Conference Realignment

[BilldGopher]

Courtesy of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Twin Cities equivalent of AJC, here's the write-up as understood now...

B1G deal: Big Ten lands $7 billion, NFL-style TV contracts​

By RALPH D. RUSSO Associated Press

The Big Ten's new $7 billion media rights deal will string the conference's top football games across three major networks each week, creating an NFL-style television schedule on Saturdays.

The Big Ten announced Thursday it has reached seven-year agreements with Fox, CBS and NBC to share the rights to the conference's football and basketball games.

The deals go into effect in 2023, expire in 2030 and eventually will allow the conference's soon-to-be 16 member universities to share more than $1 billion per year, a person familiar with the terms told The Associated Press.

The person spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because Big Ten and network officials were not disclosing financial details publicly, but the deal is believed to be the richest ever on an annual basis for a college sports property. The large increase in revenue to the conference won't kick in until the third year of the deal and gradually will increase over the final five years.

"I think what it does, it affords us the opportunity to make sure that we can continually do the things we need to do to take care of our student-athletes, to fortify our institutions, to build our programs," Big Ten Commissioner Kevin Warren told the AP.

The Big Ten currently has 14 members, stretching from Rutgers and Maryland on the East Coast to Nebraska across the Midwest, and covering some of the biggest media markets in the country, including New York, Philadelphia and Chicago.

In 2024, Southern California and UCLA are scheduled to join the Big Ten, adding the Los Angeles market to its footprint.

With ESPN out of the equation for Big Ten football after a 40-year relationship, the league is set to lock down three prominent time slots with its network partners.

Fox, which has shared the rights to the Big Ten with ESPN since 2017 and owns a majority stake in the Big Ten Network, will continue to feature noon Eastern time as its primary game of the day.

Fox and its cable network FS1 will have the rights to more than two dozen football games, at least 45 men's basketball games and women's basketball games.

CBS, starting in 2024, will replace the Southeastern Conference game of the week at 3:30 p.m. Eastern — that is moving to ABC — with a Big Ten game.

CBS will carry 14-15 Big Ten football games a season from 2024-29, including a Black Friday game. Unlike with its longtime SEC deal, CBS will not be guaranteed the first selection of football games each week with the Big Ten. Fox, CBS and NBC will hold a draft for games, allowing each network some opportunities for first selection in a given week.

In 2023, CBS will carry seven Big Ten games while it still has the SEC on CBS at 3:30 p.m. Eastern. The network will continue to be the home of Big Ten men's basketball, including the conference tournament semifinals and finals, and it will begin airing the women's basketball tournament championship.

"When we did our financial analysis, and looked at the major markets — even before USC and UCLA — and the national footprint of the Big Ten, it was a very attractive deal for us," said Sean McManus, chairman of CBS Sports. "And I think the money is fair. It's unprecedented. They're the largest deals in the history of college football."

Starting in 2023, NBC will launch "Big Ten Saturday Night" in prime time and broadcast 15-16 games per season. The agreement with NBC also includes eight football games and dozens of men's and women's basketball games per season to be exclusively streamed on Peacock, the network's online subscription service. NBC also has a separate, longstanding broadcast deal with Notre Dame, which remains unaffiliated with a conference.

Each network will air the Big Ten's championship football game at least once during the length of the deals, with Fox securing the rights to four (2023, '25, '27 and '29).

Warren spent more than two decades working as an executive in the front office of three NFL teams. He said the Big Ten's vision for its new broadcast deal was modeled after an NFL Sunday, with three consecutive marquee games across three different networks, airing from noon to nearly midnight Eastern.

"I just thought where we were in the Big Ten, we had a very unique opportunity because we have the institutions that could do it," Warren said. "We have the fan avidity. We have the breadth, we have the historical foundation, that we were in a position to really do something unique with three powerful brands in Fox, CBS and NBC."

The Big Ten's alignment with three traditional networks shows that while streaming might be the future, linear television is not dead.

"It may be dying in certain aspects. You could say things like scripted dramas. Sitcoms. But for sports and news, it's never been stronger," retired former president Fox Sports Network Bob Thompson said.

"The conferences or leagues are a little reticent to make that big of a jump from the wide, wide distribution of broadcast television," he added. "Now you're going to jump to the streaming service, which in the big scheme of things, the numbers are still relatively small in terms of how many people watch and use them."

