Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[WhoISthis]

The only thing I can think of is he's trying to set up a deal where the remaining Pac-12 schools (and potentially some more schools) sign a new GOR-like agreement to stick together and he floats them short-term (to make sticking with the conference and other appealing schools join), then he gets back-end later in the deal. He would work in conjunction with the ESPN and conference to get their revenue up short-term (probably including some kind of Nike deal and potentially even cold, hard cash) to basically will the Pac-12 to be the third major conference. In exchange, he would get some of the TV money later in the deal when the Pac-12 is established as the third major conference.

I'm not saying it would work, but there's probably a path there.

Knight isn’t spending to prop up PAC.

If he’s spending cash, it will be to allow BIG to add Oregon, UW, and Stanford. His money will be used to replace the would-be bump from ND that was going to pay other schools. Or, similar to ESPN’s longhorn network subsidy to keep UT in Big 12, but in this case to get Oregon in BIG

It’s the same dynamics as why the networks are consolidating. Why spend what is needed to prop up a conference of 10 schools, when you can spend that on 2-4 to subsidize BIG move?

There is no return on propping up PAC- long term it’s only getting worse from here without LA. There is return on covering the cash shortfall of adding 2-4 PAC schools to BIG, allowing that conference/networks to gain macros such as more base pay from new CFP and likely CBB postseason. Having a stake in this new P2 far more likely to pay off for Knight and Nike

There is a number that a sponsor could pay to get 4 more PAC to BIG. It just needs to be more palatable than a donation (although it would have been better for espn had they done that over LHN). My guess is Knight, if BIG accepts, buys some of the BTN (maybe from FOX) plus Nike being a title sponsor of this new national conference- NIL on conference level.

Warren wants to be bold and aggressive- lettinga non-network investor to fund it as the premier conference is basically what Fox is to BIG- spending money to build that conference in order to make more in advertising


If nothing else, that is adding competition to ESPN’s PAC only bid. Conversely, saying you’ll cover what ESPN doesn’t for PAC is the opposite of that- giving ESPN incentive to lower offer.

 

[HouClone]

But the SEC and Big10 don't care about that. They need their $100m per school. Cause how could they operate with any less?

Yep. It's not the fact they are making globs of money, it's the revenue difference with each other they are chasing.

With this new Big 10 deal with each school making say $10 million a year more than each SEC team, the SEC will do things like try manipulate the CFP for all at large teams presumedly since they have stronger teams then the Big 10 and more cut of the pie.

Sankey was in favor of automatic bids since his conference was tops in revenue. His tune, no surprise, changed once USC went to the Big 10 knowing the SEC likely was going to be 2nd in revenue per school.

 

[WhoISthis]

Sankey was in favor of automatic bids since his conference was tops in revenue. His tune, no surprise, changed once USC went to the Big 10 knowing the SEC likely was going to be 2nd in revenue per school.

No he wasn’t. Where the hell are you getting that?

The SEC always preferred top 6 highest ranked conference champs, plus next 6 highest ranked teams. Which was the original 12-team proposal, created by ND’s Swarbrick, Sankey, Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson and Bob Bowlsby.

It was the BIG and ACC that wanted autos for P5. They wanted a 5+1+6 number format, 5 autos for P5, an auto for best of G5, and 6 at large.

 

[HouClone]

As long at the B10 and SEC cannot use their new found wealth for NIL, or enlarge their scholarships to 100 or so, the money will have little effect on the other conferences.

January 28th, 2027, Chicago Tribune: "Matt Campbell has been hired as head football coach at Purdue. Campbell led Iowa State to back-to-back Big 12 titles as well as to the CFP semi-finals. The contract is for $22 million/year which puts him 5th highest in the Big 10."

 

[Cloneon]

I’d be curious how much of his net worth is spoken for though, given his charitable donations and partnership bid on the trailblazers among other things.

On top of that are loans against his assets. History is wrought with people perceived as exorbitantly rich who's estate ended up worth nothing.

 

[HouClone]

No he wasn’t. Where the hell are you getting that?

The SEC always preferred top 6 highest ranked conference champs, plus next 6 highest ranked teams. Which was the original 12-team proposal, created by ND’s Swarbrick, Sankey, Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson and Bob Bowlsby.

It was the BIG and ACC that wanted autos for P5. They wanted a 5+1+6 number format, 5 autos for P5, an auto for best of G5, and 6 at large.

You are correct. He is advocating getting rid of the conference champs and going at large. Not much different from automatic qualifiers for the P5 imo though the "Alliance" didn't see it like that.

