Was the Alston case (NIL) the trigger for this round of realignment?

[WestHartHusk]

I find it Ironic that a Supreme Court case won by a former WVU player might have triggered the death of WVU football.....ironic in a sick and twisted sense

If it makes you feel better, UConn football was killed by UConn football coaches.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Driver laughable
Excuse absolutely

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The NIL case may have been a driver to the effort to potentially wipe out 1/3 of the P5 plus everyone else. NIL money would make it much harder for programs to stockpile talent, because players have to play to get paid. A 5* will be a lot less willing to be a backup on Alabama instead of going to Mississippi or even UCF and starting immediately. And getting paid.

So if you are one of the college football superpowers, how do you maintain your control over the top recruits? Wipe out your competition by aligning with the other top programs so you will have all the power in recruiting.

NIL is such a game changer to recruiting that I can see why the SEC and Texas/Oklahoma have to move now. If they wait 5 years, the talent could be dispersed so broadly that 15-20 schools will no longer dominate recruiting like they do now. And that could cost them in revenue as other schools emerge or simply the teams at the top turn over more rapidly.

I am bumping this thread. I still don't see why the Big 10 would add two high maintenance programs out of LA that will make a mess of scheduling and non-revenue sports just to get a few more dollars on its revenue contract.

I think the Big 10 and SEC are making a power play to become the P2, and they are coordinating this move between them. They are doing this for two reasons:

1) Turn college football into a duopoly for the playoffs and grab as much broadcasting real estate as possible.

2) Send the message to the top players that they need to be in the Big 10/SEC.

I think it is going to be really hard for the Big 10 and SEC to pull that off. I think they will have to have some standards of competition or the sport will collapse, and when that happens, the schools that were left behind will have an advantage.

I still go back to the NIL being a big game changer for college sports in every way possible. Players will have to play to get really paid, which means that the transfer portal will be busy and players are going to chase minutes. This will destroy the traditional advantages the major programs have had in recruiting, and they know it. We are seeing it in basketball already. Broadcast revenues will still matter, but as long as a conference doesn't do anything as stupid as signing a 20 year contract like the ACC did, those will increase for everyone.

I have said for years that the reason that SEC football was so good was that they were willing to pay their players at a level that other colleges felt uncomfortable doing. In other words, the SEC schools were willing to cheat. Now every school can pay its players, so any school that wants to and has enough booster and corporate support can legally compete for the best talent. This is a massive game changer in college sports and we are only in the first or second inning of seeing its impact.

In football, teams like Pitt, TCU, Cincinnati and BYU could be entering a golden age. All those schools are in or near big cities, giving them access to a fan base beyond just their alumni base. Furthermore, the city locations gives them access to corporate NIL opportunities. The wealth of BYU's alumni base could make them a college football superpower in an NIL-driven recruiting world. In basketball, the Big East is already tearing it up in the transfer portal because city schools can compete with anyone for NIL opportunities. It's up to the schools to decide if they want to compete. Tradition is dead.

I think the SEC and Big 10 looked at this changing landscape, and then looked at their own membership, and saw a huge threat to their position. I don't think the additions of UCLA, USC, Oklahoma and Texas are proactive moves, they are reactive moves. The P2 have to move now or it will be too late, so they tried to take out two of the P5 by grabbing their most valuable members, and then hope that the ACC's terrible TV contract finishes that league off. I think it is a bad move, with lots of downside and a small chance of working. I think it is a move made by a bunch of middle aged and older ex-jocks who can't get their hands around the implications of a modern world with rapid talent movement and streaming.

 

[McLovin]

I am bumping this thread. I still don't see why the Big 10 would add two high maintenance programs out of LA that will make a mess of scheduling and non-revenue sports just to get a few more dollars on its revenue contract.

I think the Big 10 and SEC are making a power play to become the P2, and they are coordinating this move between them. They are doing this for two reasons:

1) Turn college football into a duopoly for the playoffs and grab as much broadcasting real estate as possible.

2) Send the message to the top players that they need to be in the Big 10/SEC.

I think it is going to be really hard for the Big 10 and SEC to pull that off. I think they will have to have some standards of competition or the sport will collapse, and when that happens, the schools that were left behind will have an advantage.

I still go back to the NIL being a big game changer for college sports in every way possible. Players will have to play to get really paid, which means that the transfer portal will be busy and players are going to chase minutes. This will destroy the traditional advantages the major programs have had in recruiting, and they know it. We are seeing it in basketball already. Broadcast revenues will still matter, but as long as a conference doesn't do anything as stupid as signing a 20 year contract like the ACC did, those will increase for everyone.