------------------------------------------------------------

Probably the biggest thing as a B1G fan is that most games are now on the Big Ten Network, and while BTN is available from cable, satellite, or streaming, there's a chunk of potential fans that just don't go to the trouble. Whereas the NFL's really focusing on the dinosaur networks, it still pretty much manages almost universal access. This new deal in the end will help me to recruit more Gopher fans here locally 'cuz at least they can choose to tune in from time to time without BTN.

Really hard to know at this point how this might fit into further expansion. However, now 2030 looks like the next important revenue marker for what that's worth.

Meanwhile really getting excited for the real thing starting 2 weeks from today for us. Ironically, we open with New Mexico State that is coached by Jerry Kill, who used to be our coach. He left us for health reasons and his DC was our HC for 1.5 seasons before getting canned for PJ Fleck to be hired. Some bad blood out there on all this. Still, kickoff season is literally around the corner.

Good luck on the season. Billd.

 

[JacketOff]

Once again for the folks who don’t understand
🗣 “More money does not equal more success. Especially when you move into a pool where everyone else still has more money than you”

Here’s Nebraska:

	Yeah	Conf	Wins	Losses	ConfW	ConfL
2	2021	Big Ten	3	9	1	8
3	2020	Big Ten	3	5	3	5
4	2019	Big Ten	5	7	3	6
5	2018	Big Ten	4	8	3	6
6	2017	Big Ten	4	8	3	6
7	2016	Big Ten	9	4	6	3
8	2015	Big Ten	6	7	3	5
9	2014	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
10	2013	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
11	2012	Big Ten	10	4	7	1
12	2011	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
13	2010	Big 12	10	4	6	2

Here’s Maryland:

2021	Big Ten	7	6		.538	3	6	0	.333	3.44
3	2020	Big Ten	2	3	0	.400	2	3	0	.400
4	2019	Big Ten	3	9	0	.250	1	8	0	.111
5	2018	Big Ten	5	7	0	.417	3	6	0	.333
6	2017	Big Ten	4	8	0	.333	2	7	0	.222
7	2016	Big Ten	6	7	0	.462	3	6	0	.333
8	2015	Big Ten	3	9	0	.250	1	7	0	.125
9	2014	Big Ten	7	6	0	.538	4	4	0	.500
10	2013	ACC	7	6	0	.538	3	5	0	.375

Both schools are bringing in double what the ACC pays out, and double what they were both receiving in conference revenue before they shifted conferences. Yet both of their programs have been in a severe downturn since the change. Why? Because they went to a much, much bigger pond.

Missouri who finished 3 of their last 4 seasons in the Big 12 ranked, and even got up to #1 and finished 12-2 in 2007 has more losing seasons than ranked finishes in the SEC. They’ve only had 2 seasons in the SEC with a conference record better than .500, and in 5 out of their 10 seasons in the SEC they have a losing conference record. Also, once a proud basketball program, Mizzou has only made it to the NCAAT 3 times in their 10 SEC season, making it out of the first round just once. “Oh well it’s easier to make staff changes with more money.” Mizzou’s basketball coach was there for 5 years and he has 3 losing seasons. 2 tourney appearances with first round exits as a 9 and 8 seed.

Why don’t y’all get that having more revenue doesn’t equal more success? The teams that you’re playing against get much better and we’d still be on the bottom of the totem pole money wise. The only difference would be our administrators, coaches, and school faculty would be lining their pockets more. GTs on field success would not change, and if anything it might get worse. We’ve already seen it happen. Of all the programs who shifted conferences in the last phase of realignment, Texas A&M is really the only one who has garnered any sort of success. But they were already a massive brand and program anyway. GT is neither. Same with Colorado, Maryland, Mizzou, Louisville, West Virginia, etc. Only Nebraska could’ve been in the same boat that A&M was, yet Nebraska’s program has tanked since joining the B1G.

So yeah, eventually it will become necessary for GT to get into one of the major conferences to continue playing at the highest level. But belly aching about not making the move in 2010 as a missed opportunity isn’t really truthful. We would’ve been a punching bag for everyone in the B1G for years at this point. We would’ve been Rutgers, or hell Maryland.

---

 

[bobongo]

ACC isn't getting that payday...we're locked in until 2036 I believe. GT could have gotten that kind of payday if we accepted the B1G's offer 11 years ago. We decided to turn it down. So here we are...