 

[Cloneon]

The point is we have no Idea, and a lot also depends on what happens between now and contract time, with realignment.

But people act like the B1G is getting 100M next year. And that is not the case, they are getting CLOSE to 100M in the final year of their contract. With all things included.

I dont think the Big 12 will gain anything up front, but estimates are saying our per school pay will be about 40M+/- per school with OUT, with the 4 schools we added last year.

I think no matter what, the Big 12 will lose ground to the B1G. I just think there are scenarios where it wont be as much as some think. (right now the Big 12 pays about 12M less, I think by 2030, it will be about double that at 20-25, Not 50M) I also think if you are adding $xM for the playoff expansion to the B1G to get to 100M, (which is why there is a jump in 2 years) You will also have that same jump in the Big 12. Then you will have a similar relative increase so if there is a 15M increase for the playoff expansion, then take the 40M add that 15M across the board, takes you to 55M in 2026, then you increase by 5M+/- per year for 5 more years. That takes you to 80M+/-, in 2031.

I don't think that is out of the realm of possibility. Im not saying it is a sure thing but I think it is more probable than the Big 12 is still only making 55M in 2031, including playoff money. That would be a disaster, and a horrible contract.

I personally think the big 12 will be closer to 75M in 2030-31 than 55M per, including all pay.

I guess I'm just different than most. There's absolutely no reason with the right branding, marketing, and competitiveness, the B12 can't become more elite. We're such a 'snapshot in time' race. Countless examples exist for those who once were nobodys, but are now somebodys. It happens. It can happen. The attitude should be 'it will happen'.

 

[CascadeClone]

I guess I'm just different than most. There's absolutely no reason with the right branding, marketing, and competitiveness, the B12 can't become more elite. We're such a 'snapshot in time' race. Countless examples exist for those who once were nobodys, but are now somebodys. It happens. It can happen. The attitude should be 'it will happen'.

What we will really need is for a couple of Big12 programs to rise up, go undefeated a few times, and win a CFP or two in the next decade. Someone to hold their own against tOSU, Bama, etc.

Cincy? Okie St? Tech? UCF? They have the best recruiting grounds and supportive admins. Need a winner of a coach and then catch some lightning.

What the conference can do is copy the SEC helping hand schedule - late year FCS game to rest up, 8 game conf schedule, favorable scheduling for the bigger dogs.

Despite the money, media bias, et al, winning changes perceptions. Exhibit A is Clemson.

 

[WhoISthis]

You are correct. He is advocating getting rid of the conference champs and going at large. Not much different from automatic qualifiers for the P5 imo though the "Alliance" didn't see it like that.

So you’re totally wrong.

SEC wanted straight top 12 but there was no chance.

It’s the BIG that has now changed, talking about top 12 or 16, which the SEC would love

 

[werdnamanhill]

So you’re totally wrong.

SEC wanted straight top 12 but there was no chance.

It’s the BIG that has now changed, talking about top 12 or 16, which the SEC would love

Pretty sure the SEC proposal was top 4 or 5 conference champs, the rest of the 12 to be filled with at-large bids, with perhaps 1 reserved for G5

 

[Clonehomer]

So you’re totally wrong.

SEC wanted straight top 12 but there was no chance.

It’s the BIG that has now changed, talking about top 12 or 16, which the SEC would love

The non-P2 conferences need to insist that conference champs make up at least 2/3 of the participants in the playoffs. The payout also needs to be around 2/3 guaranteed to conferences with only a small portion based on the at large teams. With the TV deals in place for the P2, there is no need to further that financial divide.

The Big10 may actually be open to limiting the payout for at large teams as that could help push ND to a conference.

 

[Daserop]

I will also add this graphic. Which is from after OUT and the Adds, but before USCLA.

I question it heavily. Because as you see EVERY conference gets a GIANT Bump in 2026, except the Big 12. Because as navigate says they expect an expansion to 8 team playoff then.

Why does this have every conference getting a 10-20M bump for the playoff expansion, but not the Big 12. Why is there so much bias against the Big 12. They admit that it is worth basically the same it is now moving forward, but that it wont increase like every other conference....Why? As we have seen the Pac is all but dead. The ACC contract is pathetic. We are substantially ahead of them, but for some reason they believe they will get a 10M bump from the playoff in 2026 that the Big 12 wont.

My point is By then the Big 12 may be the last of those 3 standing, or maybe not. But there is no reason to believe that all these conferences will receive a similar bump for any playoff expansion, unless the P2 completely cut them out. So if you give the Big 12 even the 10M increase they show for the Pac and ACC (not the 15-20M they show for the B1G and SEC) that would put the Big 12 at 55M in 2026. I think with out any other realignment at minimum that would put us at 60-65M by 2030. But Im still optimistic for 70-80M around 2031ish.

