Perspective from the Big Ten and some much needed clarifications

[sj4]

There are rumblings about the Big Ten selling booze in all stadiums, I believe it is done by Minn already. Alcohol is only sold in the luxury boxes at others schools which alot of people dont like and some believe encourages binge drinking by students.

When I was at Iowa State I had a fraternity brother who organized a fund raiser. I forget who he was raising money for but he was the only one doing it. And after it was over he actually did give the money to the charity. And he didn't just get sloppy drunk or anything like that. But he took pledges from people who would give so much money for every beer he drank during one of the games. And he had a t-shirt made up that he wore with the name of the fund raiser on it. He called it, "Drink for those who can't." )

 

[RezClone]

This is correct, and right now we are playing for time and money until the Big 10, Pac 12 and Fox decide how they are going to counter the moves that the SEC made.

Which is absolutely the right move because it's the only part of this we have figured out at this point. Just like majority of us at home, finances will always play a pesky role in what happens at ISU.

With the right leadership it can actually provide opportunities for innovative solutions. Like hiring a 34 year old head coach who cleaned house and brought his no name buddies with no local connections. Or throwing out the 4-3 because we lacked DLine bodies and struggle matching up on the outsides, right before a prime time game with Texa$.

Innovation usually comes from the fringes of culture with financial restraints or otherwise. Precisely because they don't really have to option to do things the way the blue bloods have in order to compete with them, and the fringes have little if anything to lose if these ideas fail because they aren't much worse off for it. Just try again.

This is what led to air raid, spread option, RPO, extra safety schemes, etc. This is a reason it's bad for football to nuke the fringes into oblivion that I feel nobody is talking about.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Which is absolutely the right move because it's the only part of this we have figured out at this point. Just like majority of us at home, finances will always play a pesky role in what happens at ISU.

With the right leadership it can actually provide opportunities for innovative solutions. Like hiring a 34 year old head coach who cleaned house and brought his no name buddies with no local connections. Or throwing out the 4-3 because we lacked DLine bodies and struggle matching up on the outsides, right before a prime time game with Texa$.

Innovation usually comes from the fringes of culture with financial restraints or otherwise. Precisely because they have little choice to do things the way other more enfranchised elements have in order to compete with them, and the fringes have little if anything to lose if these ideas fail because they aren't much worse off for it. Just try again.

This is what led to air raid, spread option, RPO, extra safety schemes, etc. This is a reason it's bad for football to nuke the fringes into oblivion that I feel nobody is talking about.

Great post. The only thing I would differ with is that they would be nuking the fringes.

I firmly believe that they would be nuking the very heart of college football. All that regional passion that translated into national passion and interest.

 

[cayin]

The ACC and Pac 12 brought in more total money, but have more members so a 10 team big 12 gave each team more money per school, even though we were 5th in total dollars brought in by a conference.

As to the on the field performance, we had a Texas problem, Overall the ACC was nothing to write home about, Clemson playing in 3 championship games in a row and winning one says to many that they are on par with the SEC or slightly below it. Not true but perception is everything today. While the Big 12 has had OU make the playoff about half the time and still has not won a game, while Texas our other anchor school has been like Florida State from the ACC a major disappointment in football.
The Pac 12 also has the same perception problem, USC is down and Oregon has done nothing in the playoff.

I could never understand a singular school winning a NT means the whole league is just awesome. But that is the narrative that gets peddled.

 

[Frak]

Yes.. the sport has lost value in parts of the country over the decades. Once teams like Army, Navy, Yale, Harvard ran the sport... Now none of those teams have a shot to compete for titles - Ivy's don't even play against the top tier of teams anymore.

I used to live in NY/Conn area - there is no one talking about college football ever. No one cares. It is a professional market only. I predict the same will happen to many other regions and fan bases if other schools are left behind. If they move to a "Power 32" league for example that only includes the top blue bloods and many other schools are cut these schools will still have athletics but it will be kind of like the gap between the Ivy's and the P5 today... they will no longer play each other and college football will suffer.