Oh, you meant Tech, not the ACC - don't know why I misread that. Yeah, too bad. I doubt we get a second bite at that apple.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Once again for the folks who don’t understand
🗣 “More money does not equal more success. Especially when you move into a pool where everyone else still has more money than you”

Here’s Nebraska:

	Yeah	Conf	Wins	Losses	ConfW	ConfL
2	2021	Big Ten	3	9	1	8
3	2020	Big Ten	3	5	3	5
4	2019	Big Ten	5	7	3	6
5	2018	Big Ten	4	8	3	6
6	2017	Big Ten	4	8	3	6
7	2016	Big Ten	9	4	6	3
8	2015	Big Ten	6	7	3	5
9	2014	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
10	2013	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
11	2012	Big Ten	10	4	7	1
12	2011	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
13	2010	Big 12	10	4	6	2

Here’s Maryland:

2021	Big Ten	7	6		.538	3	6	0	.333	3.44
3	2020	Big Ten	2	3	0	.400	2	3	0	.400
4	2019	Big Ten	3	9	0	.250	1	8	0	.111
5	2018	Big Ten	5	7	0	.417	3	6	0	.333
6	2017	Big Ten	4	8	0	.333	2	7	0	.222
7	2016	Big Ten	6	7	0	.462	3	6	0	.333
8	2015	Big Ten	3	9	0	.250	1	7	0	.125
9	2014	Big Ten	7	6	0	.538	4	4	0	.500
10	2013	ACC	7	6	0	.538	3	5	0	.375

Both schools are bringing in double what the ACC pays out, and double what they were both receiving in conference revenue before they shifted conferences. Yet both of their programs have been in a severe downturn since the change. Why? Because they went to a much, much bigger pond.

Missouri who finished 3 of their last 4 seasons in the Big 12 ranked, and even got up to #1 and finished 12-2 in 2007 has more losing seasons than ranked finishes in the SEC. They’ve only had 2 seasons in the SEC with a conference record better than .500, and in 5 out of their 10 seasons in the SEC they have a losing conference record. Also, once a proud basketball program, Mizzou has only made it to the NCAAT 3 times in their 10 SEC season, making it out of the first round just once. “Oh well it’s easier to make staff changes with more money.” Mizzou’s basketball coach was there for 5 years and he has 3 losing seasons. 2 tourney appearances with first round exits as a 9 and 8 seed.

Why don’t y’all get that having more revenue doesn’t equal more success? The teams that you’re playing against get much better and we’d still be on the bottom of the totem pole money wise. The only difference would be our administrators, coaches, and school faculty would be lining their pockets more. GTs on field success would not change, and if anything it might get worse. We’ve already seen it happen. Of all the programs who shifted conferences in the last phase of realignment, Texas A&M is really the only one who has garnered any sort of success. But they were already a massive brand and program anyway. GT is neither. Same with Colorado, Maryland, Mizzou, Louisville, West Virginia, etc. Only Nebraska could’ve been in the same boat that A&M was, yet Nebraska’s program has tanked since joining the B1G.

So yeah, eventually it will become necessary for GT to get into one of the major conferences to continue playing at the highest level. But belly aching about not making the move in 2010 as a missed opportunity isn’t really truthful. We would’ve been a punching bag for everyone in the B1G for years at this point. We would’ve been Rutgers, or hell Maryland.

---

While what you are saying is true (Tennessee is an even better example in the SEC) there is a direct correlation between cash rich schools and football success. Of the 2021 final top 10, 8 were schools that spend big on football. Cincinnati and Baylor were the odd men out in that group. If our goal is to just be "relevant" and relevant means an occasional top 25 end of year ranking, then money is not needed. If our goal is to chase playoff berths, then we need to figure out the money, because Cincy is the only school so far to make the playoff without massive spending.

 

[WreckinGT]

While what you are saying is true (Tennessee is an even better example in the SEC) there is a direct correlation between cash rich schools and football success. Of the 2021 final top 10, 8 were schools that spend big on football. Cincinnati and Baylor were the odd men out in that group. If our goal is to just be "relevant" and relevant means an occasional top 25 end of year ranking, then money is not needed. If our goal is to chase playoff berths, then we need to figure out the money, because Cincy is the only school so far to make the playoff without massive spending.

