Might want to read the article.Well that wont improve next year with the west coast. This shiy is so stupid.
I don't have Athletic but the title sure is something:
Cant, and yes I know the schools are fine.Might want to read the article.
Nah it’s from the selling of part of the big ten rights to fox and paying for the media negotiations. It’s expected and is expected to shift next year. Each school still got their 60mil and the conference still has over $250 mil in the bank. Next year is when the new media deal kicks in.I understand schools have to basically find ways to spend extra cash for a rough net neutral, but how the **** does it take $50 million to run the league for one year?
Can’t read the argument so going to assume they’re either incompetent or have some capital development expenditures. Based on the league, going to expect incompetence.
I can’t read the article so I’m going to stick with my theory.Nah it’s from the selling of part of the big ten rights to fox and paying for the media negotiations. It’s expected and is expected to shift next year. Each school still got their 60mil and the conference still has over $250 mil in the bank. Next year is when the new media deal kicks in.
The model that made college sports what they are was regional conferences with the accompanying rivalries with the conferences then being represented in bowl games and the NCAA tournament and other championships. I'm glad ISU is in a stable conference in which we can be competitive, but everything being equal, I'd rather be playing our old Big 8 rivals rather than UCF and BYU. The current system is designed by greed. It's yet to be seen whether such a system is sustainable long term.Illinois couldn’t make it to the big ten title game playing in the west division, they shouldn’t be concerned about winning the big ten. They have one big ten championship in 34 years.
Sure they would rather play Wisconsin and Indiana as border states but they play them next year. They rarely played Indiana in the old set up anyways.
This also heavily depends on age. If you’re an older fan you probably dislike it more. In part because you don’t like change in general but also because you got used to the way it was. They have played Nebraska just as many times the last decade as they played Iowa and Wisconsin and more than Indiana. So if your on the younger side your used to playing them.
The travel to the west coast teams will suck and yeah they feel like a super bizzare pick but very few people I’ve met complain about Rutgers or Nebraska anymore.
i agree it looks like a bookkeeping thing. The conference is as strong as ever and the schools are being paid more than ever. The threat is in the future with the lawsuits and revenue sharing.Nah it’s from the selling of part of the big ten rights to fox and paying for the media negotiations. It’s expected and is expected to shift next year. Each school still got their 60mil and the conference still has over $250 mil in the bank. Next year is when the new media deal kicks in.
I agree with a lot of this, but it has fatal flaw. Our recruiting territory was much smaller then too. I don’t think we would be near as successful in any sports pulling only from mostly the Midwest for recruits.The model that made college sports what they are was regional conferences with the accompanying rivalries with the conferences then being represented in bowl games and the NCAA tournament and other championships. I'm glad ISU is in a stable conference in which we can be competitive, but everything being equal, I'd rather be playing our old Big 8 rivals rather than UCF and BYU. The current system is designed by greed. It's yet to be seen whether such a system is sustainable long term.
And that's the problem the fanfic realignment proposals with strict geographical bases. Any idea that starts with most or all of the old Big 8 and goes from there would put ISU in a terrible recruiting position.I agree with a lot of this, but it has fatal flaw. Our recruiting territory was much smaller then too. I don’t think we would be near as successful in any sports pulling only from mostly the Midwest for recruits.
When we play games in Ohio, Florida, Texas, Arizona, etc… it allows us better footing to recruit those states.
That's nice to say, but I think it is more cover for the B1G and SEC to make a move. Ultimately the TV money is pulling these strings, and they want to consolidate the big brands in the B1G and SEC, full stop.
And FSU/Clemson will see the Big12 as just ACC but further west, totally lateral move. What's their motivation?
The model that made college sports what they are was regional conferences with the accompanying rivalries with the conferences then being represented in bowl games and the NCAA tournament and other championships. I'm glad ISU is in a stable conference in which we can be competitive, but everything being equal, I'd rather be playing our old Big 8 rivals rather than UCF and BYU. The current system is designed by greed. It's yet to be seen whether such a system is sustainable long term.
I think we're heading towards #2.Ultimately its going to end up one of two ways, imho.
1. Essentually 2 divisions, one the big brand super league of appx 24 teams pulled from SEC and B1G (plus like FSU and Clemson, maybe Miami). The other would be the 50ish other former P5 schools. 2nd group would be less money and prob much different rules on NIL etc.
2. More or less status quo, but with the ACC falling apart, the B1G and SEC taking a few teams and most of the rest going to Big12. P2 would be about same as they are now and Big12 would be the coast to coast "other guys". Have to hope Big12 can use bball to keep the money gap from getting too wide. And that the system isnt totally gamed in P2 favor so that Big12 isnt screwed. On the last point i am not optimistic based on how its starting.
I still think #1 most likely since thats what tv money wants.
Maybe in 20 years football is fading and bball is ascendant, and then the Big12 is on top. But i wont care then, i will be dead or close to it.
You could be right.I think we're heading towards #2.
The Big 12 gets less of the playoff cut, but is still allowed in. That would continue.You could be right.
My guess is #1, mostly because I think that is what the big money wants. But also because for #2, you almost need some level of cooperation among the conferences wrt all the changes that are happening (NIL, settlement, collective bargaining, et al). And it's all so "every many for himself" that I can't imagine the B1G or SEC agreeing to anything that helps the other, and certainly not anything that helps the Big12. Look at what they did on the CFP payouts, e.g.
Honestly I am not sure which would be better for ISU, or which I'd prefer. Just depends how it all shakes out I suppose.
I would prefer this to basically any arrangement ISU's ever been a part of.