Big Ten realignment coming to the Big Ten MSU AD Alan Haller confirms realignment

Football
41

We have watched for 3 decades school after school make exceedingly greedy and greedier money moves in relation to conference affiliation. Decisions that put their own coffers ahead of tradition, regional rivalries and partnerships. And it’s amusing to me that USC of all schools, the “Horns of the West” practically, with their copious amounts of hubris and arrogance, would be fine in sitting back in watching their national brand counterparts in Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma etc. all receive 20, 30, 40 million dollars more per annum than them just because they’re “endowed” and the “bottom line is covered”.

Do you think they sold Lincoln Riley on a vision that he’ll be competing for national championships and expected to win with a monetary disadvantage by tens of millions? Do you think they’re telling their donors that it’s fine that Minnesota, Iowa, Vanderbilt, Rutgers and Mississippi State get a boost and leg up by dozens of millions? Just so USC can continue to play Washington State, Oregon State and Arizona State? They’d essentially be conceding that they are no longer a national brand but a regional one.

Your rationale could also be used for Texas except when Sankey and the SEC showed up with an ESPN-branded Brinks truck last summer they still made the decision to bolt.

MSU’s AD Haller’s comments are another reverb from what other B1G leaders have been saying. A week ago, AD Bobinski of Purdue said,

“I think the only way you expand is if you have prospective league members that add value, that move the needle in a real way, in a substantive way,”

UNC and UVA would be fine additions to the BIG but do they fit the criteria above? Move the needle in a sunstantive real way? I don’t know about that. USC does for sure. And they will be feeling the pressure. Reporting from Pete Thamel:

"Projections are fickle, and specifics that far out are tricky. But even a $30 million gap annually – the most conservative of estimates – would be unsustainable competitively for big brands like USC, Oregon, Clemson and UNC. Florida would never lose a recruit to Florida State if it could flex the inevitable financial superiority. Same for Ohio State going up against USC.
…
It will be interesting to see if the Pac-12’s new television deal has some creativity to drive extra revenue to its biggest brands – USC, Oregon, UCLA and Washington – so they aren’t tempted to find more money in greener pastures. It will be just as interesting to see if new Pac-12 commissioner George Kliavkoff can find a creative way for the league to retain top talent out West.
…
The Pac-12 contract is coming up after the 2023 football season with a coinciding expiring grant of rights. It’s going to be a fascinating test case of what that league’s biggest brands – particularly USC – can command outside of the traditional contract."

USC’s name sure is getting dropped a lot in there. Though I doubt it’s because they’re perfectly content with their endowment.

Time will tell what happens but I wouldn’t rule this out from happening.

42

USC adds value, but it also creates WAC 2.0, which failed due to travel expenses; this would be FAR WORSE.

I doubt that the Big Ten wants that. I’m pretty sure that USC doesn’t either.

And I’m pretty certain that USC and its fans/boosters aren’t exactly psyched up about giving up their West Coast rivals in favor of Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Minnesota.

Makes no sense.

And trust me. USC is too big of a blue blood to ever simply be a “regional” brand.

They’re ALREADY a “national” brand, and always will be.

They don’t need to go to the B1G to become one. So if that’s your theory, then I REJECT it.

As for UNC and UVa, with the B1G it isn’t always about “moving the needle.”

See Maryland and Rutgers.

It’s about institutional fit, geographic fit, and getting above average teams.

UNC and UVa certainly fit the bill there.

USC…mmmmm…geography, no. Institutional fit…not really…AAU yes, but not a state flagship. Big brand that would also bring OUTRAGEOUS travel costs.

As I said, don’t put money on it, unless you want to LOSE it.

43

USC is a special case, just like ND. They just need to be the biggest fish in their pond. With an expanded CFP, they will be in the playoffs often.

44

That logic did not work when it came to UT, me included who thought they had its good be King attitude and would never leave the B12

45

The WAC failed because it was a bunch of broke-*ss also-ran schools trying to cobble up something together to try and stay viable and relevant. I think USC, Michigan, Ohio State et al can manage to shuttle their teams around a bit better using their private/chartered planes than the likes of Wyoming, Tulsa, UTEP and Rice could.

No that’s not my theory. Please re-read for comprehension.

The Purdue AD literally just said it is. You know better than him?

You shouldn’t gamble anything unless you’re willing to lose it. That said, I’m not betting my house or any money for that matter. I just think it’s more than just a mere possibility. A possibility that only grows if the PAC can not secure more revenue to not only keep up but start closing the gap in money.

46

USC entered the Pacific Coast Conference in 1922. Since then they have been a founding member and a figurehead of every derivation that spawned from that conference.
In the 70’s if you mentioned the PAC you thought of USC and UCLA. There is a businessperson here in Houston that I know that never went there but grew up in SoCal. He was a Trojan fan since he was five. His little brother signed as a safety with UCLA in the 90’s. After the signing ceremony at UCLA he walked up, hugged his brother, and said, “congratulations…I hope you get your #% kicked.”
Those two schools have unique rivalry that binds them together and binds them to the conference. They literally “are” the historical figureheads of west coast football. I see no way they run away from that history. It just isn’t a money thing IMO. Its a Cali thing.

47

Trust me. It’s barely even a mere possibility. Purdue doesn’t call the shots. USC isn’t getting a B1G invite.

The B1G doesn’t make far flung expansions. Never has. Never will.