If the ACC's payouts were suddenly tripled, would GT have a better chance to make the playoffs?

 

[JacketOff]

While what you are saying is true (Tennessee is an even better example in the SEC) there is a direct correlation between cash rich schools and football success. Of the 2021 final top 10, 8 were schools that spend big on football. Cincinnati and Baylor were the odd men out in that group. If our goal is to just be "relevant" and relevant means an occasional top 25 end of year ranking, then money is not needed. If our goal is to chase playoff berths, then we need to figure out the money, because Cincy is the only school so far to make the playoff without massive spending.

We aren’t going to chase the playoff in it’s current format in any scenario anyway. It’s an impossibility. The entire institution would have to alter its priorities. Even Baylor and Cincinnati who have much less revenue than others still make football one of their top priorities within the school structure. Baylor built a brand new football stadium not long ago. Cincy’s small conference helped them get there. The fact that they weren’t playing SEC and B1G schools week-in week-out is why they were able to go undefeated. If they lined up against Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State or Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, Auburn, Bama, A&M for the majority of their games their odds of going undefeated are slim to none.

Missing out on the original Big 10 expansion has not really harmed the nature of the program at all

 

[RamblinRed]

This is a good article with alot of explanations beyond just football. Also talks about basketball and Olympic sports. Interesting note that CBS will start televising B10 games in 2023 (7) before transitioning to a full B10 schedule in 2024.

Big Ten reaches seven-year media rights deal with CBS, Fox and NBC for football, basketball through 2029-30

Marquee Big Ten football games will be showcased across three broadcast windows on Saturdays

www.cbssports.com

The multiplatform agreement is believed to be the largest in the history of college athletics with industry sources putting the approximate value of the deal at a record $1.2 billion annually.

When USC and UCLA join the Big Ten in 2024, each of the 16 Big Ten schools will receive an average of $75 million annually from media rights. That does not include revenue from the College Football Playoff, bowl games or the NCAA Tournament, which can vary from school-to-school. All media rights deals are typically backloaded, peaking in the final years of the agreements.

The SEC is expected to have a similar payout when its new contract with ESPN begins in 2024. Based on projected payouts of the remaining eight FBS conferences, those two leagues will be ahead of the other Power Five conferences with payouts earning their programs at least $30 million more annually.

"It's P2 [Power Two] and everybody else," said an FBS source familiar with TV negotiations. "I don't know why anybody is using P5 [Power Five] anymore."

Big Ten football broadcasting​

	CBS	FOX/FS1	NBC	BTN	PEACOCK
2023 games	7	24-27	16	38-41	8
2024-29 games	14-15	30-32	14-15	50 (max)	8
Championships	2024, 2028	2023, 2025, 2027, 2029	2026	--	--

Industry insiders expressed surprise Fox did not end up with all seven championship football games. Those added significant value to the deal for CBS and NBC.

Warren did not express concern when asked whether he expects his conference to be covered in the same way by ESPN. "We have a 40-year relationship with them," he said. "Life is long. They're professionals. Inherent in our scheduling we're going to play schools from the ACC, SEC, Big 12 and Pac-12. We still have to address the ACC-Big Ten Challenge. … ESPN is such a prominent partner in college athletics. We'll always have a partnership with them."


So end of the decade looks to be the next big inflection point to watch. I expect with this news that ND and NBC will come to a new deal giving NBC a mid-afternoon game on Saturday followed by a night B10 game.

 

[ChicagobasedJacket]

Once again for the folks who don’t understand
🗣 “More money does not equal more success. Especially when you move into a pool where everyone else still has more money than you”

Here’s Nebraska:

	Yeah	Conf	Wins	Losses	ConfW	ConfL
2	2021	Big Ten	3	9	1	8
3	2020	Big Ten	3	5	3	5
4	2019	Big Ten	5	7	3	6
5	2018	Big Ten	4	8	3	6
6	2017	Big Ten	4	8	3	6
7	2016	Big Ten	9	4	6	3
8	2015	Big Ten	6	7	3	5
9	2014	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
10	2013	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
11	2012	Big Ten	10	4	7	1
12	2011	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
13	2010	Big 12	10	4	6	2

Here’s Maryland:

2021	Big Ten	7	6		.538	3	6	0	.333	3.44
3	2020	Big Ten	2	3	0	.400	2	3	0	.400
4	2019	Big Ten	3	9	0	.250	1	8	0	.111
5	2018	Big Ten	5	7	0	.417	3	6	0	.333
6	2017	Big Ten	4	8	0	.333	2	7	0	.222
7	2016	Big Ten	6	7	0	.462	3	6	0	.333
8	2015	Big Ten	3	9	0	.250	1	7	0	.125
9	2014	Big Ten	7	6	0	.538	4	4	0	.500
10	2013	ACC	7	6	0	.538	3	5	0	.375

Both schools are bringing in double what the ACC pays out, and double what they were both receiving in conference revenue before they shifted conferences. Yet both of their programs have been in a severe downturn since the change. Why? Because they went to a much, much bigger pond.

Missouri who finished 3 of their last 4 seasons in the Big 12 ranked, and even got up to #1 and finished 12-2 in 2007 has more losing seasons than ranked finishes in the SEC. They’ve only had 2 seasons in the SEC with a conference record better than .500, and in 5 out of their 10 seasons in the SEC they have a losing conference record. Also, once a proud basketball program, Mizzou has only made it to the NCAAT 3 times in their 10 SEC season, making it out of the first round just once. “Oh well it’s easier to make staff changes with more money.” Mizzou’s basketball coach was there for 5 years and he has 3 losing seasons. 2 tourney appearances with first round exits as a 9 and 8 seed.

Why don’t y’all get that having more revenue doesn’t equal more success? The teams that you’re playing against get much better and we’d still be on the bottom of the totem pole money wise. The only difference would be our administrators, coaches, and school faculty would be lining their pockets more. GTs on field success would not change, and if anything it might get worse. We’ve already seen it happen. Of all the programs who shifted conferences in the last phase of realignment, Texas A&M is really the only one who has garnered any sort of success. But they were already a massive brand and program anyway. GT is neither. Same with Colorado, Maryland, Mizzou, Louisville, West Virginia, etc. Only Nebraska could’ve been in the same boat that A&M was, yet Nebraska’s program has tanked since joining the B1G.

So yeah, eventually it will become necessary for GT to get into one of the major conferences to continue playing at the highest level. But belly aching about not making the move in 2010 as a missed opportunity isn’t really truthful. We would’ve been a punching bag for everyone in the B1G for years at this point. We would’ve been Rutgers, or hell Maryland.

---

Not true. Maryland and Rutgers were punching bags before joining the B1G. GT actually used to do some punching in the ACC. Now we get money whipped by teams from other teams in wealthier conferences (see T Choice and Marco Coleman who got poached). Money matters. Also, I think GT would fair better on the field playing teams like Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan state, etc yearly than they do against Miami, Unc, Clemson, VA Tech, etc. Just look at the 247 talent composite and we would be one of the mid-tier teams in talent in the B1G.

 

[CEB]

If the ACC's payouts were suddenly tripled, would GT have a better chance to make the playoffs?

I think the basic takeaway on the money is that we MIGHT not get there with it, but we sure as hell won’t get there without it.

 

[RamblinRed]

If the ACC's payouts were suddenly tripled, would GT have a better chance to make the playoffs?

If the ACC's payouts tripled and all the ACC teams stayed put in the ACC of course that would help, but that is not a real scenario.

Also, the payouts the B10 and ACC get are not going to be triple the ACC. Probably double though. Another article mentioned that the new deal will pay B10 teams slightly more next year than their last deal and then would jump some when USC and UCLA joined, but that it is backloaded (like pretty much every conference deal) so this isn't like these schools are getting $90MM all of a sudden. In 7 years they may be getting $90MM, but ACC's deal will increase over time as well (not as fast though).

 

[RamblinRed]

Not true. Maryland and Rutgers were punching bags before joining the B1G. GT actually used to do some punching in the ACC. Now we get money whipped by teams from other teams in wealthier conferences (see T Choice and Marco Coleman who got poached). Money matters. Also, I think GT would fair better on the field playing teams like Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan state, etc yearly than they do against Miami, Unc, Clemson, VA Tech, etc. Just look at the 247 talent composite and we would be one of the mid-tier teams in talent in the B1G.