View attachment 101975

Go to their website and check out the "about us' page. You'll easily see the bias.

Their Founder: Washington & Arizona State grad
Their President: Northwestern grad
Senior VP #1: Toe grad
Senior VP #2: Illinois grad
Senior VP #3: Oregon grad
Senior VP#4: Oregon grad

Essentially, their staff is mostly PAC & Big 10 grads

 

[BCClone]

Go to their website and check out the "about us' page. You'll easily see the bias.

Their Founder: Washington & Arizona State grad
Their President: Northwestern grad
Senior VP #1: Toe grad
Senior VP #2: Illinois grad
Senior VP #3: Oregon grad
Senior VP#4: Oregon grad

Essentially, their staff is mostly PAC & Big 10 grads

They have our payout behind also. Last year we came in 2MM above what they show and I believe the estimate is to be in the 44 this year and 46 for the next year.

 

[HawaiiClone]

Pretty sure the SEC proposal was top 4 or 5 conference champs, the rest of the 12 to be filled with at-large bids, with perhaps 1 reserved for G5

College Football Playoff working group recommends expanding field to 12 teams with six conference champions

There would also be six at-large bids as part of the 12-team field, if the recommendation is approved

www.cbssports.com

The original 12 team format would have automatically given at least one spot to a G5 champion.

 

[Clonehomer]

College Football Playoff working group recommends expanding field to 12 teams with six conference champions

There would also be six at-large bids as part of the 12-team field, if the recommendation is approved

www.cbssports.com

The original 12 team format would have automatically given at least one spot to a G5 champion.

This could have been done with an 8 team playoff. 5x P5, 1x G5, 2 at-large. If you're seen as the 3rd best team to not win your conference, should you be in the running for a national title? I get the need for a couple of at-large but 6 seems excessive. And the 12 team format gives way too much advantage to the top 4 teams.

 

[cyphoon]

The original 12 team format would have automatically given at least one spot to a G5 champion.

Finally, some good news for the pac 12.

H

 

[WhoISthis]

Pretty sure the SEC proposal was top 4 or 5 conference champs, the rest of the 12 to be filled with at-large bids, with perhaps 1 reserved for G5

SEC and others proposed 6+6 model, and it was a go until OUT. At which point BIG and ACC wanted 5+1+6 as a ruse for ESPN not getting CFP

 

[HawaiiClone]

This could have been done with an 8 team playoff. 5x P5, 1x G5, 2 at-large. If you're seen as the 3rd best team to not win your conference, should you be in the running for a national title? I get the need for a couple of at-large but 6 seems excessive. And the 12 team format gives way too much advantage to the top 4 teams.

Or a compromise of a 10 team playoff where the top 6 teams get a bye and the first round is played at home sites. Don't need auto qualifiers- if two G5 schools are ranked above a P5 school, they should be rewarded for that.

 

[BCClone]

SEC and others proposed 6+6 model, and it was a go until OUT. At which point BIG and ACC wanted 5+1+6 as a ruse for ESPN not getting CFP

Yeah, what really happened was, the SEC had OuT and the Big ten had USC/UCLA, and when OuT was exposed, ESPN had the rights to the playoffs through like 2026. ESPN would have made huge bank off this situation along with the SEC being loaded with teams if OuT happened immediately. The Big Ten wanted the brakes slammed on (basically Fox wanted it) and the big ten lied to the PAC and ACC to create this fake alliance which killed the expansion immediately and then the big ten stabbed the PAC in the back and looks to have the knife pressed against the ACCs back.

 

[VoiceOfReason]

SEC and others proposed 6+6 model, and it was a go until OUT. At which point BIG and ACC wanted 5+1+6 as a ruse for ESPN not getting CFP

Pretty sure the Big Ten/ACC/PAC 12 don’t care who gets the playoff, they just wanted it to be open for bid. The reason ESPN tried to force playoff expansion is they have exclusive negotiating rights until their CFB Playoff deal expires in 2025 and any contract signed before that would have extended those rights. The other conferences just want to get to 2025 so that they can have a real bidding process and everyone can bid, maximizing the return they get.

I’m pretty sure they want to model the CFB Playoff like the Big Ten Championship, passing around the games between networks, to not be locked into one network and to get two (two networks each get one semi-final game and the championship rotates) or three network (three networks each broadcast one playoff game on a rotating schedule) bids, like the NFL does with their playoff rights.