I have said for years that the reason that SEC football was so good was that they were willing to pay their players at a level that other colleges felt uncomfortable doing. In other words, the SEC schools were willing to cheat. Now every school can pay its players, so any school that wants to and has enough booster and corporate support can legally compete for the best talent. This is a massive game changer in college sports and we are only in the first or second inning of seeing its impact.

In football, teams like Pitt, TCU, Cincinnati and BYU could be entering a golden age. All those schools are in or near big cities, giving them access to a fan base beyond just their alumni base. Furthermore, the city locations gives them access to corporate NIL opportunities. The wealth of BYU's alumni base could make them a college football superpower in an NIL-driven recruiting world. In basketball, the Big East is already tearing it up in the transfer portal because city schools can compete with anyone for NIL opportunities. It's up to the schools to decide if they want to compete. Tradition is dead.

I think the SEC and Big 10 looked at this changing landscape, and then looked at their own membership, and saw a huge threat to their position. I don't think the additions of UCLA, USC, Oklahoma and Texas are proactive moves, they are reactive moves. The P2 have to move now or it will be too late, so they tried to take out two of the P5 by grabbing their most valuable members, and then hope that the ACC's terrible TV contract finishes that league off. I think it is a bad move, with lots of downside and a small chance of working. I think it is a move made by a bunch of middle aged and older ex-jocks who can't get their hands around the implications of a modern world with rapid talent movement and streaming.

You asked that question and then proceeded to answer your own question in about 1000 words lol.

Also, what is this "advantage" you speak of for the non-P2 members down the line. What does "collapse" look like?

Over the next 2 TV contracts, when all is said and done, the ~48 P2 schools will be making well over $100 million per year after you factor in the payout from the CFP and Basketball tournaments they will ultimately own.

Say viewership of the American College Super League begins in to crater and in 2050 their Oculus headset streaming contracts are up for renewal. All of a sudden Pitt and TCU are going to be in the driver seat? How?

Edit: I can buy into your theory that NIL was set to add more parity to the college landscape and the 2 big leagues wanted to stomp out that threat before it grew too large. Don't know that was a driving factor in realignment, but certainly an interesting theory.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I think everyone gets why UCLA and USC joined the Big 10. Why go through a contract negotiation with the PAC 12 when the Big 10 will just hand them a bag of cash? That’s pretty easy to figure out.

The question that has not been answered is why would the big 10 bother? Why would Minnesota or Iowa dilute their ownership in the Big 10 to add the LA schools? How much do those schools increase the per school payout? 5%?

 

[ScottVib]

The reported estimates were approximately $147M / year added to the deal with USC and UCLA. So just under 15%

 

[McLovin]

I think everyone gets why UCLA and USC joined the Big 10. Why go through a contract negotiation with the PAC 12 when the Big 10 will just hand them a bag of cash? That’s pretty easy to figure out.

The question that has not been answered is why would the big 10 bother? Why would Minnesota or Iowa dilute their ownership in the Big 10 to add the LA schools? How much do those schools increase the per school payout? 5%?

It’s about long term stability for the conference. If the BIG can become the biggest and most influential brand, all schools benefit. It’s an arms race with the SEC. Pretty obvious.

Minnesota and Northwestern probably need them more than OSU or Michigan, who would be perfectly fine if the BIG some reason dissolved down the road.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The reported estimates were approximately $147M / year added to the deal with USC and UCLA. So just under 15%

Could you please provide a link? I can’t find an estimate. Even Bloomberg did not have an estimate.

Are the estimates that the Big 10 will add net $147 million per year for distribution to the existing schools? Or do UCLA and USC need to get paid out of that $147 million?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It’s about long term stability for the conference. If the BIG can become the biggest and most influential brand, all schools benefit. It’s an arms race with the SEC. Pretty obvious.

Minnesota and Northwestern probably need them more than OSU or Michigan, who would be perfectly fine if the BIG some reason dissolved down the road.

You think adding two schools that are 1500 miles away from the nearest Big 10 school makes the Big 10 more stable? It is pretty obvious that you are wrong about that.

As you point out, there is a meaningful chance the Big 10 dissolves at some point, or that the college landscape completely changes in 5 or 10 years. Why add two schools that are so far away and so different from the rest of the Big 10?

 

[Rufus]

USC and UCLA have always been academic peers to the B1G. The universities fit the B1G image.

