What's new
  • After multiple requests and discussion, Twitter/X links will again be allowed on the board. Be mindful of the content you choose to post. Inflammatory, misinformation, or any content that violates the ToS will be removed. Repeated offenses may result in temporary suspensions. If you would like to still have Twitter/X links hidden from your feed, send a PM to Bread. Any other questions can be discussed in the customer service/support forum. Examples of hide tweet options shown here: https://allbuffs.com/threads/twitter-x-ban.161161/post-3915936
  • Submit a March Madness tourney bracket in the Allbuffs group and take home a $50 dollar gift card if you win. This is open to club members only. Details are here

College Football Realignment

i could get on board with this.
it makes the most sense.

It kind of is like waht I was saying with more conferences/divisions, but with teh added auspices of a conference like AFC/NFC.
Klatt did say the conversation around the playoff he heard at the NFF event in Vegas a couple weeks ago was around a 16 or 24 team playoff. I have a hard time seeing them go from 12 to 24, but I think the irrelevancy of the bowl games could drive the field to 24
 
It's going to move to an NFL model, IMO. However many teams get included will be divided up into divisions and division winners will advance with some at large bids as well.

48+ teams, 24+ team conferences, four divisions in each with 6-8 teams, play everyone in your division + one team from the other three divisions and a couple teams from the other conference.

24 team playoff with 12 from each conference being seeded almost exactly like the NFL. Four division winners seeded 1-4 getting byes and 8 at large (wild cards).

IMO, something resembling that model is going to happen in the next 10-12 years.
I don't like it but they aren't going to ask my opinion.

The numbers may be somewhat different but the end result will be the same. A small number of the biggest programs will be dividing up the huge largest portion of the media money. The amount left for those schools outside of the power group will not be enough for them to come close to competing on anything close to a similar level.

With the cost of operating college football programs, especially if they are paying NIL along with liabilities for injuries and more are going to make trying to maintain high level programs financially not viable.

When one group of programs is getting close to or above $100 million per year in media revenue and others are below $5 million per year the model will have to change.

They won't want to but schools are going to be forced either drop their level of competition or some drop football entirely.
 
I don’t know from a culture standpoint, most of our players under Prime will be from SEC country. Maybe academically closer to the B1G but the SEC has some pretty good institutions as well.

I don’t have a real strong argument here but the only “cultural” fit I see with those on your list is Oregon and Washington.

I think a case could be made that we have a similar fit with Missouri and Texas.

I also wonder if the SEC will look at the coast to coast, national presence that the BIG has and see that as a threat in the long term.

Plus, being competitive with SEC schools again would be so awesome.

Now that we have Lovo in place, he will get to deal with realignment whenever that occurs. I like that he has some Texas ties. The more that I think about a potential 2 league CFB powerhouse model, I have grown liking the SEC fit better. I do not see the SEC and B1G merging together to keep everyone out, rather they want to be the biggest boy on the block. Thus, expansion will occur via picking off teams from ACC and B12, then ND will figure out where they want to land. ND may stay independant w/ certain leftovers scrambling into a mini-P3 conference, better than MWC but not a powerhouse.

I think SEC would be better partners for CU, if it is done correctly. SEC has the following advantages: (1) they seem more flexible than B1G; (2) I think it would be better games across the board, hence a better TV contract than the B1G sans ND; (3) SEC is committed to a more equal revenue share--they have propped up MSU, Vandy, South Carolina, KY, Ole Miss in lean times for many years, thus not afraid of some parity and they beware of the UT behemoth taking over (TX sort of shot down the old B12); (4) it would be appealing for CU if SEC expanded West, but not to the West Coast--aka less travel and closer region even to Florida; (5) with good division pods less travel and more old school tradition (most of Big8 together); (6) we seem to be getting more players from the South/Tex/FL and (7) FB is "King" there, no if, ands or buts.

