Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

[JHUNSY]

I'm no expert on B1G history, cursory research didn't bring anything up except the University of Chicago, which chose to leave the conference in the 1940s after it sacked its football program.

**EDIT** Just found this. Michigan was booted in 1907 for refusing to adhere to league rules limiting it to 5 games a season and 3 years player eligibility. They rejoined in 1916.

The University of Iowa also got expelled in May 1929 (I think it was largely suspected that they were compensating players and not adhering to rules but the University of Iowa president claimed to not know the reason and the conference never formally announced why). The conference voted to reinstate them after the 1929 season, and they were formally readmitted in February of 1930.

Coincidentally, they had to boot like 30 players in December of 1929 by advice of legal counsel due to concerns of compensation (probably to ensure they’d be reaffirmed to the conference without issue).

 

[cykadelic2]

Ok they could have but why would they if they didn’t have to? Oregon and Washington were desperate to get to the P2 and we were the last resort.

Life isn’t fair. Business definitely isnt fair. If the Big 12 had the chance do it we would have done it. We did it with the AAC schools. Didn’t they take reduced rates for at least a year?

It’s called leverage within negotiations. How does everyone not understand how this went down????

You're missing the point of this discussion. This goes back to Sparty's claim that "the conference (B10) up to this point has always operated as doing what’s best for the whole."

And that is BS given that UO and UW got half shares; USC/UCLA got full shares in an expansion process essentially the same as the B12 adding the 4Cs where existing B12 schools took a cut in order to put the 4Cs at or near payout parity. That is doing what is best for the whole, not the BS the B10 pulled with UO and UW.

 

[FinalFourCy]

You're missing the point of this discussion. This goes back to Sparty's claim that "the conference (B10) up to this point has always operated as doing what’s best for the whole."

And that is BS given that UO and UW got half shares; USC/UCLA got full shares in an expansion process essentially the same as the B12 adding the 4Cs where existing B12 schools took a cut in order to put the 4Cs at or near payout parity. That is doing what is best for the whole, not the BS the B10 pulled with UO and UW.

Sparty is coping with the fact the BIG is on a similar path as the Big 12, ACC, and Big East.

Like those conferences, the BIG is now a corporate marriage seeking to maximize TV revenue with decisions based on the desires of certain members.

The further away the conference gets from the old Big 10, the more comfortable schools will be in leveraging inequitable power.

Maybe that only means greater unequal revenue sharing next round, but eventually it could mean OSU and Co wake up and think playing Oregon, Rutgers, Maryland etc means the Big 10 as they cherish is already gone, and they might as well leave for a P1 in football

 

[Gonzo]

I really don't see any difference. Both conferences added 4 schools from PAC destruction by Fox/B10. Both were working in the framework of new TV deals.

It appears to me that the existing B10 schools & USC (who orchestrated B10 expansion with Fox) are being greedy bastards relative to the UO and UW additions.

Because they're getting a reduced share to start? Every new member the B1G has added this century has come in at a reduced share except USC and UCLA, and UCLA only got a full share to start because they were part of the USC package. Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, all came in at a reduced share that would increase annually. UO and UW were treated the same.

 

[Gonzo]

You're missing the point of this discussion. This goes back to Sparty's claim that "the conference (B10) up to this point has always operated as doing what’s best for the whole."

And that is BS given that UO and UW got half shares; USC/UCLA got full shares in an expansion process essentially the same as the B12 adding the 4Cs where existing B12 schools took a cut in order to put the 4Cs at or near payout parity. That is doing what is best for the whole, not the BS the B10 pulled with UO and UW.

It took Nebraska (I think) six years before they were fully vested members of the conference. Coming in at a reduced share is not unique to UO and UW.

 

[FinalFourCy]

It took Nebraska (I think) six years before they were fully vested members of the conference. Coming in at a reduced share is not unique to UO and UW.

And?

4 schools started play this year. 2 of them get full shares, 2 partial. This inequality has never occurred before in BIG.

It’s now a corporate marriage of schools looking to do what’s needed to maximize valuation…aka, keep OSU, Michigan, USC, PSU etc happy

There’s decent odds that in the future several top BIG schools decide they are best served getting more revenue than others in the conference, otherwise they leave for a new conference that doesn’t require them to share revenue with mid value schools.