Yes, LA is a long way away from the Midwest, but charter flights and WI-FI/Zoom/Teams will make road trips more manageable. Student athletes can study, type papers or even have video chats with their professors on these long flights.

Things will work out just fine in the B1G.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You asked that question and then proceeded to answer your own question in about 1000 words lol.

Also, what is this "advantage" you speak of for the non-P2 members down the line. What does "collapse" look like?

Over the next 2 TV contracts, when all is said and done, the ~48 P2 schools will be making well over $100 million per year after you factor in the payout from the CFP and Basketball tournaments they will ultimately own.

Say viewership of the American College Super League begins in to crater and in 2050 their Oculus headset streaming contracts are up for renewal. All of a sudden Pitt and TCU are going to be in the driver seat? How?

Edit: I can buy into your theory that NIL was set to add more parity to the college landscape and the 2 big leagues wanted to stomp out that threat before it grew too large. Don't know that was a driving factor in realignment, but certainly an interesting theory.

Xerox invented networking, object oriented programming, graphical user interfaces, the mouse, and the laser printer IN THE EARLY 1970's. Kodak was one of the most successful companies in American in the mid 90's. Look at both companies now. Times change. Just because some schools are at the top of the heap in 2022 doesn't mean they need to be 10 years from now.

So two schools, one of whom, UCLA, has major budget issues with its athletic department, jump conferences to a league centered about 2,000 miles away. One of two things are true:

1) UCLA and USC bring much more value to the Big 10 than they are taking out, in which case why are they leaving? Why not just stay in the Pac 12 and monetize their value regionally?

2) The Big 10 is bringing most of the value to this relationship, in which case, why is the Big 10 doing this?

If 2 is true, and I think it is, then it means this expansion is not about incremental revenue, it is about damaging the competition, in this case the PAC 12.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The reported estimates were approximately $147M / year added to the deal with USC and UCLA. So just under 15%

SBJ Media: New Big Ten bids coming this week

www.sportsbusinessjournal.com

I found the 15% number. The Big 10 would be growing the size of the conference by 14.2% (2/14) and increasing revenue by 15%, so the Big 10 schools basically get nothing extra for doing this. So revenue is not the reason they are doing this for the Big 10.

They are simply going for the kill shot against a competitor. Was it really worth it for them to do that? We will find out. It does look like the SEC and Big 10 coordinated their raids on the Big 12 and PAC 12 with each other. No competition for schools between the P2 and both target conferences were hit just as they were starting their media negotiations. Looks like the SEC and Big 10 have already formed an alliance.

 

[McLovin]

Xerox invented networking, object oriented programming, graphical user interfaces, the mouse, and the laser printer IN THE EARLY 1970's. Kodak was one of the most successful companies in American in the mid 90's. Look at both companies now. Times change. Just because some schools are at the top of the heap in 2022 doesn't mean they need to be 10 years from now.

So two schools, one of whom, UCLA, has major budget issues with its athletic department, jump conferences to a league centered about 2,000 miles away. One of two things are true:

1) UCLA and USC bring much more value to the Big 10 than they are taking out, in which case why are they leaving? Why not just stay in the Pac 12 and monetize their value regionally?

2) The Big 10 is bringing most of the value to this relationship, in which case, why is the Big 10 doing this?

If 2 is true, and I think it is, then it means this expansion is not about incremental revenue, it is about damaging the competition, in this case the PAC 12.

Poor analogy. Sports leagues are basically monopolies that will never face anti-trust lawsuits.

The schools that get streamed / shown on TV the most and covered the most by the talking heads will continue to dominate the sport despite their results on the field.

Adding 2 big brands the media loves to talk about does indeed strengthen that monopoly for the BIG.

Look at North Dakota State. They have won like 10 D2 titles in the last 20 years, but literally no one cares because there is 0 coverage, therefor 0 interest, in D2 football. And they could probably beat some power conference teams / put on a competitive game worthy of being shown on TV.

Edit: ironically the PGA is facing anti-trust lawsuit with the LIV, but that has to do with how they contract their players as ICs vs employees.

 

[Rufus]

If money being brought from new TV deals is enough to offer non-rev teams charter flights, a trip from LA to original B1G territory, one that would likely knock out two or three teams in one, could span a similar time frame as a non-chartered trip from LA to Washington. What charter flights would likely eliminate is time spent in the airport, getting through security and baggage claim waits. Though it's clear more travel time will be added across the board, it may not be as bad as initially thought.