Theoretically, SEC and B1G each go to 48 team model, 24 each taking bits out of both ACC and B12. Just spitballing, use 4 divisions of 6 teams. 9 conference games 5 w/i division, and use NFL type scheduling for remaining 4 (i.e. teams with worst prior records, play weaker teams the next year promoting some parity but add in a blue-blood too), 2 OCC games; and 1 end-of-year conference match-up for seeding/best TV games. End of year games could be mini-playoff 1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3 overall then SEC championship. Other schools play each other for bowl bids and/or seeding, also they equal out conference home games, if possible.


Florida/CoastalMTN/TXSouthwestSoutheast
1. FSU1. Texas1. LSU1. GA
2. FL2. OU2. Arky2. GA Tech
3. Miami3. Missou3. Tex A&M3. Bama
4. UNC (maybe), no NC State4. CU4. Ole Miss4. Auburn
5. South Carolina5. KU (maybe, hoops dep)5. Miss St.5. TN
6. Clemson6. Utah or BYU, not both6. Vandy6. KY
SMU, TCU, Texh, Okie St possible if no KU, Utah or BYU

Mtn/TX could go a number of different ways. I think CU would get nod as an old Big8. CU would pump up SEC academics, but also some schools are close, not like Stinklon CC. KU would have choice (K-State might go B1G), as would UNC in Coastal based on hoops, and just where they want to land. SMU could be most appealing, however TTU, Houston and TCU would make a pitch, so I could see them jumping KU, UU, but Tex, OU, Missou and KU backing CU. Okie State is a maybe, but only if OU/Gov really makes a push. UU or BYU would be more for time-zone purposes and a CU travel partner. I put A&M in SW since they really hate playing TX, their rival is Arky & LSU. I tried to maintain most of the traditional rivalries. CU would have to expand Folsom to 70-75K seating to fit in the middle of stadium sizes, and SEC teams travel, so it would fill until Nov. Stinklon CC would be very jealous and try to weasel their way back in with the old Big8/B12 teams.

IMO, the B1G seems doomed to be top-heavy in football and the travel is just nuts. Their AD financial balance sheets are not nearly as strong as that SEC above. From a football perspective, unless you are a B1G guy, the football product is less compelling outside of the few top-tier teams. The B1G the brand of football is just less exciting. The SEC is more exciting, like the B12For hoops in the winter, it is one thing for CU/UT to go to Texas and the South, but another for WC teams traveling to the Northeast given the weather and three hour time change. I'm sure USC and UCLA get very excited for their away hoops trips to Maryland, Rutgers, Eastern PA and Stinklon. CU hoops going on an away basketball swing through Florida would mean nice weather and the beach. I think even with expansion the B1G will be a flyover conference in comparison to expanded SEC, however ND landing there would strengthen that league. If CU went B1G, I feel we would just be little brother in that conference, as a flyover too; sort of like the snobby PAC.

In either SEC or B1G, CU has to get used to playing night football games. We have to accept that given our time zone and TV, but if we swing a Mtn/TX division in SEC that is 1 timezone for 5 games. SEC would be cool b/c we could probably get to play CSU or WY as a later OCC game. G-6 has to take scraps now. Conference play would start earlier. I think once the SEC and B1G make their move, there will be only a few games between them.

FWIW. Go New AD Lovo and Go Buffs!
 
Last edited:

Interesting article and issue. It will come down to how it is done, and how many teams in the SL and who they are.

TV will probably be the biggest driver and influence in the decision. However, if the TV companies collude, I could see an anti-trust lawsuit and/or pro-player lawsuits due to NIL/playing opportunities dwindling. The Courts have been vocal in protecting most player rights. The B1G and SEC are sort of at each others throats right now about playoff expansion issues; they are not in lock-step as they were a year ago. The B1G's AD finances are not on par with the SEC, as they have a bunch of teams running seriously in the red. SEC is about break-even or better. Some ACC and B12 schools have better balance sheets even with less revenue.

The other thing I could see preventing a SL are politics/Governors who do not desire a smaller footprint. Even in TX, I think the Gov might have some heart-burn, if UT, A&M and one other school are in the super-league, with all others totally relegated, since that hurts that state educational system--both public and private. Same thing in FL if the SL took 3 teams. OK will happy OU makes it, but unhappy if OSU goes to the toilet. If it the SL becomes a fly-over league with major parts of the country excluded, I could envision certain Governors ganging up in opposition.
 