According to that composite GT is 5th in the ACC in talent and 8th in the B10. So on a relative basis GT would be in a weaker position in the B10 in terms of talent than it is in the ACC. Keep in mind that that same composite has Nebraska with more talent than GT and look how they are doing.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

We aren’t going to chase the playoff in it’s current format in any scenario anyway. It’s an impossibility. The entire institution would have to alter its priorities. Even Baylor and Cincinnati who have much less revenue than others still make football one of their top priorities within the school structure. Baylor built a brand new football stadium not long ago. Cincy’s small conference helped them get there. The fact that they weren’t playing SEC and B1G schools week-in week-out is why they were able to go undefeated. If they lined up against Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State or Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, Auburn, Bama, A&M for the majority of their games their odds of going undefeated are slim to none.

Missing out on the original Big 10 expansion has not really harmed the nature of the program at all

That was never my point, nor was it my response to you. You showed that money does not ensure success, and while I agree, I also made the point that money, especially game changing money like these new TV deals, are extremely helpful, if not absolutely necessary, for top tier success. Your reply above continues to make my case that money is a major factor in upper echelon college football.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

If the ACC's payouts were suddenly tripled, would GT have a better chance to make the playoffs?

Yes. Would that chance still be small compared to others? Yes, but it would still be a better chance.

 

[WreckinGT]

I think the basic takeaway on the money is that we MIGHT not get there with it, but we sure as hell won’t get there without it.

This is only really true if the Big 10 and SEC eventually become the Power 2 and other conferences get relegated to what is now G5 status. That will affect a number of things. As long as the ACC has a seat at the big boys table the TV money isn't terribly relevant. Now, our other sources of income, yeah, that's a problem. Frankly, with NIL, I think TV deals are even less meaningful.

 

[bobongo]

I think the basic takeaway on the money is that we MIGHT not get there with it, but we sure as hell won’t get there without it.

Unless we're like Cincinatti...

If we got a second bite at the apple, we'd surely take it but in the event that unlikely scenario doesn't materialize we need to think about how we can make maximum use of what we have. In the past, I said that meant spending more on recruiting budgets and coaches' salaries (as opposed to throwing it away on the stadium) but going forward in this new day of the NIL I don't know if that would work as well as it would have 10, 20 years ago. But money is one thing - and how wisely it's spent is another.

 

[yeti92]

Once again for the folks who don’t understand
🗣 “More money does not equal more success. Especially when you move into a pool where everyone else still has more money than you”

Here’s Nebraska:

	Yeah	Conf	Wins	Losses	ConfW	ConfL
2	2021	Big Ten	3	9	1	8
3	2020	Big Ten	3	5	3	5
4	2019	Big Ten	5	7	3	6
5	2018	Big Ten	4	8	3	6
6	2017	Big Ten	4	8	3	6
7	2016	Big Ten	9	4	6	3
8	2015	Big Ten	6	7	3	5
9	2014	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
10	2013	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
11	2012	Big Ten	10	4	7	1
12	2011	Big Ten	9	4	5	3
13	2010	Big 12	10	4	6	2

Here’s Maryland:

2021	Big Ten	7	6		.538	3	6	0	.333	3.44
3	2020	Big Ten	2	3	0	.400	2	3	0	.400
4	2019	Big Ten	3	9	0	.250	1	8	0	.111
5	2018	Big Ten	5	7	0	.417	3	6	0	.333
6	2017	Big Ten	4	8	0	.333	2	7	0	.222
7	2016	Big Ten	6	7	0	.462	3	6	0	.333
8	2015	Big Ten	3	9	0	.250	1	7	0	.125
9	2014	Big Ten	7	6	0	.538	4	4	0	.500
10	2013	ACC	7	6	0	.538	3	5	0	.375

Both schools are bringing in double what the ACC pays out, and double what they were both receiving in conference revenue before they shifted conferences. Yet both of their programs have been in a severe downturn since the change. Why? Because they went to a much, much bigger pond.

Missouri who finished 3 of their last 4 seasons in the Big 12 ranked, and even got up to #1 and finished 12-2 in 2007 has more losing seasons than ranked finishes in the SEC. They’ve only had 2 seasons in the SEC with a conference record better than .500, and in 5 out of their 10 seasons in the SEC they have a losing conference record. Also, once a proud basketball program, Mizzou has only made it to the NCAAT 3 times in their 10 SEC season, making it out of the first round just once. “Oh well it’s easier to make staff changes with more money.” Mizzou’s basketball coach was there for 5 years and he has 3 losing seasons. 2 tourney appearances with first round exits as a 9 and 8 seed.