If ISU is cut out, I will still watch and cheer for my Cyclones but it won't be the appointment TV it is today (likely will not even be on TV much). More importantly, I will not watch the rest of college football. Do they care about losing me or the collective fan bases of the 8 teams being left behind? Probably not. But when the same happens to the ACC and PAC in the next 10 yrs (+/-) it could start to have a bigger impact on the popularity of the sport then some experts may realize.

Today, college football is a national pastime with many tuning in to see what is happening across the country. The 12 team playoff created an opportunity to make the product even better. Realignment could reduce the sport to regional interest with much more attention paid to professional teams in markets and fan bases that are excluded.

I agree with much of this. Right now if I have a Saturday open, you can bet I’m watching football from 11am till the late night games are over. I definitely pay more attention to the B12, but I’ll watch others as well. If they go to a 32 or 40 team super conference and ISU isn’t in it, I will watch zero of that. I’ll watch the ISU game and that’s it. Super league would be no different than FCS or XFL to me. If I’m bored, it’s football I guess. But I don’t care who wins and if I want to watch high level football I’ll just wait till Sunday. I imagine there are a LOT more fans like me than ESPN realizes. You don’t just pick a new team in cfb. They want to take away ISUs chance to compete at the highest level, I’m going to watch none of their new bs league.

 

[Frak]

If I were the big 10, I’d add ISU and KU starting in 2025, but I would low ball them on percentage. Say 25% share for 5 years, then 50% for 10 years, then 75% for 5 years. That’s fair to all parties. Assuming ISU stays good at fb, that and KU mbb more than prove their worth at 25% for the first five years.

 

[RustShack]

If I were the big 10, I’d add ISU and KU starting in 2025, but I would low ball them on percentage. Say 25% share for 5 years, then 50% for 10 years, then 75% for 5 years. That’s fair to all parties. Assuming ISU stays good at fb, that and KU mbb more than prove their worth at 25% for the first five years.

You want only a portion for 20 years? Are you insane?

 

[Cloneon]

If I were the big 10, I’d add ISU and KU starting in 2025, but I would low ball them on percentage. Say 25% share for 5 years, then 50% for 10 years, then 75% for 5 years. That’s fair to all parties. Assuming ISU stays good at fb, that and KU mbb more than prove their worth at 25% for the first five years.

Only if the percentages per term are negotiable based on conference income. Otherwise, forget it.

 

[Frak]

You want only a portion for 20 years? Are you insane?

You do realize that a 50% share would be more than we’re making now once they sign their new media contract, correct?

It was just a suggestion. You also could start at 10% and go up 10 every year. What I’m interested in is finding a stable home where we don’t have to worry about being recruited against or getting our coaches poached. If we have to take a financial hit over a span of time to do that so be it.

 

[Cloneon]

You do realize that a 50% share would be more than we’re making now once they sign their new media contract, correct?

It was just a suggestion. You also could start at 10% and go up 10 every year. What I’m interested in is finding a stable home where we don’t have to worry about being recruited against or getting our coaches poached. If we have to take a financial hit over a span of time to do that so be it.

Agree, but don't offer the farm.

 

[isucy86]

Which is absolutely the right move because it's the only part of this we have figured out at this point. Just like majority of us at home, finances will always play a pesky role in what happens at ISU.

With the right leadership it can actually provide opportunities for innovative solutions. Like hiring a 34 year old head coach who cleaned house and brought his no name buddies with no local connections. Or throwing out the 4-3 because we lacked DLine bodies and struggle matching up on the outsides, right before a prime time game with Texa$.

Innovation usually comes from the fringes of culture with financial restraints or otherwise. Precisely because they don't really have to option to do things the way the blue bloods have in order to compete with them, and the fringes have little if anything to lose if these ideas fail because they aren't much worse off for it. Just try again.

This is what led to air raid, spread option, RPO, extra safety schemes, etc. This is a reason it's bad for football to nuke the fringes into oblivion that I feel nobody is talking about.

That's a nice sentiment, but with a national NCAA organization looking to re-invent itself that means conferences have more power.