Interesting article and issue. It will come down to how it is done, and how many teams in the SL and who they are.

TV will probably be the biggest driver and influence in the decision. However, if the TV companies collude, I could see an anti-trust lawsuit and/or pro-player lawsuits due to NIL/playing opportunities dwindling. The Courts have been vocal in protecting most player rights. The B1G and SEC are sort of at each others throats right now about playoff expansion issues; they are not in lock-step as they were a year ago. The B1G's AD finances are not on par with the SEC, as they have a bunch of teams running seriously in the red. SEC is about break-even or better. Some ACC and B12 schools have better balance sheets even with less revenue.

The other thing I could see preventing a SL are politics/Governors who do not desire a smaller footprint. Even in TX, I think the Gov might have some heart-burn, if UT, A&M and one other school are in the super-league, with all others totally relegated, since that hurts that state educational system--both public and private. Same thing in FL if the SL took 3 teams. OK will happy OU makes it, but unhappy if OSU goes to the toilet. If it the SL becomes a fly-over league with major parts of the country excluded, I could envision certain Governors ganging up in opposition.
The Governors really don't have a lot of influence because their power only exist within their individual states. The super league simply tells them you can be in with one or three or you can be out all together. Usually that one or three have enough influence in the state to force the governor to go along.

Keep in mind that the Governors of Washington and Oregon weren't happy with the Cougars and Beavers being left out of the P4 but when the Huskies and the Ducks got the invites, alone, they went along.

The ones that do have the influence are the congress members, especially the senators.

In order for a super league to exist they are going to need some kind of federal legislation which includes anti-trust protection and also sheilds the non-profit aspects of the schools from falling under the for profit tax provisions and which defines the employment aspects of the player relationship to the schools.

They will already be fighting an uphill battle in the senate because of the states which are left out of the money the super league will be monopolizing. Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, the Dakotas, Idaho, Nevada, the upper New England states and some others combine for enough senate votes to make passing anything a challenge.
 
Now that we have Lovo in place, he will get to deal with realignment whenever that occurs. I like that he has some Texas ties. The more that I think about a potential 2 league CFB powerhouse model, I have grown liking the SEC fit better. I do not see the SEC and B1G merging together to keep everyone out, rather they want to be the biggest boy on the block. Thus, expansion will occur via picking off teams from ACC and B12, then ND will figure out where they want to land. ND may stay independant w/ certain leftovers scrambling into a mini-P3 conference, better than MWC but not a powerhouse.

I think SEC would be better partners for CU, if it is done correctly. SEC has the following advantages: (1) they seem more flexible than B1G; (2) I think it would be better games across the board, hence a better TV contract than the B1G sans ND; (3) SEC is committed to a more equal revenue share--they have propped up MSU, Vandy, South Carolina, KY, Ole Miss in lean times for many years, thus not afraid of some parity and they beware of the UT behemoth taking over (TX sort of shot down the old B12); (4) it would be appealing for CU if SEC expanded West, but not to the West Coast--aka less travel and closer region even to Florida; (5) with good division pods less travel and more old school tradition (most of Big8 together); (6) we seem to be getting more players from the South/Tex/FL and (7) FB is "King" there, no if, ands or buts.

Theoretically, SEC and B1G each go to 48 team model, 24 each taking bits out of both ACC and B12. Just spitballing, use 4 divisions of 6 teams. 9 conference games 5 w/i division, and use NFL type scheduling for remaining 4 (i.e. teams with worst prior records, play weaker teams the next year promoting some parity but add in a blue-blood too), 2 OCC games; and 1 end-of-year conference match-up for seeding/best TV games. End of year games could be mini-playoff 1 v. 4 and 2 v. 3 overall then SEC championship. Other schools play each other for bowl bids and/or seeding, also they equal out conference home games, if possible.


