Jump to content

Realignment talk not going away


The Tower

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

https://sports.yahoo.com/sources-new-college-athlete-compensation-model-may-cost-power-schools-300m-each-over-10-years-003140102.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIIae29YRf0gPY0Ebf9-47Y2PoDbqv0QbxYaauX0XXMyzEe6oqxvGc5WRI8o9Mw2nxL0Ysk6blngAA4V7mXo76p0mBPQ4cXHaxwbVIEu-vcjbrosfoAcusKRpzWYJpKjFxz_QfZFN-qaaMXZkK3yex7C8KP8xkMbvf5Y4cNmb2Wm

 

Will all the P4 stay?  How much of the G5 will be able to afford to stay?  They won't be required to revenue share as they aren't part of this lawsuit, but that doesn't exempt them from other lawsuits and the cost to continue to compete.  And even more, this will increase the number of schools sending their resumes to the Big 10 and SEC.

"...As industry executives continue to negotiate with plaintiff lawyers in the House antitrust case, details of a future compensation model — a necessary piece to any settlement agreement — continue to emerge. Those who shared details were granted anonymity as they were not authorized to speak about a proposed settlement that continues to undergo changes.

While negotiations are active and have been for as many as eight months — not a new revelation within the industry — concepts of the proposed new model are becoming more formalized as leaders work to meet a deadline set by attorneys.

Money figures are becoming clear: For those in the power conferences, the price tag is steep.

The 10-year settlement agreement could cost each power school as much as $300 million over the decade, or $30 million a year. That figure assumes a school meets what is believed to be: (1) a $17-22 million revenue distribution cap for athletes; (2) at least $2 million in withheld NCAA distribution for back damages; and (3) as much as $10 million in additional scholarship costs related to an expansion of sport-specific roster sizes — a concept previously unpublicized...."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a vast amount of Remora fish (suckers) that ride on the “sharks” in each conference. Until that ship is righted, which I truly think is what TV/media wants, we’ll continue to have the schools claiming that they have conference legacy. Their claim to still be invited to the adult table is about to end.

IMO - we’re looking at a special league of about 48 teams, for football only, and they will get all the TV money. Maybe prior to 2035?

Hook’em!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, msucolt45 said:

There are a vast amount of Remora fish (suckers) that ride on the “sharks” in each conference. Until that ship is righted, which I truly think is what TV/media wants, we’ll continue to have the schools claiming that they have conference legacy. Their claim to still be invited to the adult table is about to end.

IMO - we’re looking at a special league of about 48 teams, for football only, and they will get all the TV money. Maybe prior to 2035?

Hook’em!!!

The big leagues need suckers too unless you want to get beat the hell up all year just to lose in the playoffs. But still, could you cut a few schools a replace with better ones?…absolutely.

Mississippi State is the 3rd smallest state in the P4 (behind Neb & WV) and is the #2 school in the state with the worst academics in the conference that isn’t on anybody’s travel wish list. The only thing they bring is a mid level rivalry with Ole Miss, a solid baseball program and a moderate sized football stadium that still only beats out a basketball school and a private school (I could make a similar post about Purdue in the Big Ten).

So let’s cut MSU (won’t happen but let say we can) you don’t want to replace them with FSU/Clemson. Already 50% of the conference has won a national title in the BCS/CFP era. The Big Ten and ACC are only at 17%, the Big 12 is at 0%. Those two only make sense if you expand to 20. FSU/Clemson solidify your base and shut out competition, while you also expand with a pair of lesser schools as well.

For a single addition you want a school that will bring new fans/eyeballs to the conference, potentially new markets for advertisers and recruiting, and other benefits like quality basketball, baseball, academics, or travel destinations for fans that also is contiguous to the current conference footprint.

That really only leaves 2 options. #1 North Carolina (or if they go North with the B1G, NCSU), and #2 Kansas.

Both have great basketball and as a result good sized fans bases despite lackluster football. Rivalry history with existing members, are good (not great) travel destinations in newish markets that grow the conference footprint, and both have unique color schemes and mascots (please no more red/near red colors or tigers in the SEC) and would slot somewhere into the lower half of the SEC hierarchy. While nobody would celebrate their addition to the football schedule but they would not morn the loss of MSU either and basketball would get a major boost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d replace Notre Dame with the other two Indiana schools in a heartbeat, because we’re talking only football. Other B10 schools that were recently added, like Rutgers and Maryland would be gone.

SEC for football only would drop about 3-5 of the non revenue generating schools. Yes - it’ll be the haves vs the have nots, and more like the NFL, as that’s what TV/media wants - big $$$.

Hook’em!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, msucolt45 said:

I’d replace Notre Dame with the other two Indiana schools in a heartbeat, because we’re talking only football. Other B10 schools that were recently added, like Rutgers and Maryland would be gone.

SEC for football only would drop about 3-5 of the non revenue generating schools. Yes - it’ll be the haves vs the have nots, and more like the NFL, as that’s what TV/media wants - big $$$.

Hook’em!!!

Are we talking only football? How would that work exactly? We’ve never done a football only league.

Let’s say the SEC drops Kentucky, Vandy, South Carolina, and MSU from football but still want to play with them in basketball/baseball? Football drives the money here, so you’re going to cut $20 million from their budgets but have them compete against you in all sports?

Say you’re the Big 12 or ACC and you take these schools for football, are you then going to allow Kentucky basketball to play SEC basketball and not Big 12/ACC basketball? So the Big12/ACC will be funding the majority of Kentucky’s athletic department but not get the benefit of their most valuable program?

It sounds great in theory, but practically speaking it’s a logistical land mine. Does the Big 12 let Utah and Arizona not play basketball and non revenue sports with them and rejoin UCLA/USC in a non fb PAC12 league? Not an easy web to unweave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...