In the pay to play era, it wouldn’t take much of a premium to unravel the P2 into a P1. Offer mercenary schools like A&M, USC, Oregon, UT, OU along with FSU, Clemson etc a premium over OSU, Michigan. It would only take one of those to jump before BIG is done, same with Bama or UGa in SEC

 

[cykadelic2]

It took Nebraska (I think) six years before they were fully vested members of the conference. Coming in at a reduced share is not unique to UO and UW.

So what? UO and UW got treated differently than USC/UCLA because of USC's ties to Fox.

 

[Gonzo]

And?

4 schools started play this year. 2 of them get full shares, 2 partial. This inequality has never occurred before in BIG.

It’s now a corporate marriage of schools looking to do what’s needed to maximize valuation…aka, keep OSU, Michigan, USC, PSU etc happy

Agree, but when you add a school like USC, it's understandable. They're among the bluest of bluebloods, and they opened up to the B1G the #2 media market in the country. And they brought that media market right at the time the B1G was renegotiating its media deal. That was a massive boost in those negotiations.

 

[Gonzo]

So what? UO and UW got treated differently than USC/UCLA because of USC's ties to Fox.

Yeah, USC/UCLA got preferential treatment to UO, UW, Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland for a few reasons, including their impact on the B1G's media deal and reach. I don't think I've seen anything reported about the rest of the B1G institutions being upset about USC/UCLA getting a full share immediately. I think everyone understood that USC is at a different level. But if you've seen anything about others in the B1G being upset about it I'd definitely be interested in reading.

 

[MugNight]

Sparty is coping with the fact the BIG is on a similar path as the Big 12, ACC, and Big East.

Like those conferences, the BIG is now a corporate marriage seeking to maximize TV revenue with decisions based on the desires of certain members.

The further away the conference gets from the old Big 10, the more comfortable schools will be in leveraging inequitable power.

Maybe that only means greater unequal revenue sharing next round, but eventually it could mean OSU and Co wake up and think playing Oregon, Rutgers, Maryland etc means the Big 10 as they cherish is already gone, and they might as well leave for a P1 in football

If anything, I hope everyone can see that the addition of UO and UW was a move made in opportunity, not charity. And the XII took less money per school across the board because we needed Utah and ASU to ensure our survival.

What would’ve been best for the whole was taking Oregon State and Wazzu, but they were left in the cold.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Agree, but when you add a school like USC, it's understandable. They're among the bluest of bluebloods, and they opened up to the B1G the #2 media market in the country. And they brought that media market right at the time the B1G was renegotiating its media deal. That was a massive boost in those negotiations.

Is anyone asking why it was unequal? It’s well known. It’s understandable the Big 12 catered to OUT as well. They were even offered greater inequality to stay

You’re proving his overall point imo. Schools get treatment, and even compensation, based on the value they bring. That’s a slippery slope that the schools in the BIG will continue to go down

In 6 years, will Oregon, USC, UW care about Purdue or Minnesota? A decent chunk of the conference is going to be “new”. Factions will develop, networks will want to cater to certain members etc.

Inequality will increase, if it doesn’t, the BIG will lose members imo

 

[Gonzo]

Is anyone asking why it was unequal? It’s well known. It’s understandable the Big 12 catered to OUT as well. They were even offered greater inequality to stay

You’re proving his overall point imo. Schools get treatment, and even compensation, based on the value they bring. That’s a slippery slope that the schools in the BIG will continue to go down

In 6 years, will Oregon, USC, UW care about Purdue or Minnesota? A decent chunk of the conference is going to be “new”. Factions will develop, networks will want to cater to certain members etc.

Inequality will increase, if it doesn’t, the BIG will lose members imo

I guess we'll see. I'm talking about unequal shares for new members entering the conference, you're talking about unequal shares for existing, longstanding league members which hasn't happened before and won't happen through the rest of this decade. After that, who knows. But the other guy was talking about how this unequal treatment was reserved for UO and UW, which it wasn't.

 

[FinalFourCy]

I guess we'll see. I'm talking about unequal shares for new members entering the conference, you're talking about unequal shares for existing, longstanding league members which hasn't happened before and won't happen through the rest of this decade. After that, who knows. But the other guy was talking about how this unequal treatment was reserved for UO and UW, which it wasn't.

No, I’m talking about the precedent of inequality that was established with the new members. There’s no denying that’s never occurred. The other guy is correct on that

And then saying that will only grow and carry over to the entire conference in the future.

It’s no longer the Big 10, a century old conference with decades of history for even the newest member

It’s the BIG, a made for TV corporation in which decisions are based on what you bring to the table, leverage, etc…as we saw with the difference in how these most recent new members were treated

 

[Gonzo]

No, I’m talking about the precedent of inequality that was established with the new members. There’s no denying that’s never occurred. The other guy is correct on that

And then saying that will only grow and carry over to the entire conference in the future.