I think this ends up one of 2 ways:

• Significant reduction of P5 teams. A move to around 32 teams and elimination of traditional conferences. That way the SEC, ACC and Big 10 elites can justify jettisoning schools like: Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rutgers, etc.
• The Big 10 adds around half dozen Pac12 Schools. Maybe they can make sense to drop Rutgers and add KU or ISU. In the end there are 16 SEC teams, 20 Big 10 teams and 15 ACC teams (Notre Dame will join). At some point in the next 5 years, the ACC will find a way to purge Wake Forest, BC, etc.

I agree the fringes of college sports add to its vitality, but IMO greed of the top 30 programs will drive them to drop G5 from the 8 or 12 team playoff structure and "relegate down" some current P5 programs.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

If I were the big 10, I’d add ISU and KU starting in 2025, but I would low ball them on percentage. Say 25% share for 5 years, then 50% for 10 years, then 75% for 5 years. That’s fair to all parties. Assuming ISU stays good at fb, that and KU mbb more than prove their worth at 25% for the first five years.

Those numbers would break the ISU athletic department, in 2027 the big 10 is projected to payout 67 million per team, at your numbers ISU and KU would get 17 million, our tv rights last year were around 35 million. You also expect both schools to go out 20 years to get a full share also makes the percentages even worse.

 

[Die4Cy]

Those numbers would break the ISU athletic department, in 2027 the big 10 is projected to payout 67 million per team, at your numbers ISU and KU would get 17 million, our tv rights last year were around 35 million. You also expect both schools to go out 20 years to get a full share also makes the percentages even worse.

I can understand "buying in" with a reduced share at the start--there's even precedence for it--but not for a period of more than five years. We've seen just how much the ground shifts under these conferences in ten years to do something like that.

 

[RustShack]

Yeah 20 years is absurd.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

I can understand "buying in" with a reduced share at the start--there's even precedence for it--but not for a period of more than five years. We've seen just how much the ground shifts under these conferences in ten years to do something like that.

Nebraska got a full share after 6 years, its hard to figure for Rutgers and Maryland because they both borrowed 10's of millions from the league, but I did find that Rutgers finally gets a full share in 2027, they entered the league in 2014.

Rutgers says full Big Ten share delayed until 2027 (app.com)

 

[RustShack]

Nebraska got a full share after 6 years, its hard to figure for Rutgers and Maryland because they both borrowed 10's of millions from the league, but I did find that Rutgers finally gets a full share in 2027, they entered the league in 2014.

Rutgers says full Big Ten share delayed until 2027 (app.com)

Iowa State wouldn’t have to borrow.

 

[RezClone]

That's a nice sentiment, but with a national NCAA organization looking to re-invent itself that means conferences have more power.

I think this ends up one of 2 ways:

• Significant reduction of P5 teams. A move to around 32 teams and elimination of traditional conferences. That way the SEC, ACC and Big 10 elites can justify jettisoning schools like: Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Rutgers, etc.
• The Big 10 adds around half dozen Pac12 Schools. Maybe they can make sense to drop Rutgers and add KU or ISU. In the end there are 16 SEC teams, 20 Big 10 teams and 15 ACC teams (Notre Dame will join). At some point in the next 5 years, the ACC will find a way to purge Wake Forest, BC, etc.

I agree the fringes of college sports add to its vitality, but IMO greed of the top 30 programs will drive them to drop G5 from the 8 or 12 team playoff structure and "relegate down" some current P5 programs.

For sure, man. I actually agree with all you said. There's a reason it's not being talked about basically at all. I appreciate you acknowledging the premise tho.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Iowa State wouldn’t have to borrow.

We would if we had to pay the type of buyouts they are talking for OU and UT. I doubt if we have 70 to 80 million laying around.

Most would have no problem buying into the Big 10, but twenty years and at the rate he was talking is crazy.
I could see 50% for 5 years and then 75% for another 5 years, ten years total to get a full share, that would be fair to everyone.

 

[CNECloneFan]

Great post. The only thing I would differ with is that they would be nuking the fringes.

I firmly believe that they would be nuking the very heart of college football. All that regional passion that translated into national passion and interest.

I fear we are going to end up with 2 tiers: a large number of truly amateur football clubs, and a 32 to 48 team semi-pro league.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I fear we are going to end up with 2 tiers: a large number of truly amateur football clubs, and a 32 to 48 team semi-pro league.

I'm still hopeful that they're smarter than that.