Florida/CoastalMTN/TXSouthwestSoutheast
1. FSU1. Texas1. LSU1. GA
2. FL2. OU2. Arky2. GA Tech
3. Miami3. Missou3. Tex A&M3. Bama
4. UNC (maybe), no NC State4. CU4. Ole Miss4. Auburn
5. South Carolina5. KU (maybe, hoops dep)5. Miss St.5. TN
6. Clemson6. Utah or BYU, not both6. Vandy6. KY
SMU, TCU, Texh, Okie St possible if no KU, Utah or BYU

Mtn/TX could go a number of different ways. I think CU would get nod as an old Big8. CU would pump up SEC academics, but also some schools are close, not like Stinklon CC. KU would have choice (K-State might go B1G), as would UNC in Coastal based on hoops, and just where they want to land. SMU could be most appealing, however TTU, Houston and TCU would make a pitch, so I could see them jumping KU, UU, but Tex, OU, Missou and KU backing CU. Okie State is a maybe, but only if OU/Gov really makes a push. UU or BYU would be more for time-zone purposes and a CU travel partner. I put A&M in SW since they really hate playing TX, their rival is Arky & LSU. I tried to maintain most of the traditional rivalries. CU would have to expand Folsom to 70-75K seating to fit in the middle of stadium sizes, and SEC teams travel, so it would fill until Nov. Stinklon CC would be very jealous and try to weasel their way back in with the old Big8/B12 teams.

IMO, the B1G seems doomed to be top-heavy in football and the travel is just nuts. Their AD financial balance sheets are not nearly as strong as that SEC above. From a football perspective, unless you are a B1G guy, the football product is less compelling outside of the few top-tier teams. The B1G the brand of football is just less exciting. The SEC is more exciting, like the B12For hoops in the winter, it is one thing for CU/UT to go to Texas and the South, but another for WC teams traveling to the Northeast given the weather and three hour time change. I'm sure USC and UCLA get very excited for their away hoops trips to Maryland, Rutgers, Eastern PA and Stinklon. CU hoops going on an away basketball swing through Florida would mean nice weather and the beach. I think even with expansion the B1G will be a flyover conference in comparison to expanded SEC, however ND landing there would strengthen that league. If CU went B1G, I feel we would just be little brother in that conference, as a flyover too; sort of like the snobby PAC.

In either SEC or B1G, CU has to get used to playing night football games. We have to accept that given our time zone and TV, but if we swing a Mtn/TX division in SEC that is 1 timezone for 5 games. SEC would be cool b/c we could probably get to play CSU or WY as a later OCC game. G-6 has to take scraps now. Conference play would start earlier. I think once the SEC and B1G make their move, there will be only a few games between them.

FWIW. Go New AD Lovo and Go Buffs!
The battle over Virginia or Miami will be interesting. Matters if they want true geographic separation
 
Was listening to New Mexico's interim AD this week. He was asked about realignment and UNM possibly going to a new conference since there's been some chatter that them & UNLV could move together to either the Pac-12 or the American. His response was to explain how schools assign a Grant Of Rights to their conference which are then contracted to a media partner for broadcast rights. Therefore, realignment happens when those contracts expire. He stressed that pretty much every contract expires in the 2030-2032 window and that schools have to successfully position themselves within these next 5 seasons. He said that on-field success, having facilities that impress, having a competitive budget, and drawing great crowds are the big factors they can control.

P.S. on a different topic: He also talked about what he and Fernando did on game attendance and I got excited. Mantra was that coaches & players control Ws & Ls but it's administrators who have the job of making the games an event. That experience includes traffic/parking, tailgating, and all the things a fan experiences once inside the stadium. Nothing revolutionary in any of this, but I was very encouraged by how clear Fernando is about communicating the job priorities of athletics administrators and driving that execution in a focused way. There was no ambiguity about what they need to do to impact the success of the operation.
 
