close that revenue gap significantly. I dont see significant structural challenges for the pac12, i see executional challenges. Due to population and interest, it may never be equal to b1g money, but it ought to be possible to get close enough to keep your big brands, be competitive, and keep your league together.