I assumed it was your theory because you posted something to the effect that if USC doesn’t do something they risk becoming a regional rather a national brand. That’s nonsense. As a blue blood, they are already a national brand. They don’t need B1G membership to either preserve it, protect it, or achieve it. They can be a national brand just as easily where they are. As we have seen with this transfer class, NIL and their endowment will keep them in business at a national level without abandoning the West Coast.

1 Like
48

Unless UH is at the top of the Big 10’s list this is one big fat yawn.

3 Likes
49

It’s interesting that our fans keep posting about USC to the B1G, or a B1G /PAC merger, or a B1G raid on the PAC-12, because I don’t see anyone on Illinois other B1G boards posting about it.

Why are OUR fans so obsessed with it when the fans that should be aren’t even talking about it?

Not sure why some of our fans are so obsessed with this.

People keep posting stuff on those topics despite their implausibility.

Strange.

1 Like
50

Every institution including ours has ultimately made these decisions based on $$$. I doubt USC will be any different. If it looks like they’ll be getting $30M+ less than their assumed peer institutions year after year after year then I do not expect for them to sit idly by and accept that circumstance no matter how rich they are. No brand can withstand getting left in the dust in terms of revenue. We of all people should know that quite well.

51

As I said, given that their athletic department is fully endowed, they are one of the few that can.

They have enough money via endowment and NIL to get by without B1G bucks.

Sometimes it’s better to be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

52

SEC needs to get into Virginia and North Carolina pronto. They have the entire South in its borders except those two states. Even if it’s the two little bothers VPI and NCSU they should make the offer. Maybe the two flagships would like to join now that their ‘peer’ public ivy Texas opened the gate.

53

The SEC could invite UNC and UVA first, but the SEC seems content for now.

I’m not sure it’s a given that the B1G will try to match their numbers, but if they did, then those two would be the most logical choices.

54

I feel like Virginia is just an academic add as they would never threaten for contention in football. In the Big10 they’d be another Illinois. Instead Ten should recruit NC and Duke if they only expand by 2 and solidly their hardwood dominance. You already got six big time football brands - UM, OSU, PSU, Wis, Neb, and MSU. Enough to be dangerous

55

Duke would be interesting, but I doubt that their football brand or institutional profile would be good enough to appeal. Duke’s football program is one of the weakest in the ACC with an all-time winning percentage of .484. They haven’t won an ACC football title since I was in high school (and that’s more than 30 years) and have only won two conference football titles since 1962. Their last win in a major bowl game? Good Lord. The 1960 Cotton Bowl…over sixty years ago!!!

UVa, with a better winning percentage and far larger stadium, and being a state flagship would be a better fit.

56

It would make sense. Big12 is about to renegotiate their contract. ACC still has well over a decade left on it and it’s not a great deal.

But you join a new conference and suddenly you make it stronger and bam… more money now… not 13 years from now.

I say in that very hypothetical situation… you go hard at teams to create natural rivalries with members in the conference. Florida State and Miami to lock down Florida and Pitt and Louisville to pair with Cincy and WVU.

This is assuming Clemson, Duke and UNC are off the table. (Because in the rare instance you get a legitimate shot at Clemson you go for it.)

57

Texas renegs on their SEC deal and convinces Notre Dame to join them in the Big 10. Obscene amounts of money fly as bevo is caught jacking it in the open… “skee, skee, skee…”

It would be such a ut thing to do. I still cant beleive they are ok FOLLOWING aggy. You’d think they’d try to 1-up them and this would be it.

In response SEC does some sort of blockade against alliance schools with the Big 12 receiving some sort of ancillary benefits (scheduling alliance?). ESPN cannot pay that much money for this sensory overload losses come from… :thinking:

58

I have a feeling that they’ll do the same thing they did when they crashed the Big 12: establish themselves as a sort of larger than life blue blood…and then start trying to run everything and call all the shots.

We’ll see how long the rest of the SEC can stand that. In the Big 12, it didn’t take long before other schools got fed up and started bolting (Nebraska, Colorado, Mizzou, aTm).

1 Like
59

USC will be dominant in west coast recruiting. If Michigan makes more money than them from conference affiliation USC then that’s fine. Once again Title 9 has an equity clause in regards to promotion of sports and visibility. That doesn’t mean all sports get the same resource funding but it means women’s sports should have access to the same level of public representation. Since USC wouldn’t ask their olympic sports to travel to Penn St or College Park, MD I can’t see them leaving Olympics in a “lesser” conference. I mean, it is California. I would think there are a multitude of reasons that it wouldn’t happen. Not the least of which are the opinions of boosters. Who, incidentally, enjoy their conference affiliations.

60

[quote=“uhlaw97, post:58, topic:36729, full:true”] We’ll see how long the rest of the SEC can stand that. In the Big 12, it didn’t take long before other schools got fed up and started bolting (Nebraska, Colorado, Mizzou, aTm).
[/quote]

I think the sticking point will happen the instant Texas starts trying to big-dik the SEC. Like if they start trying to Weasel more money out of them than the rest of the teams.

If the SEC can keep Texas’ giant ego in check I think they will be fine. But as we have saw before… that’s a big If. If Texas stays mediocre… I doubt they will start complaining.

If they find even a small amount of success though… It’s gonna get interesting. Texas isn’t the big fish in a small pond anymore. They are in bamas pond now.