 

[dayooper]

If money being brought from new TV deals is enough to offer non-rev teams charter flights, a trip from LA to original B1G territory, one that would likely knock out two or three teams in one, could span a similar time frame as a non-chartered trip from LA to Washington. What charter flights would likely eliminate is time spent in the airport, getting through security and baggage claim waits. Though it's clear more travel time will be added across the board, it may not be as bad as initially thought.

Back in the day of me playing D2 football, our closest game was 7 hours away and we would routinely leave on a Thursday morning for a Saturday game and get back on Sunday morning after riding a bus all night. The players on the teams that played during the week would miss a week of school at a time. We didn’t have Zoom or anything like that, we just did it. While my football team wasn’t championship caliber, we had a couple of teams play for and win NC’s at my time there. It has been done in the past.

My son will be on a college bowling team here in Michigan and they only have 1 tournament in state. Their conference is mostly Wisconsin and Illinois teams. They will be heading to a tournament in Vegas in the fall and have gone to Atlanta and NYC in the past. For those tournaments, they are usually gone for a week. This is a small private D2 school in Michigan.

 

[UConnJim]

The NIL theory is interesting and I would think it is one piece of what is driving conference realignment. I think the Texas/OU and USC/UCLA moves were driven because their conferences were in deep trouble and there was no way the Big 12 or the Pac 12 were going to keep up financially or from an exposure standpoint with the Big 10 and the SEC and the schools didn't want to be left behind so the schools were proactive. Personally, I don't think the conference moves are complete for 2 reasons: 1) There is a ton of money controlling the CF Playoff 2) No way the Big 10 leaves USC and UCLA on a west coast island. If Notre Dame decides to join one of the P2, the final pieces of conference realignment will begin to fall into place although the ACC GORs could delay the final moves.

 

[dayooper]

The NIL theory is interesting and I would think it is one piece of what is driving conference realignment. I think the Texas/OU and USC/UCLA moves were driven because their conferences were in deep trouble and there was no way the Big 12 or the Pac 12 were going to keep up financially or from an exposure standpoint with the Big 10 and the SEC and the schools didn't want to be left behind so the schools were proactive. Personally, I don't think the conference moves are complete for 2 reasons: 1) There is a ton of money controlling the CF Playoff 2) No way the Big 10 leaves USC and UCLA on a west coast island. If Notre Dame decides to join one of the P2, the final pieces of conference realignment will begin to fall into place although the ACC GORs could delay the final moves.

I agree that it’s not done, but it might be a couple of years before the next big moves happen. The main non Notre Dame targets are now in the ACC and it might not be economically feasible to leave right now. If the rumors are true of a shorter media contract for the Big10 are true, the next round will happen closer to the time when they are negotiating that one.

 

[Kolumbo]

USC and UCLA have always been academic peers to the B1G. The universities fit the B1G image.

Yes, LA is a long way away from the Midwest, but charter flights and WI-FI/Zoom/Teams will make road trips more manageable. Student athletes can study, type papers or even have video chats with their professors on these long flights.

Things will work out just fine in the B1G.

Perhaps the athletes will be fine, but it only takes away from the college experience for the student body. Road trip!

 

[RSTuthill]

The reported estimates were approximately $147M / year added to the deal with USC and UCLA. So just under 15%

By that estimate they would not be covering their payout. So the question remains. A defensive move?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Poor analogy. Sports leagues are basically monopolies that will never face anti-trust lawsuits.

The schools that get streamed / shown on TV the most and covered the most by the talking heads will continue to dominate the sport despite their results on the field.

Adding 2 big brands the media loves to talk about does indeed strengthen that monopoly for the BIG.

Look at North Dakota State. They have won like 10 D2 titles in the last 20 years, but literally no one cares because there is 0 coverage, therefor 0 interest, in D2 football. And they could probably beat some power conference teams / put on a competitive game worthy of being shown on TV.

Edit: ironically the PGA is facing anti-trust lawsuit with the LIV, but that has to do with how they contract their players as ICs vs employees.

What has been the track record of teams that have "upgraded" to the Big 10?

Rutgers has won for than 4 games ONCE since joining the Big 10 in 2014.
Nebraska has won 5 or fewer games the last 5 years.
Maryland has had 2 7-6 seasons and it had losing records the other 6 years in the Big 10.

In basketball,

Rutgers has made 2 NCAA tournaments in 8 years,
Nebraska has made 1 NCAA tournament in 11 years,
Maryland has made 5 NCAA tournaments in 8 years, but only got to one Sweet 16.