Last edited:
The battle over Virginia or Miami will be interesting. Matters if they want true geographic separation

I wrote my post on Dec 30th. It will be interesting to see what happens in 5 years when the TV contracts are all up. What I wrote was the SEC side of 24 teams; the B1G expansion being the other 24 teams for 48 total teams. With VT getting Franklin, and UVA being solid; that could yield a great Carolina/VA division:

1. VT
2. UVA
3. WV
4. NC State
5. Duke
6. Wake Forest

I had UNC, as SEC side, but they would fit well into this Carolina/VA division especially in hoops; but it would be competitive in football too. UNC (like KU) would have a tough choice since they are a great hoops school. IMO, regional divisions in any super-conference would be huge, as they drive rivalries in sports other than FB, and the regional closeness makes travel closer from many teams. ND would be a team that would have it's pick, they do still really hate the B1G on some levels.

Another model that could be interesting is three conferences of 18-20 teams for a total of 54 or 60 teams.

On the TV side, I would hope that they somehow break the ESPN and other TV monopolies leading to regional games/divisions being carried in their locales, with some big National games still getting TV slots. My CA friend that went to USC is so sick of watching meaningless Fusker games at 10am.
 
Last edited:
. Therefore, realignment happens when those contracts expire. He stressed that pretty much every contract expires in the 2030-2032 window and that schools have to successfully position themselves within these next 5 seasons. He said that on-field success, having facilities that impress, having a competitive budget, and drawing great crowds are the big factors they can control.
I have a hunch that that 30-32 window isn't going to be as lucrative as many in college athletics are hoping.

The traditional TV model is falling apart. Younger viewers are not watching or paying for TV the same way as older generations have been. Free network TV no longer rules the roost, the big cable and satellite TV companies are shedding customers faster than the shedding of a bunch of huskies in early summer.

Instead when they aren't watching Instagram and Snapchat they are watching the specific streaming services that they are willing to pay for. Casual viewership is going away.

The result of this is going to be a continued fracturing of viewership without the mass numbers of viewers to support massive advertising revenues.

Not saying that the overall revenues are going to decline or go away but they aren't going to continue to rise just because they have been so far.

As the revenues get tighter those schools that re responsible for generating them are going to continue to grab a bigger share leaving a lot of others out.

This along with the continued rising cost of participation in big time sports, especially football, is eventually going to force a number of schools to have to decide that the cost of participation is simply too much for the rewards.
 
I have a hunch that that 30-32 window isn't going to be as lucrative as many in college athletics are hoping.

The traditional TV model is falling apart. Younger viewers are not watching or paying for TV the same way as older generations have been. Free network TV no longer rules the roost, the big cable and satellite TV companies are shedding customers faster than the shedding of a bunch of huskies in early summer.

Instead when they aren't watching Instagram and Snapchat they are watching the specific streaming services that they are willing to pay for. Casual viewership is going away.

The result of this is going to be a continued fracturing of viewership without the mass numbers of viewers to support massive advertising revenues.

Not saying that the overall revenues are going to decline or go away but they aren't going to continue to rise just because they have been so far.

As the revenues get tighter those schools that re responsible for generating them are going to continue to grab a bigger share leaving a lot of others out.

This along with the continued rising cost of participation in big time sports, especially football, is eventually going to force a number of schools to have to decide that the cost of participation is simply too much for the rewards.
Viewership is higher than ever this year.

I think that the trends you are describing have been more than offset by the fact that there was so much untapped potential for creating CFB events which is changing rapidly to the benefit of the sport and its media value.
 
I have a hunch that that 30-32 window isn't going to be as lucrative as many in college athletics are hoping.

The traditional TV model is falling apart. Younger viewers are not watching or paying for TV the same way as older generations have been. Free network TV no longer rules the roost, the big cable and satellite TV companies are shedding customers faster than the shedding of a bunch of huskies in early summer.

Instead when they aren't watching Instagram and Snapchat they are watching the specific streaming services that they are willing to pay for. Casual viewership is going away.

The result of this is going to be a continued fracturing of viewership without the mass numbers of viewers to support massive advertising revenues.

Not saying that the overall revenues are going to decline or go away but they aren't going to continue to rise just because they have been so far.

