This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.

The original was posted on /r/cfb by /u/Fifth_Down on 2023-07-31 04:27:25.

One thing I see on /r/CFB is we always talk about how TV rights impact conference realignment, but we rarely talk about how in each era of conference realignment, its actually the TV rights being negotiated in a different way. So I decided to write up a little post trying to explain how “its all about the TV money” is actually quite different depending on which era of conference realignment we are talking about.

In the 1970s the NCAA had full control over television, rather than having each school or each conference deal individually with the TV networks, the NCAA would deal with the TV networks on behalf of all the college football programs.

In the 1980s the NCAA lost control of television, and so with it the single “alliance” of all college football schools being jointly aligned by a single television contract. Surprisingly, the major football schools actually preferred the NCAA’s old way of doing things and were against the lawsuit brought about by Oklahoma v NCAA. But whether they liked it or not, Oklahoma changed the game for everyone else and now everyone else had to convert to the new rules.

And college football did so by…copying the exact same model the NCAA was using by working towards a single unified alliance of all the major college football conferences operating under a single TV contract. The only problem was…the conferences hated each other too much1 to all work together. But they could work together just enough to form two groups. Rather than one big alliance, college football would be split into two competing alliances.

Whereas before there were no divisions in the college football TV world, now there were as two rival TV blocs were emerging against each other. But still, television would continue to have little impact on conference realignment because even if a school changed conferences, it would have little impact on TV rights because both conferences were likely members of the same alliance and only one alliance (the CFA) was actively recruiting new members.

In the 1990s the Justice Department finished what Oklahoma v NCAA started and after talk of the two alliances joining forces to become one single alliance as the old NCAA model had once been, the Justice Department said one alliance or two alliance, YOU COULDN’T HAVE ALLIANCES and chided the college football programs for basically replicating the old NCAA model that was deemed illegal. Whereas before smaller and more vulnerable programs + conferences could find protection via joining an alliance, now everyone was on their own.

Now each conference represented a rival TV package.

Before now there had been virtually no connection between TV markets and conference realignment, now there was as any addition a conference made was going to increase the value of their TV package. The result was a mad dash as vulnerable independents flocked to join conferences and vulnerable conferences flocked to merge with other vulnerable conferences in the hope of creating a single strong conference. Before now no one had to think about TV markets and how to protect themselves via strategic decision making via conference realignment, now they did.

In the 2000s the conferences realized that up until now, predatory raids on each other to secure a larger television portfolio had largely been limited to major schools going after untapped markets or unclaimed territory. But who said they had to be limited by only adding the schools that weren’t part of the major conferences? Why not go after the property of other major conferences? Whereas before the major conferences simply looked outside of their peers, now the major conferences looked towards each other.

In the 2010s the conferences realized they could make EVEN MORE money if they abided by equal revenue sharing policies where schools like Washington State (and all the other Pac-12 schools) asked for the same money as USC, or Kansas State (and all the other Big 12 schools) asked for the same money as Texas. The TV networks would still pay them because Texas and USC were so valuable and so strategically important, it was worth it to overpay everyone else just to secure the major programs like USC, UCLA, Texas, and Oklahoma.

Whereas before the conferences had simply looked for new markets, now they realized there was signifiant value to be found if they combined new markets with equal revenue sharing.

Then in the 2020s the Big Ten, SEC, LA schools and OUT realized that if the TV networks were willing to overpay Washington State and Kansas just so they could have OUT and LA, what if OUT and LA simply moved to the SEC and Big Ten and then asked for 90 cents on the dollar for all the money the TV networks currently allocate to overpay Washington State and Kansas State as contingent on having LA + OUT? And then combine that money with all the money the SEC and Big Ten were previously making under the traditional P5 system?

Whereas before the small schools realized they could leverage their relationships with the big schools, the big schools realized they could hijack all that money and keep it mostly for themselves if the big schools started leveraging their position with other big schools. Whereas before Northwestern simply gets overpaid due to PSU, OSU, and UM, now they get overpaid due to USC and UCLA on top of already being overpaid due to Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. The TV networks get UCLA and USC at a 10% discount and Northwestern gets a pay raise as the new recipient of 90% of the money that would have normally gone to Washington State.2

  1. actually, it wasn’t so much the conferences hated each other, but the Big Eight and Big Ten conference commissioners had a petty grudge with each other.

  2. Math junkies will point out its actually less than 90% because the Pac had 12 members whereas the Big Ten will have their revenue pie 16 ways but that’s an error I’m willing to make for the sake of not confusing readers.