It’s no longer the Big 10, a century old conference with decades of history for even the newest member

It’s the BIG, a made for TV corporation in which decisions are based on what you bring to the table, leverage, etc…as we saw with the difference in how these most recent new members were treated

Yeah, reduced shares for new B1G members has been happening throughout the 2000s since conference expansion took off. They then phase up to full share member cuts over several years. It's not new and it wasn't reserved solely for UO and UW.

 

[2speedy1]

Helps that Michigan isn’t a conventional blue blood the way OSU or Bama are. OSU I could totally see pulling some BS.

I mean Smith at OSU, basically admitted it was being considered when discussing these ideas. Anyone that says/believes that no one in the B1G is considering things to give them more money, like unequal revenue, super leagues or anything else to benefit themselves vs their peers is lying to themselves.

The top dogs in the B1G are no different than the ones in the SEC, ACC, and those that used to be in the PAC or B12. Its also hilarious to think that those that had no loyalty and that screwed over the the B12 and PAC will suddenly change their DNA and be team players and be loyal to their new conferences.

With that, even if Michigan has some overwhelming morality that they would never do anything to improve their situation vs their peers, it wont matter when OSU, PSU, USC, UO, UW, all decide to do something same as Bama, UT, OU, UG, LSU, etc. Michigan wont have a choice either go along or be left out.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Yeah, reduced shares for new B1G members has been happening throughout the 2000s since conference expansion took off. They then phase up to full share member cuts over several years. It's not new and it wasn't reserved solely for UO and UW.

of course. But you’re either missing the point or resorting to pedantics

One more time for you. 4 schools were added, only 2 had reduced shares. That inequality is new, and this precedent is very likely to be the start of more unequal revenue

 

[ClubCy]

The fact that so many can’t understand the difference when adding USC/UCLA vs Oregon/Washington is jarring.

 

[2speedy1]

Because they're getting a reduced share to start? Every new member the B1G has added this century has come in at a reduced share except USC and UCLA, and UCLA only got a full share to start because they were part of the USC package. Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, all came in at a reduced share that would increase annually. UO and UW were treated the same.

But you also claim this is ok because they are new and its only temporary. How is it that different from any other unequal revenue in any other league. You say its only 6 years etc. Well many times the other unequal revenue sharing only lasted 1 contract etc which was a similar length of time.

I get you are claiming an excuse, to claim it is somehow innocent in the B1G but, its not. In the B12 we have brought teams in at equal shares, or close, and many times other members have taken a cut in the name of equality to give the new members more, especially in the case of adding in the last couple years of the previous contract.

I havent seen any B1G schools taking less to give their new schools equal money. Unequal revenue is unequal revenue.

B1G people need to get off their high horse thinking they are somehow saints in all of this.

 

[Gonzo]

But you also claim this is ok because they are new and its only temporary. How is it that different from any other unequal revenue in any other league. You say its only 6 years etc. Well many times the other unequal revenue sharing only lasted 1 contract etc which was a similar length of time.

I get you are claiming an excuse, to claim it is somehow innocent in the B1G but, its not. In the B12 we have brought teams in at equal shares, or close, and many times other members have taken a cut in the name of equality to give the new members more, especially in the case of adding in the last couple years of the previous contract.

I havent seen any B1G schools taking less to give their new schools equal money. Unequal revenue is unequal revenue.

B1G people need to get off their high horse thinking they are somehow saints in all of this.

As previously pointed out, that's because the Big 12 and all of its existing member schools needed those additions to the conference simply for the conference to survive. The B1G isn't fighting for survival. None of the member institutions (from what I've been able to find) have any kind of problem with USC/UCLA getting a full share immediately, and UO and UW have zero problem taking a reduced share coming in.

A few of you are the only ones who seem to have a problem with it, lol.

 

[Gonzo]

of course. But you’re either missing the point or resorting to pedantics

One more time for you. 4 schools were added, only 2 had reduced shares. That inequality is new, and this precedent is very likely to be the start of more unequal revenue

And USC/UCLA's cut is no more than Rutgers, Purdue, NW, etc. There's no unequal revenue sharing among full members. Yes, USC got a sweeter entry deal because they brought some pretty unique benefits to the conference that few other schools in the country could bring, as pointed out earlier. But their deal is no more than all the other full members.