As the revenues get tighter those schools that re responsible for generating them are going to continue to grab a bigger share leaving a lot of others out.

This along with the continued rising cost of participation in big time sports, especially football, is eventually going to force a number of schools to have to decide that the cost of participation is simply too much for the rewards.

Agreed on the younger generations not broadly buying in to CFB. This is your future audience. Will they also will be unlikely to buy 3-4 streaming services to see everything? Doubtful. They cant even afford a house with quarter million in debt from college.

2030-32 is a long way off and a lot can happen. My bet would be no expansion as things look less ideal.

@Buffnik complained that engagement is down on the board (twitters return). Is that engagement from a loss of interest by the faithful over this NIL mercenary movement? I think thats playing a big part.
 
Recent TV ratings must be doing a lot of heavy lifting in that list.


Brewer conducts his study by analyzing a program’s finances and asking: What would it be worth if it could be bought and sold like a professional franchise?

Brewer looks at top-line revenues, growth and drivers of cash flow and makes projections about the sustainability of the operation, just as he would with any other business. It isn’t a mere one-year snapshot, either—he combed through years of data for 131 major college football programs, from the heavyweights all the way down to Louisiana-Monroe. Then, after breaking down everything from television viewership to trends in enrollment, his spreadsheet finally spits out an answer.
 
I am amazingly 100% onboard with a push to join the SEC! A western division would be a no brainer if the SEC wants to make more bank in 2030. They want AAU, Big Markets, and we also give mountain time zone. Best recruiting grounds for us, warm weather, etc.

You are 100% correct, SEC or bust is where it is at. The B1G has no value if you are a middler... Ask Rutgers, Maryland, Fuskers, and an bunch of other teams asking for the private equity lifeline. It only makes sense b/c football is King in the South and that drives college athletics. You want to play tradition, academics, old champions etc? UCLA joining the B12 gave them more championships than any other team, USC is next, however they are basically football middler+ to this point. UCLA rebuilding. Other sports outside of a few they specialize in (diving, beach VB etc...) they are losing.
 
You are 100% correct, SEC or bust is where it is at. The B1G has no value if you are a middler... Ask Rutgers, Maryland, Fuskers, and an bunch of other teams asking for the private equity lifeline. It only makes sense b/c football is King in the South and that drives college athletics. You want to play tradition, academics, old champions etc? UCLA joining the B12 gave them more championships than any other team, USC is next, however they are basically football middler+ to this point. UCLA rebuilding. Other sports outside of a few they specialize in (diving, beach VB etc...) they are losing.
The SEC wants to blend its football passion with some higher academics. No doubt Lovo would have his eyes on the SEC, even if we had to take less for a few years, totally worth it.
 
... or just ask Indiana three years ago

IMO, that was Cig catching fire in a bottle--I can't give him, his ACs and team more props. Props to Cuban if he financed a good portion of that. Clearly, Cig & CO broke the mold, but IMO it is an outlier not the norm. Rutgers still lost $517M year over 10 years, and some other teams in that conference are in similar financial straights. Let's see if another team can break through. I'm hoping for UW. Their AD balance sheet is better.

B1G as a whole is losing a lot of $$: https://nil-ncaa.com/big10/ This does not include the 2025 fiscal year. The numbers are staggering. Also, they have to add in the House $$ and I believe some newer additions will be due full shares.

B12 has less losses. I think for some B12 teams, oil $$ does help. Maybe to Colorado legislature has to bite the bullet and finance designate an AD fund siphoning off some oil/NG monies?
 
Last edited:
IMO, that was Cig catching fire in a bottle--I can't give him, his ACs and team more props. Props to Cuban if he financed a good portion of that. Clearly, Cig & CO broke the mold, but IMO it is an outlier not the norm. Rutgers still lost $517M year over 10 years, and some other teams in that conference are in similar financial straights. Let's see if another team can break through. I'm hoping for UW. Their AD balance sheet is better.

