USC and UCLA did. Rutgers and Maryland got loans. Think Nebraska had to wait 5/6 years and now they are all at 100%. Could new teams join at a reduced rate for a bit, sure, but they would eventually all be equal.
Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)
- Thread starter ISUcyclones11
- Start date
I see a lot of EIU fans saying the same thing, but with the amount of money being made, things can get ugly very quickly. Let's face it, the B10 like any conference is getting the majority of their income from a few schools, in the B10 that is OSU, Penn. St and Michigan. MSU and EIU are not adding the same amount to the conference that those schools are, and in the future the schools that are bringing in the most money are going to tell the others, you have 2 choices, we are either breaking away or we receive more funds, and you take less.
It's naïve to think that the people in charge of a school do not the value of each member and how much they bring in the conference, in terms of money. We have already seen it happen in the B12 with OU and UT and the Pac 12 with USC and UCLA, the SEC and the B10 or not somehow immune to greed.
So, teams have been willing to get paid partial in the past. When the money curve flattens out, that’s when the idea will be tossed around.
That’s honestly not how any of this works. Every school isn’t texas. Plus there is now a P2, where are they going to go? Idenpendence isn’t a realistic option despite how many people on this board seem to think it is.
Every school isn't Texas. But once Ohio State feels it is at a disadvantage due to revenue inequities with schools outside the Big Ten...Ohio State will get what it asks for to keep that league alive. Why should Northwestern or Purdue get the same dollar amount as Ohio State...unless Ohio State wants it that way?
Is an OSU versus Indiana or Maryland game worth more or an OSU versus Clemson, Miami, ND, or even Oregon? If ESPN or fox decide that they want a dozen independents, they will make it worth their while.
You can say that now, but it's funny how schools decide what is best for them in each case. Like I said earlier, the SEC and B10 are not immune to what happened to the B12 and P12. Greed is always there, and the more money that is involved the more greed starts to show up.
This idea that Ohio St would not hurt MSU and EIU because they are "all together in a conference" is laughable at best, the money makers are fine as long as things are going well, but over time they will want more. It's human nature.
Yep and that will be the true end of college football even if you could get university presidents to sign off on it which you won’t. We’re already stretching the limits for what people will put up with for college football and the people in power know it.
That's what you think - and you might very well be right. But TV people in charge might think the opposite. They are not immune to making bad decisions. Dumb, dangerous, and destructive things can and do happen.
Sure but the Big12 and pac have had stability issues for awhile the Big12 in particular. I know I won’t convince anyone on this board of it because of how many times you have gotten burned but that’s just not how the big ten or sec operate. It’s never even been discussed.
Also while I know the Iowa hate is strong (totally get it) Iowa is a top 20 program for ratings, they wouldn’t be at risk. Same for sparty and obv Michigan.
An exec looks at the short term return……for them, not for the industry. He/she makes a good bonus and when they realize the ship is getting ready to take water they abandon it to another.
You forgetting how the Big 10 bent to the will of OSU just a couple years ago. "because it was good for the conference"
They changed their rules to benefit OSU, multiple times in a single year, just for OSU, while refusing the same for other members. And you think these same members wont agree to give OSU a larger share just to keep them happy. Please.
That’s why the university presidents and AD’s are looking toward the future. The can’t be transactional like the media execs. You have to look at the long term health of cfb and the brands.
Have they been top 20 due to them or the opponent and time slot?. Put more games with USC out there at better times and it’s likely they pass both. Also could vault UCLA in front and other teams that get added. Get rid of divisions and you may have MSU and Iowa on the BTN more often.
Good god you can’t keep bringing up the COVID year. Schools and conferences were making decisions on the fly and creating entirely new arbitrary rules. If that happened during a normal year I would concede to the argument but the covid situation is a total outlier.
Could certainly be possible. ND barely broke 100k viewers on peacock last year. But typically the top drawing or top ranked teams get those slots so it becomes a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy
Right like it didnt show the true colors of the members, you can claim covid made them do it, but it was obvious who held the power and how much the members would bend over for those in power. You cant say the same thing wont happen any time in the future when those same power players flex.
Asking the schools to look out for the long-term health of CFB is not plausible in the current set up. Everyone is looking out for themselves only. There is no centralized leadership that is looking out for the health of college athletics. Until there is, it's going to continue to be an every conference or every team for themselves attitude.
Of course you can, it was a once in a lifetime global pandemic that was crushing some of the Midwest states. Every single policy was being made up on the fly and things were constantly being adjusted because again they were making things up as they went.