UCLA basketball is pretty strong, but football has won more than 7 games only 6 times in the last 23 years. USC is better in football, but still has only made one Rose Bowl since 2008 and has never played in the Playoff. USC has made 5 tournaments and one second weekend in the last 13 years.

So the last three additions to the Big 10 have been duds, but two mediocre programs and two good programs are going to suddenly blossom in the Big 10? How are UCLA and USC going to recruit California kids to not play against their friends in the Pac 12 but play half their league games in Iowa and Indiana in the Fall and Winter? You guys realize it doesn't snow in Southern California, right? And if those kids are willing to play in the snow, then why won't they just go to Ohio State or Michigan?

Point is, given recent history, and the reality of recruiting players to play in a league 2000 miles away, it is more likely that UCLA and USC's programs will get worse than it is that they will get better.

So once again, why is the Big 10 doing this, other than to damage the Pac 12?

 

[McLovin]

What has been the track record of teams that have "upgraded" to the Big 10?

Rutgers has won for than 4 games ONCE since joining the Big 10 in 2014.
Nebraska has won 5 or fewer games the last 5 years.
Maryland has had 2 7-6 seasons and it had losing records the other 6 years in the Big 10.

In basketball,

Rutgers has made 2 NCAA tournaments in 8 years,
Nebraska has made 1 NCAA tournament in 11 years,
Maryland has made 5 NCAA tournaments in 8 years, but only got to one Sweet 16.


UCLA basketball is pretty strong, but football has won more than 7 games only 6 times in the last 23 years. USC is better in football, but still has only made one Rose Bowl since 2008 and has never played in the Playoff. USC has made 5 tournaments and one second weekend in the last 13 years.

So the last three additions to the Big 10 have been duds, but two mediocre programs and two good programs are going to suddenly blossom in the Big 10? How are UCLA and USC going to recruit California kids to not play against their friends in the Pac 12 but play half their league games in Iowa and Indiana in the Fall and Winter? You guys realize it doesn't snow in Southern California, right? And if those kids are willing to play in the snow, then why won't they just go to Ohio State or Michigan?

Point is, given recent history, and the reality of recruiting players to play in a league 2000 miles away, it is more likely that UCLA and USC's programs will get worse than it is that they will get better.

So once again, why is the Big 10 doing this, other than to damage the Pac 12?

I don’t understand the point of your post and it’s clear you don’t understand how sports brands work.

The Cowboys haven’t been to a Super Bowl in decades but are still the most valuable NFL franchise. Yankees in the MLB have had a decade long drought. The Knicks…? All are the most valuable teams and assets to their respective leagues because of the BRAND, not their performance.

Even if UCLA and USC are mediocre, their brand will continue to elevate the conference status because of the coverage and media exposure they get.

Them being good obviously helps even more, but results on the field really don’t matter at this point. When they are good, it’s something for the media to talk about. When they are bad, also something for the media to talk about.

The media will give more coverage to a 3-9 USC team than a 9-3 UConn team all day, every day. It’s just the facts. That’s why the BIG wants them.

 

[Rufus]

Other reasons the B1G wanted USC and UCLA -

AAU Schools - Research revenue makes sport revenue look like chump change.

Out of state student recruiting - Student populations are shrinking, stagnant or barely growing in the Midwest. 1 out of 5 students (20%) who go to another state to attend college are from California, New Jersey or Maryland. Adding USC, UCLA, Rutgers and Maryland means that kids in those three states will be further exposed to Big Ten schools and Big Ten schools will need those out of state students in the coming years.

Athletic recruiting - The top three states for recruiting are Florida, Texas and California. The B1G was the only conference without a presence in at least one of those three states - until now.

 

[Waquoit]

In basketball,

Rutgers has made 2 NCAA tournaments in 8 years,

Put another way, Rutgers has made 2 in 2 years. And won a game for the first time in 38 years.

 

[ScottVib]

You got to it before I could. The estimate is they pay their own way. This is likely a move for ancillary benefits since it doesn’t cost the league anything.

1) Offensive move to block the competition
2) Additional time slots to expand coverage of the league. Now Big Ten football is available all day, much like the NFL.
3) Expansion of member school exposure into new and potentially lucrative student markets.

Etc

 

[Rufus]

This article says the new B1G deal could result in 25% higher revenue for the conference with USC and UCLA joining.

Big Ten Media Rights Value Could Increase Up to 25% With USC, UCLA

The conference’s annual broadcast value could reach a record-breaking $1.25 billion, based on sources’ estimates.

frontofficesports.com