B1G as a whole is losing a lot of $$: https://nil-ncaa.com/big10/ This does not include the 2025 fiscal year. The numbers are staggering. Also, they have to add in the House $$ and I believe some newer additions will be due full shares.

B12 has less losses. I think for some B12 teams, oil $$ does help. Maybe to Colorado legislature has to bite the bullet and finance designate an AD fund siphoning off some oil/NG monies?


Ouch

Rutgers AD Zinn added that the salary totals on the NCAA fiscal year report don’t reflect the actual salaries paid to employees because fringe benefits are factored into the totals. Fringe rate is the percentage added to an employee’s base salary representing health care and retirement benefits, and payroll taxes. Rutgers’ fringe rate — 72.9% in FY2025 — is dictated by the state of New Jersey and is believed to be the highest of any Big Ten school.
The report shows $146.6 million in total operating revenues, thanks to a record $61.3 million from the Big Ten for its media rights and $10.7 million from the conference as its share of the league’s Football Bowl revenue fund.

Those gains were offset by an 8.7% increase in Rutgers’ sports spending from the previous year. The highest expenditures included $46.1 million in coaching salaries, $31 million in support staff and administrator salaries, $23.1 million in scholarship aid, $14.4 million in facilities debt, $13.5 million in team travel and $8.4 million in student-athlete meals.

The ledger shows a $47.2 million shortfall. When added to the $7 million subsidized from the school’s general budget, $8 million from the state budget and $15.8 million in student fees, the department’s deficit reached a record $78 million.

 
If the CFP rules continue to include a G6 bid, NDSU is going to make it within the next couple of years
All those teams left the Mountain West to join the carcass of the Pac-12, and now the Mountain West gets the strongest program of the two conferences (maybe you could argue Boise State, but the FCS has been NDSU’s playground for a long time and I think they are going to pull a JMU pretty quickly).
 
Was listening to New Mexico's interim AD this week. He was asked about realignment and UNM possibly going to a new conference since there's been some chatter that them & UNLV could move together to either the Pac-12 or the American. His response was to explain how schools assign a Grant Of Rights to their conference which are then contracted to a media partner for broadcast rights. Therefore, realignment happens when those contracts expire. He stressed that pretty much every contract expires in the 2030-2032 window and that schools have to successfully position themselves within these next 5 seasons. He said that on-field success, having facilities that impress, having a competitive budget, and drawing great crowds are the big factors they can control.

P.S. on a different topic: He also talked about what he and Fernando did on game attendance and I got excited. Mantra was that coaches & players control Ws & Ls but it's administrators who have the job of making the games an event. That experience includes traffic/parking, tailgating, and all the things a fan experiences once inside the stadium. Nothing revolutionary in any of this, but I was very encouraged by how clear Fernando is about communicating the job priorities of athletics administrators and driving that execution in a focused way. There was no ambiguity about what they need to do to impact the success of the operation.

It is 2026 and we are talking about 2030, so are we not in the window right now of where CU should just outwardly say that unless the Big12 can match the SEC on per team funding, or even un-equal funding, then we are angling and outwardly lobbying the SEC for the creation of a Western Division, and should get ASU, Kansas, and BYU on board with us. I am convinced we would not even sniff the B1G10 now because they already have their own Western Division with 4 teams.

The question of using an NFL Division analysis to figure out how valuable a 24 team SEC would or would not be could be a good exercise.

Colorado, Kansas, Arizona State, and BYU bring a lot of strengths and adds 4 of the remaining Southwest states

I would also try and convince Nebraska to leave the B1G and move to the SEC
 
Honestly, the best thing for CU in terms of realignment is for Prime to leave after this year no matter how well the team does, and another coach gets us to 10 wins in 2028 and 2029.

Basically, it'd be really good to show that the school can do it without a unicorn heading into the next round of realignment.
 
All those teams left the Mountain West to join the carcass of the Pac-12, and now the Mountain West gets the strongest program of the two conferences (maybe you could argue Boise State, but the FCS has been NDSU’s playground for a long time and I think they are going to pull a JMU pretty quickly).
Watch out for UNLV and Air Force.
 
Back
Top