Why don’t y’all get that having more revenue doesn’t equal more success? The teams that you’re playing against get much better and we’d still be on the bottom of the totem pole money wise. The only difference would be our administrators, coaches, and school faculty would be lining their pockets more. GTs on field success would not change, and if anything it might get worse. We’ve already seen it happen. Of all the programs who shifted conferences in the last phase of realignment, Texas A&M is really the only one who has garnered any sort of success. But they were already a massive brand and program anyway. GT is neither. Same with Colorado, Maryland, Mizzou, Louisville, West Virginia, etc. Only Nebraska could’ve been in the same boat that A&M was, yet Nebraska’s program has tanked since joining the B1G.

So yeah, eventually it will become necessary for GT to get into one of the major conferences to continue playing at the highest level. But belly aching about not making the move in 2010 as a missed opportunity isn’t really truthful. We would’ve been a punching bag for everyone in the B1G for years at this point. We would’ve been Rutgers, or hell Maryland.

---

I agree with pretty much all of this - more money can help to a point, but does not necessarily equal success. The difference in resources becomes more negligible when it's say $100m vs $125m instead of $50m vs $25m, so I see why people want to push for the Big membership, I just don't think it ensures the outcomes they might hope for. I think the bigger issue is what happens with games between different conferences, where there is now such a drastic difference financially that it's really a David vs Goliath situation, ie GT vs uga. It seems to me the only other solution besides chasing the money and hoping for success, is to accept that those games are highly imbalanced and stop playing them. Stick to playing teams in our conference and with similar or worse financials, ie Big 12, Pac 12, or G5 teams and seek being successful, instead of constantly looking for the bigger payday.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

The playoffs are about to move to to 12 in a few year. Then they’ll move into the 20plus. All the moves we’ve seen are setting schools up for a much better chance at future success. Much like hoops, the playoffs will BE the focus in a decade from now. Conference titles, rivalry wins, etc. will all be secondary to making the playoffs just like in hoops. I know many of you hate this thought but there is no stopping it. I’ve said it before but our grandkids will laugh at us when they see that our generation allowed this sham system to continue for so long. We should be begging right now to get into the BIG so we can be part of the show come 2030 and beyond. But we’ll probably just be where hoops is and hoping we make the tourney once a decade.

 

[bobongo]

The playoffs are about to move to to 12 in a few year. Then they’ll move into the 20plus. All the moves we’ve seen are setting schools up for a much better chance at future success. Much like hoops, the playoffs will BE the focus in a decade from now. Conference titles, rivalry wins, etc. will all be secondary to making the playoffs just like in hoops. I know many of you hate this thought but there is no stopping it. I’ve said it before but our grandkids will laugh at us when they see that our generation allowed this sham system to continue for so long. We should be begging right now to get into the BIG so we can be part of the show come 2030 and beyond. But we’ll probably just be where hoops is and hoping we make the tourney once a decade.

If we beg hard enough, will they let us in?

 

[billga99]

I agree with pretty much all of this - more money can help to a point, but does not necessarily equal success. The difference in resources becomes more negligible when it's say $100m vs $125m instead of $50m vs $25m, so I see why people want to push for the Big membership, I just don't think it ensures the outcomes they might hope for. I think the bigger issue is what happens with games between different conferences, where there is now such a drastic difference financially that it's really a David vs Goliath situation, ie GT vs uga. It seems to me the only other solution besides chasing the money and hoping for success, is to accept that those games are highly imbalanced and stop playing them. Stick to playing teams in our conference and with similar or worse financials, ie Big 12, Pac 12, or G5 teams and seek being successful, instead of constantly looking for the bigger payday.

But it helps with facilities and coaching salaries. Think about what an extra 30MM per year could mean to the type of salary you could offer today to head coaches and assistants. Right now our overall salaries limit our choices.

 

[yeti92]

But it helps with facilities and coaching salaries. Think about what an extra 30MM per year could mean to the type of salary you could offer today to head coaches and assistants. Right now our overall salaries limit our choices.

The key word in this is "today". Sure, today it would be helpful, but coaching salaries are inflating out of control. You don't think every other team getting handed a bunch of extra money every year is also going to use it to pay more and more for better coaches?